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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on April 29, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-24 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thitsartarn et al (WO 2019/0190407 A1), as evidenced by Farias et al (Effects of nanoclay and nanocomposites on bitumen rheological properties, 2016, Construction and Building Materials, vol. 125, p.873-883) and Millipore Sigma (Triethoxy(octyl)silane, Webpage, Accessed July 16, 2026).
Regarding Claim 1: Thitsartarn teaches a composition containing a polymer component (para. 0014) and a plurality of functionalized/modified clay particles (para. 0036) that are functionalized by a grafting compound (para. 0042, modified with organosilane). The clay is present at 5-10wt% (para. 0033), and Thitsartarn teaches an embodiment wherein the modified clay particles comprise 2g of intercalated Cloisite 20 and 0.2 mL of triethoxy(octyl)silane (para. 0078). Millipore Sigma teaches that triethoxy(octyl)silane has a density of 0.88 g/mL (p.3, Properties). Based on calculations, the content of grafting compound is 8.8wt%, based on the weight of the clay particles. Farias teaches that Cloisite 20 is an organo montmorillonite (p.874, col. 2, third full paragraph), which para. 0025 of the instant specification teaches is a phyllosilicate, and that separation/intercalation of clay layers in montmorillonites typically results in a surface area of 700-800 m2/g (p.874, first full paragraph); because the Cloisite 20A of Thitsartarn is intercalated in the processing steps (para. 0078), it would have a surface area 700-800 m2/g.
Regarding Claim 18: Thitsartarn teaches that the composition is used in an automobile component (para. 0067, automotive dashboard).
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 1-6, 8-10, 13, 15, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasame et al (JPH03152155A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Wang et al (Preparation of Amino Functionalized Hydrophobic Zeolite and Its Absorption Properties for Chromate and Naphthalene, 5 April 2018, Minerals, Vol. 8, 145).
Regarding Claims 1-6, 8-10,13, and 15: Sasame teaches a composition comprising a resin component, such as polyphenylene ether/polyphenylene oxide and an alumina-silica inorganic compounding agent (p.3, lines 1-5), with a working example having 100 parts of a combination of polyphenylene ether and polystyrene, 0.5 parts of citric acid, and 0.5 parts of mordenite (Table 3, example 3), wherein the mordenite has a surface area of 450 m2/g (Table 1). Based on calculations, the composition contains approximately 99wt% of the polymer component and 0.5wt% of the mordenite component.
Sasame is silent to the grafting compound functionalizing the mordenite compound.
Wang teaches a zeolite functionalized with 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (Abstract), including an embodiment wherein the APTMS is present at 8wt% (p.4, Figure 1, 40%-NH2 and 80%-NH2). The functionalization of the zeolite with APTMS increases the adsorption capacity of the zeolite toward volatile compounds such as naphthalene (p.9, Figure 11). Wang and Sasame are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely adsorbent zeolite materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to functionalize the mordenite of Sasame with a grafting compound such as an aminosilane in order to improve the adsorption capacity of the zeolite.
Regarding Claim 19: Sasame teaches an extruded article (p.8, extruded pellets).
Regarding Claim 23: The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. MPEP 2111.03. The additional ingredient in Sasame (polycarboxylic acid) does not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention (reduced odor emissions).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasame et al (JPH03152155A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Wang et al (Preparation of Amino Functionalized Hydrophobic Zeolite and Its Absorption Properties for Chromate and Naphthalene, 5 April 2018, Minerals, Vol. 8, 145), further in view of Nishida et al (Effect of Chemical Modification of Hydroxyapatite/Zeolite Composite on Malodors Adsorption Behavior, 2019, Phosphorus Research Bulletin, Vol. 35, p.9-15).
Sasame and Wang teach the limitations of claim 1, as set forth above. However, Sasame and Wang are silent to the grafting compound being (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane.
Nishida teaches zeolite treated with (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (p.10, col 1: Modification of adsorbents), wherein the use of APTES improves the adsorption of CH3CHO, especially when applied to zeolite, due to the reaction between the aldehyde group and the primary amine (p.13, col. 1, final paragraph; Figure 8). Nishida, Sasame, and Wang are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely adsorbent zeolite materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or combine the APTMS of Wang with APTES, as taught by Nishida, in order to improve adsorption ability toward aldehyde compounds.
Claims 16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasame et al (JPH03152155A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Wang et al (Preparation of Amino Functionalized Hydrophobic Zeolite and Its Absorption Properties for Chromate and Naphthalene, 5 April 2018, Minerals, Vol. 8, 145).
