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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on September 2, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-24 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “The method of claim 16 further comprising” in line 1. This should read “The method of claim 16, further comprising.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the one or more odorants" in line 2 and “the pores” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13, 15-6, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al (JP 2019/210421 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Suemasu et al (JP 6485666 B1, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 13, and 15: Sugita teaches a composition comprising a zeolite and a resin/polymer component (para. 0005), wherein the zeolite is a mordenite or a chabazite (para. 0018) and is functionalized with 2-10 mass% of a surface treatment agent/grafting compound (para. 0021). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an overlapping amount of the grafting compound, and they would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a pronounced effect from the surface treatment.
Sugita is silent to the surface area of the zeolite.
Suemasu teaches an absorbent comprising an aluminosilicate powder (para. 0001) with a specific surface area of 650-900 m2/g, which allows for high absorption performance while maintaining the handleability of the powder (para. 0036). Suemasu and Sugita are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely absorbent materials comprising aluminosilicate particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the surface area of the zeolite taught by Sugita to the range taught by Suemasu in order to improve the absorption performance of the composition.
Regarding Claims 6-7: Sugita teaches 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (para. 0023).
Regarding Claims 8-9: Sugita teaches that the polymer component is a thermoplastic or a thermoset (para. 0013) such as an epoxy (para. 0029), polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, and PEEK (para. 0052).
Regarding Claim 10: Sugita teaches 30-95% of zeolite and 5-70% of resin, wherein these amounts allow the composition to display the inherent functions of zeolite such as absorbance and deodorization, as well as an improvement in strength (para. 0014-0015). These amounts overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use overlapping amounts of the zeolite and the polymer component, and they would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the beneficial functions imparted by zeolite while maintaining an acceptable strength of the composition.
Sugita further teaches that other components may be present in a range that does not affect the desired physical properties or manufacturing process (para. 0010) and recites working examples wherein additional components (initiator) are present at <1 wt% (para. 0059).
Regarding Claim 16: Sugita teaches a method of preparing the polymer composition comprising mixing the zeolite with the resin (para. 0054), wherein the zeolite may be surface-treated before the mixing step (para. 0056).
Regarding Claim 18: Sugita teaches automobile components (automobile interior and exterior materials) comprising the polymer composition (para. 0066).
Regarding Claim 19: Sugita teaches that molded articles are prepared by extrusion or injection molding (para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 21: Sugita teaches the selection of a functional group on the grafting compound (para. 0022) and tailoring the amount of grafting compound on the silicate (para. 0021). The steps of determining one or more odorants of the polymer component and tailoring the functional groups on the silicate particle to target said odorants are mental processes. Per the broadest reasonable interpretation, the action of selecting a type and amount of a functional group through routine experimentation reads on these limitations.
Regarding Claim 22: Suemasu teaches tailoring the surface area of the silicate particles to achieve the optimal absorption performance (para. 0036), wherein the surface area and the porosity of the particles are closely related (para. 0032).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al (JP 2019/210421 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Suemasu et al (JP 6485666 B1, using the machine translation for the citations below), as evidenced by Honda et al (JP H1085585 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Sugita and Suemasu teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. Sugita does not explicitly teach that the grafting compound is capable of forming a reaction product with an odor active compound. However, Sugita teaches aminosilanes as potential grafting compounds (para. 0023), and Honda teaches that amine-containing compounds such as aminosilanes (para. 0012) form reaction products with odor-active compounds such as aldehydes (para. 0006).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al (JP 2019/210421 A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Suemasu et al (JP 6485666 B1, using the machine translation for the citations below) and Thitsartarn et al (WO 2019/190407 A).
Sugita and Suemasu teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Sugita and Suemasu are silent to the process of making a masterbatch precursor of the silicate in a dispersion.
Thitsartarn discloses a process of making a polymer composition comprising the following steps: dissolving a polymer binder in a solvent to make a polymer solution (para. 0079, polypropylene/xylene solution), dispersing functionalized silicate particles in a solvent to form a silicate dispersion (para. 0078), adding the silicate dispersion to the polymer solution at a temperature of 120°C (para. 0079), precipitating the suspension to obtain a silicate masterbatch (para. 0080), and compounding the masterbatch with a polymer component (para. 0077). Thitsartarn and Sugita are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely polymer compositions comprising functionalized silicate particles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method taught by Thitsartarn to make the composition taught by Sugita because of its art-recognized suitability to make a substantially similar product.
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al (JP 2019/210421 A, using the machine translation for the citations below).
Sugita teaches a composition comprising a zeolite and a resin/polymer component (para. 0005), wherein the zeolite is a mordenite (para. 0018) and is functionalized with a surface treatment agent/grafting compound (para. 0021), which is 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (para. 0023), and wherein the polymer component is a thermoplastic (para. 0013). Sugita further teaches 30-95% of zeolite and 5-70% of resin, wherein these amounts allow the composition to display the inherent functions of zeolite such as absorbance and deodorization, as well as an improvement in strength (para. 0014-0015). These amounts overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use overlapping amounts of the zeolite and the polymer component, and they would have been motivated to do so in order to maximize the beneficial functions imparted by zeolite while maintaining an acceptable strength of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Son et al (KR 2018/0040171 A) teaches absorbents for volatile organic compounds.
Kagimoto et al (JP 2015/007149 A) teaches gas-absorbing resin compositions comprising surface-functionalized silicates.
Muir et al (The removal of organic compound compounds by natural and synthetic surface-functionalized zeolites: a mini-review, September 30 2017, Mineralogia, Vol 48, p.145-156) teaches the selection of surface modifiers on zeolite to absorb different organic compounds.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN N ILLING whose telephone number is (571)270-1940. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/C.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767