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 Objections
Claim(s) 7, 12, and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 7, the term “cross sectional” in ln. 2 should read as “cross-sectional”.
As to claim 12, the term “it” in ln. 2 should read as “the quartz or glass”.
As to claim 16, the term “it” in ln. 3 should read as “the paste”.
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(s) 16 is/are 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.
As to claim 16, the term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term “sufficient” is removed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2017/0247551 to Li (hereinafter referred to as “LI”).
As to claim 1, LI teaches a composite of material (abstract of LI teaches to a composition comprising a diatom frustule and two or more photocatalytic nanoparticles dispersed on the surface of the frustule), comprising:
diatomaceous earth (see LI at ¶69 teaching that the diatoms may be in the form of diatomaceous earth, wherein certain embodiments of the disclosed composition comprise a diatom frustule with at least two nanoparticles on the surface(s) of the frustule); and
one or more catalytic metals, non-metals, or metal oxides (see LI at ¶71 teaching that the nanoparticles are photocatalytic nanoparticles, wherein the nanoparticles may comprise a metal; see LI at ¶69 teaching certain embodiments of the disclosed composition comprise a diatom frustule with at least two nanoparticles on the surface(s) of the frustule).
As to claim 2, LI teaches the composition, wherein the catalytic metal, non-metal, or metal oxide comprises one or more of titanium (see LI at ¶71 teaching that the metal may be, inter alia, titanium).
As to claim 5, LI teaches the composition, further comprising: one or more trace elements, the one or more trace elements comprising one or more of, inter alia, titanium (see LI at ¶58).
As to claim 42, LI teaches to a method comprising:
exposing the composition of claim 1 (see teachings of LI cited above as to the rejection of claim 1 which are incorporated herein) to a stream of gas, liquid, or solids contaminated with an unwanted pollutant (see LI at ¶106 and Fig. 31 for VOC, including isopropyl alcohol, removal capabilities of the photocatalytic composition comprising diatom frustules with titanium dioxide and iron oxide nanoparticles); and
exposing the composition while in the stream to light, heat, pressure, electric field, electric bias, or any combination thereof such that the composition degrades or captures the pollutants and converts the stream to a more purified state (see LI at ¶106 and Fig. 31 for VOC degradation, wherein external lights were directed at the powder to initiate photocatalysis).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0062085 to Deville (hereinafter referred to as “DEVILLE”).
As to claims 3-4, while LI teaches the composition as set forth above, LI fails to explicitly teach the composition comprising a reducing agent or oxidizing agent as claimed. However, DEVILLE teaches to passing the contaminated fluid through a filter medium comprising a reducing metal and a filter aid, such as diatomaceous earth (see DEVILLE at ¶7), in which iron is removed with the addition of oxidizing agents, reducing agents, and chemicals to alter the pH (see DEVILLE at ¶27). Accordingly, DEVILLE teaches that it was well known in the purification art to have used peroxides or hypochlorites (see DEVILLE at ¶27). The composition can comprise of oxidizing agents, including peroxides or hypochlorites. Because DEVILLE teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used peroxides or hypochlorites as oxidizing agents in the composition of LI with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
Claim(s) 6-11, 30-31, 35, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0304814 to Homma et. al (hereinafter referred to as “HOMMA”).
As to claim 6, while LI teaches the composition as set forth above, LI fails to explicitly teach the composition in certain forms as claimed. However, HOMMA teaches to a catalyst fibrous structure having a catalyst metal carried on a fibrous structure (see HOMMA at abstract), in which the catalyst is formed in a pellet-like structure (see HOMMA at ¶215). Accordingly, HOMMA teaches that it was well known in the purification art to have used catalytic composites in pellet-like structures (see HOMMA at ¶215), among others (see HOMMA at ¶39). The composition can comprise composites in the form of molded or extruded articles, including pellet-like structures. Because HOMMA teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used composites of LI in the molded or extruded articles for improved handling of composites with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
As to claim 7, LI in view of HOMMA teaches the composition, wherein the articles are in a form with a length and cross-sectional size from 0.1 mm to 30 cm (see HOMMA at ¶40 or ¶176; the fibrous structure has 50 mm×50 mm×1.0 mm and is further divided into smaller lengths and cross-sectional sizes).
As to claim 8, while LI teaches the composition as set forth above, LI fails to explicitly teach the composition comprising one or more inorganic binders or rheology modifiers as claimed. However, HOMMA teaches to a catalyst fibrous structure having a catalyst metal carried on a fibrous structure (see HOMMA at abstract), in which the catalyst fibrous structure may comprise an inorganic binder (see HOMMA at ¶49-52). Accordingly, HOMMA teaches that it was well known in the purification art to have used one or more inorganic binders or rheology modifiers selected from salts, organic materials, minerals, and metals (see HOMMA at ¶49-52 for teaching using an organic, and/or inorganic binder, including aluminum oxide). The composition can comprise binders for strengthening mechanical properties of the resulting powdery catalysts. Because HOMMA teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used composites of Li with binders for improved handling of composites with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
As to claim 9, LI in view of HOMMA teaches the composition, wherein one or more inorganic binders are selected from, inter alia, aluminum oxide (see HOMMA at ¶52 for teaching the types or inorganic binders that include aluminum oxide).
