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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III, claims 11-15, in the reply filed on 9/22/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10 and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/22/25.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/252,061. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
claim 13 of ‘061 teaches a catalyst material is a powdered non-thermal catalyst which comprises: between 27% and 30% by weight of photo-activated titanium dioxide TiO.sub.2 with respect to a total mass of the catalytic material, between 11% and 17% by weight of manganese monoxide MnO with respect to the total mass of the catalytic material, and between 55% and 59% by weight of synthetic hydrophilic zeolite of type A with respect to a total mass of the catalytic material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al (JP2005237997, English translation) in view of Simmons et al (US6154311).
Miyata, abstract, teaches a deodorization catalyst comprising powdered manganese oxide in an amount of 5-70 wt% with powdered hydrophobic zeolite.
Miyata, page 2 line 6, teaches the catalyst further comprises an oxide of titanium.
Miyata, page 2 lines 19-20, teaches when the content of the adsorbent becomes 70 wt% or more, the frequency of replacement increases.
Miyata, page 2 line 29, teaches MnO can be used as the manganese oxide.
Therefore, Miyata teaches a composition comprising 5-70 wt% powdered manganese oxide, less than 70wt% of a powdered hydrophobic zeolite and a remainder of an oxide of titanium.
The weight ratio range taught in the references including the claimed range 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 as suitable based on the teaching of the references above.
Further, it 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 that the oxide of titanium be present in powdered form, given the deodorization catalyst is in a powder form in Miyata (abstract).
Although the reference teaches an oxide of titanium, this reference does not teach a photoactive oxide of titanium.
Simmons, col. 1, additionally, it has been demonstrated that the TiO2 photocatalyst is effective for deodorization, sterilization of bacteria, and decomposition of organic contaminants.
It 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 to incorporate a TiO2 photocatalyst as taught by Simmons as the oxide of titanium as taught by Miyata as it has been demonstrated that the TiO2 photocatalyst is effective for deodorization, sterilization of bacteria, and decomposition of organic contaminants.
Regarding claim 12, the references above teach a composition comprising TiO2, MnO and a zeolite.
Regarding claim 14, the references teach a TiO2 photocatalyst.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepner et al (US20060219641) in view of Ritchey (US20060101838).
Kepner teaches antimicrobial compositions.
Kepner, paragraph 30 of the PGPUB, teaches fluid treatment media comprising a ridged support material wherein the support is an adsorbent material.
Kepner, paragraph 31 of the PGPUB, teaches the support material can be a zeolite.
Kepner, paragraph 38 of the PGPUB, teaches one or more anti-microbial components are positioned within and/or on an outer surface of the rigid support material wherein the components can be in the form of solid particles.
Kepner, paragraph 39 of the PGPUB, teaches the anti-microbial component can be MnO.
Kepner, paragraph 43 of the PGPUB, teaches the anti-microbial components of the fluid treatment media may be present in an amount of up to about 15 weight percent (wt %) based on a total weight of the fluid treatment media.
Kepner, paragraph 49 of the PGPUB, teaches an additive material such as titanium dioxide in the amount of .01wt% to 99.9 wt%.
Kepner, example 2, teaches each component of the fluid media was dry blended together.
It 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 to have a fluid media comprising MnO up to about 15 weight percent, titanium dioxide in the amount of .01 wt% to 99.9 wt% and a remainer of a zeolite wherein each component is present in a powder form as this this is one possible combination of components for a fluid media as taught by the reference.
The weight ratio range taught in the references including the claimed range 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 as suitable based on the teaching of the references above.
Although the reference teaches an oxide of titanium, this reference does not teach a photoactive oxide of titanium.
Ritchey, paragraph 93 of the PGPUB, teaches this material may be used as an antimicrobial coating as the Photocatalytic activity of titania results in a thin coating of the material exhibiting self cleaning and disinfecting properties under exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation.
It 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 to use a photocatalytic titania as taught by Ritchey as the oxide of titanium as taught by Kepner as photocatalytic activity of titania results in a thin coating of the material exhibiting self cleaning and disinfecting properties under exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation.
MnO up to about 15 weight percent as taught by the references reads on the second catalyst as claimed in claim 11.
Titanium dioxide in the amount of .01wt% to 99.9 wt% as taught by the references read on the first catalyst as claimed in claim 11.
A remained of zeolite as taught by the references reads on an adsorbent as claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the references teach a combination of MnO, titanium dioxide and a zeolite.
Regarding claim 14, the references teach a photoactive titanium dioxide.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepner et al (US20060219641) in view of Ritchey (US20060101838) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Gittleman (US6835219).
Although the references teach a zeolite as an adsorbent, the references do not teach a specific zeolite.
Gittleman, paragraph 28, teaches suitable adsorbents 124 include zeolite molecular sieves having high water adsorption capacities and high heats of adsorption.
Because of the uniformity of pore size, the zeolite molecular sieve will accept molecules of certain dimensions, while rejecting larger molecules.
Gittleman, paragraph 29 of the PGPUB, teaches useful zeolites include hydrophilic zeolites such a type A zeolites.
Type A zeolites are a synthetic type of zeolite.
It 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 to use a synthetic hydrophilic type A zeolite as taught by Gittleman as taught adsorbent as taught by the references above as these zeolites have high heats of adsorption and further because of the uniformity of pore size, the zeolite molecular sieve will accept molecules of certain dimensions, while rejecting larger molecules.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kepner et al (US20060219641) in view of Ritchey (US20060101838) as applied to claim 11 and further in view of Gittleman (US6835219).
Although the references teach a zeolite as an adsorbent, the references do not teach a specific zeolite.
Gittleman, paragraph 28, teaches suitable adsorbents 124 include zeolite molecular sieves having high water adsorption capacities and high heats of adsorption.
Because of the uniformity of pore size, the zeolite molecular sieve will accept molecules of certain dimensions, while rejecting larger molecules.
Gittleman, paragraph 29 of the PGPUB, teaches useful zeolites include hydrophilic zeolites such a type A zeolites.
Type A zeolites are a synthetic type of zeolite.
It 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 to use a synthetic hydrophilic type A zeolite as taught by Gittleman as taught adsorbent as taught by the references above as these zeolites have high heats of adsorption and further because of the uniformity of pore size, the zeolite molecular sieve will accept molecules of certain dimensions, while rejecting larger molecules.
The composition as taught by the references is the same composition as claimed in claim 15 and therefore it would be expected that the composition as taught by the references would be a non-thermal catalyst as claimed in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US6221804 teaches a catalyst for purifying gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 11/18/25