Regarding Claim 16: Sasame teaches a method of making a polymer composition comprising providing a polymer component and a plurality of silicate particles (p.3, lines 1-5) and compounding a mixture of the two (p.6, final line-p.7 line 1; melting and kneading), wherein the silicate particles are mordenite with a surface area of 450 m2/g (Table 1).
Sasame is silent to the silicate particles being functionalized with a grafting compound and the functionalized silicate particles being dried.
Wang teaches a zeolite functionalized with 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (Abstract), including an embodiment wherein the APTMS is present at 8wt% (p.4, Figure 1, 40%-NH2 and 80%-NH2). The functionalization of the zeolite with APTMS increases the adsorption capacity of the zeolite toward volatile compounds such as naphthalene (p.9, Figure 11). Wang further teaches a step of drying the zeolite after functionalization to remove water (p.2, Section 2.1), which would render it substantially free of water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to functionalize the mordenite of Sasame with a grafting compound such as an aminosilane in order to improve the adsorption capacity of the zeolite.
Regarding Claim 21: 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 (See Wang, p.2, Section 2.1) reads on these limitations.
Regarding Claim 22: The step of tailoring a surface area of the plurality of functionalized silicate particles to enable at least a portion of the one or more odorants to be adsorbed in the pores of the plurality of functionalized silicate particles is a mental process. Per the broadest reasonable interpretation, the action of selecting a silicate with a sufficiently high surface area (Sasame, p.5, lines 16-21) reads on this limitation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thitsartarn et al (WO 2019/0190407 A1) in view of Farias et al (Effects of nanoclay and nanocomposites on bitumen rheological properties, 2016, Construction and Building Materials, vol. 125, p.873-883), as evidenced by Millipore Sigma (Triethoxy(octyl)silane, Webpage, Accessed July 16, 2026).
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), intercalating silicate particles, 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). The functionalized silicate particles comprise 2g of Cloisite 20 and 0.2 mL of triethoxy(octyl)silane (para. 0078). Millipore Sigma teaches that triethoxy(octyl)silane has a density of 0.88 g/mL (p.3, Properties). Based on calculations, the content of grafting compound is 8.8wt%, based on the weight of the silicate.
Thitsartarn is silent to the surface area of the silicate and the drying step.
Farias teaches that Cloisite 20 is an organo montmorillonite (p.874, col. 2, third full paragraph), which para. 0025 of the instant specification teaches is a phyllosilicate, and that separation/intercalation of clay layers in montmorillonites typically results in a surface area of 700-800 m2/g (p.874, first full paragraph); because the Cloisite 20A of Thitsartarn is intercalated in the processing steps (para. 0078), it likely has a surface area 700-800 m2/g. Farias further teaches the manufacture of an organo montmorillonite similar to Cloisite 20, wherein the manufacturing steps include oven-drying a clay slurry to remove water and form a powder (p.875, section 2.2), which would render it substantially free of water. Farias and Thitsartarn are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely clay-reinforced compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dry the Cloisite 20 of Thitsartarn prior to use in the polymer composition in order to obtain a dry powder for ease of use.
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasame et al (JPH03152155A, using the machine translation for the citations below) in view of Nishida et al (Effect of Chemical Modification of Hydroxyapatite/Zeolite Composite on Malodors Adsorption Behavior, 2019, Phosphorus Research Bulletin, Vol. 35, p.9-15).
Sasame teaches a composition comprising a resin component, such as polyphenylene ether/polyphenylene oxide and an alumina-silica inorganic compounding agent (p.3, lines 1-5), with a working example having 100 parts of a combination of polyphenylene ether and polystyrene, 0.5 parts of citric acid, and 0.5 parts of mordenite (Table 3, example 3). Based on calculations, the composition contains approximately 99wt% of the polymer component and 0.5wt% of the mordenite component.
Sasame is silent to the grafting compound functionalizing the mordenite compound.
Nishida teaches zeolite treated with (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane (p.10, col 1: Modification of adsorbents), wherein the use of APTES improves the adsorption of CH3CHO, especially when applied to zeolite, due to the reaction between the aldehyde group and the primary amine (p.13, col. 1, final paragraph; Figure 8). Nishida and Sasame are analogous art because they are directed toward the same field of endeavor, namely adsorbent zeolite materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to functionalize the zeolite of Sasame with APTES, as taught by Nishida, in order to improve adsorption ability toward aldehyde compounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights