DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 8/25/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10-13 under the final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references cited below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (CN 104927528) and in view of Ling (CN 107353678) and in view of and in view of Andreas (EP 2508478) and in view of Li (CN 101569852), EPO translation.
Luo describes a composition that includes an aqueous emulsion of titanium dioxide nanopowder, clay, bentonite (which is alumina) and other compounds (abstract). Optionally, Luo describes adding an adsorbent for removing indoor “harmful gas concentration”, which can include a zeolite powder (page 2, last para). The mixture is crushed and ground (see page 2, section (1)). The mixture can be used as a paint composition (abstract).
Luo does not teach that the zeolite used is a purified natural zeolite added to the mixture in an amount of 1-15wt% of the composition.
Ling teaches an air purifying paint (title). The reference explains that use of a natural zeolite provides a low carbon energy-saving means to purify air, adjust air humidity, fire-proof, sound-proof, antibacterial and other multifunctional means useful in coating an object (page 2, lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ natural zeolite, as taught by Ling for use as the zeolite used in the coating mixture of Luo because Ling explains that natural zeolite has a number of uses to include use as a low carbon energy-saving means to purify air, adjust air humidity, fire-proof, sound-proof, antibacterial and other multifunctional means useful in coating an object.
As to the type of natural zeolite, Andreas states that differences between natural zeolites relate to the purity of the material (pg 3, last para) and that natural zeolites have a much wider range of minor mineral and purities than synthetic kinds, which can affect the properties of the zeolite (pg. 3, last para).
As to the purification, Li explains that heating and washing natural zeolite powder is a known way to remove soluble impurities from the material (see para. 9). As to a specific temperature, Li teaches that the rinsed natural zeolite is heated at a temperature of 104 degrees C (para. 34).
Therefore, since Andreas teaches that natural zeolite has known impurities that can affect the properties of the zeolite, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wash the natural zeolite, as taught by Li because washing and heating are known methods to remove soluble impurities from the zeolite.
As to the intended use of the material, the claims are composition-type claims and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition would be effective in the same way described (specifically for reducing pollutants from air by adsorption).
As to Claim 2, Luo teaches that their material is used for coating a surface with paint (abstract).
As to Claim 7, Luo teaches that the adsorbent can be a zeolite powder (page 2, last para). The adsorbent has a size of 0.1 to 10 microns (page 3, para. 1).
Ling teaches an air purifying paint (title). The reference explains that use of a natural zeolite provides a low carbon energy-saving means to purify air, adjust air humidity, fire-proof, sound-proof, antibacterial and other multifunctional means useful in coating an object (page 2, lines 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a natural zeolite in Luo, as taught by Ling because Ling explains that use of a natural zeolite provides a low carbon energy-saving means to purify air, adjust air humidity, fire-proof, sound-proof, antibacterial and other multifunctional means useful in coating an object.
As to Claim 8, Luo teaches employing a dispersant (abstract).
As to Claim 9, Luo teaches inclusion of an aqueous emulsion (abstract).
As to Claims 10 and 11, Luo teaches that the material contains pigment resin (page 3, lines 23-25).
As to Claim 12, Luo teaches inclusion of an antifoam agent (abstract).
As to Claim 13, Luo teaches that the product includes polycarboxylic, silicon acrylic, silicon, hemp fiber, viscose fibre, water glass, emulsion powder, alumina, silica sol (abstract). One of these can be considered the rheological additive.
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, Ling, Andreas and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (CN 107337391).
As to Claim 3, Andreas teaches that natural zeolite milled with other compounds are used in building material (abstract and title). The composition can include cement materials (pg. 3, para. 2). In their process, this ground natural zeolite is solidified in a solid mass (pg. 3, para. 2), but does not state that their product is molded.
Zhou describes use of a concrete material into floor slabs, which are molded into shapes and contain concrete and zeolite powder (see Claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the zeolite-containing cement material, as taught by Zhou for use with the composition of Luo, Ling, Andreas and Li because it is known to shape these building materials for use in various uses, such as flooring.
As to Claim 5, since Andreas describes using the same materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same materials would be effective in the same way.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo, Ling, Andreas and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirov (BG 98225).
Kirov describes a zeolite pigment (title) useable in paints (“Description”, pg. 1, para. 2).
Natural zeolites that are milled are known for use in this function (“Description”, pg 1, para. 2). Kirov explains that the surface of zeolites particles may be modified to impart a color (pg 3, last two paras.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to impart a color onto the zeolite, as taught by Kirov for use with the milled zeolite of Luo, Ling, Andreas and Li because use of these to modify paints in this way is known to be effective.
As to Claim 11, Kirov teaches that instead of using their composition in paints, they can be applied to thermoplastic polymers (see Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the thermoplastic polymers by its functional equivalent paints in Luo, Ling, Andreas and Li with expected success. See MPEP 2144.06.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 September 29, 2025