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 .
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 10/3/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-16, 22-24, 26 under the non-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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 art 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 1533830) and in view of Wu (CN 104861749) and in view of Kuriyano (JP 2003/053194) and in view of Falaras (WO 2007/085911).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Yang (CN 1533830). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation, but will refer to the figures in the Chinese reference.
Yang describes an air purification method using a pollutant oxidizing device (abstract). Yang describes that this device includes a light catalyzed chamber (2 in Figure 1 of the CN version) that is loaded with a photocatalyst material 3 (abstract). The photocatalyst material is made up of titanium oxide and doped with another material, such as nitrogen (page 3, lines 29-31). In this embodiment, Yang explains that the photocatalyst may comprise titanium oxide doped with a iron ion or a nitrogen element (page 3, lines 29-31).
This meets the features “consisting of titanium dioxide doped with nitrogen deriving from a nitrogen-containing doping agent”. Although Yang does not specifically state that the nitrogen dopant is derived from a nitrogen-containing doping agent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the nitrogen-dopant is derived from a nitrogen-containing doping agent because any source of nitrogen used to form the nitrogen-dopant can meet this feature.
The photocatalyst is loaded over material 3 (page 3, lines 9-11 and abstract). Material 3 can be considered the “application” of Claim 1. The catalyst is deposited on the substrate as a catalyst coating (see page 2, last 4 lines). Therefore, this meets the feature “coating deposited on said application surface” of Claim 1, line 2.
The device, which the photocatalyst is deposited on can have a honeycomb structure (see Claim 6).
As to the use, Yang teaches feeding air through the deice so as to decompose organic matter in the air using the device (abstract). The device includes a fan that passes a stream of the air through the device that contains the photocatalyst (abstract). This meets the feature of Claim 1 that describes subjecting the gaseous mixture to a flow for abating polluting agents.
The device includes a light irradiating feature, that includes visible light (page 3, lines 32-34).
As to the nanoparticle size of the titania, Yang teaches in the background that nanometer TiO2 photocatalyst technology applied to air purification is known in the art (page 2, first full para). Although Yang does not specifically teach that their titiania photocatalyst is in the nanometer size, 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 nanosized titania as the photocatalyst of Yang because Yang explains that this size range of titania is known to be effective in air purification and is well established knowledge in the art.
Yang teaches that the photocatalyst is doped with nitrogen, but not that the nitrogen is one of diethanolamine, diammonium citrate, tetrabutylammonium hydroxide and triethanolamine.
Wu describes a TiO2 doped material (abstract) useable in air purification and as a photocatalyst (see Background technology, para. 1). Wu explains in the background that during usage, titania nanoparticles agglomerate (see Background, para. 2). As a solution to this, Wu describes a method of making titania particles, which includes doping the TiO2 powder with an alcohol amine, which can include one of: diethanolamine, triethanolamine or diethanolamine (see page 2, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nitrogen dopant in the form of either diethanolamine, triethanolamine or diethanolamine, as taught by Wu for use in the product of Yang because supplying nitrogen in these forms is known to have predictable results and use of these forms of alcohol amines it facilitates reduced agglomeration.
The references teach that the catalyst is deposited on a porous ceramic (see Yang, “Description”, para. 1, 2 and Fig. 1 and embodiment 1), but not that this ceramic is made from mullite or alumina.
Kuriyano describes a photocatalyst support body (title) composed of titanium oxides (abstract). The product is used to decompose and remove odorous substances and harmful substances (para. 1), which includes formaldehyde (para. 23). The reference describes making the product using mullite with the titanium oxide composition (para. 12, para. 2). Kuriyano explains that due to mullite as a buffer layer, titanium oxide adheres well and is difficult to peel off and the occurrences of cracks is also suppressed (para. 12, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ mullite in the support composition, as taught by Kuriyano for use with the titania photocatalyst of Yang and Wu because mullite is know to aid titania for adhering well onto the substrate and makes it difficult to peel off and reduce crack formation.
As to the titania phase and size, the references do not specifically disclose these features.
Falaras describes a titania material (abstract), which Falaras explains are known to have photocatalytic properties and are useful in decomposing organic pollutant in both gaseous and aqueous phases (page 1, lines 16-20), which Falaras shows their catalyst effectively can be employed for (see page 8, under Fig. 5-14). Their titania is nitrogen-doped (page 11, para. 2). Falaras explains that their catalyst may have a size of between 0.1 to 100nm (page 5, last para).
As to the phase, Falaras teaches their titania used can be either in the anatase or the rutile phase (page 22, last para and page 24, para. 1 and example 2) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a titania particle within the size of 0.1-100nm, as taught by Falaras for use with the N-doped titania of Yang, Wu and Kuriyano because Falaras explains that this size range is effective for use photocatalytically activating the particles.
As to the anatase phase, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ titania in the anatase-phase, as taught by Falaras for use with the catalyst of Yang, Wu and Kuriyano because Falaras explains that titania used photocatalytically to reduce pollutants can be in either the anatase-phase or the rutile phase.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Wu, Kuriyano and Falaras as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yasuhiro (JP H 11156124).
As to Claims 15 and 19, Yang describes use of a honeycomb substrate for cleaning air, but does not describe the features of that honeycomb structure.
Yasuhiro describes a honeycomb-shaped air cleaning filter (title). The honeycomb filter can have a structure shown in Fig. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Yasuhiro, which shows a plurality of channels used for passing gas through (see Figures). Yasuhiro explains that this structure is beneficial because it prevents an increase in airflow resistance during use (para. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the honeycomb structure of Yasuhiro in the photocatalysts of Yang, Wu, Kuriyano and Falaras because Yasuhiro shows a honeycomb structure effective for treating air while also improving known air filter devices, such as preventing increased airflow resistance during use.
As to Claims 16, 22, 23 and 24, Yasuhiro teaches that the air purification filter has 50-1,000 cells per square inch (page 9, lines 28-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the honeycomb structure of Yasuhiro in the structure of Yang, Wu, Kuriyano and Falaras because Yasuhiro shows a honeycomb structure effective for treating air while also improving known air filter devices, such as preventing increased airflow resistance during use.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Wu, Kuriyano and Flaras as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Savinkina (RU 2520100).
The references do not describe that the nanoparticles have a polydispersity index lower than 0.3.
Savinkina describes a titanium oxide photocatalyst (title). The catalyst is in the anatase form (see “Effect”, para. 1). In one example, Savinkina teaches that the produced titanium dioxide product can have a polydispersity index of 0.3-0.6 (see example 1). In other examples, Savinkina says that their PDI index can be lower, such as 0.01 or 0.15 (see “PDI of dispersion of titanium oxide particle”, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a titanium oxide catalyst with a PDI index of 0.01, as taught by Savinkina for use with the titanium dioxide photocatalyst of Yang, Wu, Kuriyano and Flaras to achieve predictable and effective photocatalytic results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 November 25, 2025