As to claim 10, LI in view of HOMMA teaches the composition, further comprising one or more organic binders (see HOMMA at ¶50 for teaching the composition comprising organic binders that include, inter alia, polyvinyl alcohol) configured to improve ductility for extrusion or mechanical strengthening (see HOMMA at ¶50 for teaching that the binder is preferably one excellent in bindability of a powdery catalyst metal compound or a catalyst precursor, wherein the binder comprises an organic or inorganic binder to be operable; the improved bindability results in improved ductility for extrusion or mechanical strengthening).
As to claim 11, LI in view of HOMMA teaches the composition, wherein the one or more organic binders are selected from polyvinyl alcohol (see HOMMA at ¶50 for teaching the composition comprising organic binders that include, inter alia, polyvinyl alcohol).
As to claim 16, while LI teaches the composition as set forth above, LI fails to explicitly teach the composition comprising water in sufficient quantity that the composition may be mixed into a paste of a predetermined consistency that it may be shaped, formed, molded, or extruded, as claimed. However, HOMMA teaches to a catalyst fibrous structure having a catalyst metal carried on a fibrous structure (see HOMMA at abstract), in which the catalyst fibrous structure may comprise a solvent comprising water (see HOMMA at ¶53). Accordingly, HOMMA teaches that it was well known in the purification art to have used water (see HOMMA at ¶53) as a solvent for molding the fibrous structure into desirable resulting shapes depending on the use (see HOMMA at ¶39). The composition can comprise water in sufficient quantity as a solvent for mixing prior to pelletization of heterogenous catalysts. Because HOMMA teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used composites of Li with water in forming desired catalyst shapes for improved handling of composites with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
As to claim 30, LI teaches a method (see LI at Abstract and ¶61 for a method for making the nanoparticle-decorated diatom frustules), comprising:
mixing diatom frustules with catalytic precursors (see LI at ¶61 for mixing diatom frustules with a nanoparticle precursor at a first temperature to form a mixture; LI at ¶63 teaches to photocatalytic nanoparticle precursors) in an absence or in a presence of a solvent to create a mixture (see LI at ¶74 for teaching that the mixing may be done in the presence of a solvent or in the absence of a solvent).
While LI teaches the method as set forth above, LI fails to explicitly teach the steps of adding the mixture to a mold, extruder, or pelletizer and exposing the mixture to a condition wherein the mixture retains a desired shape, as claimed. However, HOMMA teaches to a method for producing a catalyst having a catalyst metal carried on a fibrous structure serving as a support (see HOMMA at ¶1), in which the method comprises molding, so as to obtaining desired shapes of the prepared catalysts (see HOMMA at ¶39). HOMMA is silent to adding the mixture to a mold, extruder, or pelletizer. However, HOMMA teaches to molding in view of the workability thereof into desired shapes (see HOMMA at ¶39). The molding requires at least some adding the mixture to a mold, extruder, or pelletizer and exposing the mixture to a condition wherein the mixture retains a desired shape. Accordingly, HOMMA teaches that it was well known in the catalyst preparation art to have used a mold, extruder, or pelletizer. The catalyst preparation can comprise of adding the mixture to a mold, extruder, or pelletizer and calcination to obtain a catalyst fibrous structure (see HOMMA at ¶18). Because HOMMA teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the method of making the composition of LI with a mold, extruder, or pelletizer for retaining a desired shape with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
As to claim 31, LI in view of HOMMA teaches the method, wherein the catalytic precursor comprises, inter alia, a metal (see LI at ¶61 for mixing diatom frustules with a nanoparticle precursor at a first temperature to form a mixture; LI at ¶63 teaches to photocatalytic nanoparticle precursors, wherein the nanoparticle precursors comprise a metal, including titanium).
As to claim 35, LI in view of HOMMA teaches the method, wherein the mixture is heated to form a final composite (see HOMMA at ¶18 for teaching heating and calcination step in obtaining a catalyst fibrous structure).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of Eddy, Diana Rakhmawaty, et. al. "Synthesis and photocatalytic activity of silica-based sand quartz as the supporting TiO2 photocatalyst." Procedia Chemistry 17 (2015): 55-58 (hereinafter referred to as “EDDY”).
As to claim 12, LI fails to explicitly teach that the composition further comprising quartz or glass. LI at ¶67 only teaches diatom-derived intricate silica shells. However, EDDY teaches a TiO2-SiO2 photocatalyst (see EDDY at Abstract), in which the photocatalyst is prepared by immobilizing TiO2 on natural quartz sand SiO2 (see EDDY at Abstract). Accordingly, EDDY teaches that it was well known in the photocatalyst art to have used quartz as silica for increasing photocatalytic efficiency (see EDDY at Introduction, ¶3). The silica can comprise of natural quartz sand SiO2. Because EDDY teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the silica of LI with quartz with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
LI in view of EDDY teaches comprising quartz or glass in such a manner and concentration that the quartz or glass facilitates transition of light into the composition for increased active photocatalytic surfaces (see LI at ¶67 for teaching that the ordered geometries and the arrays of submicron pores on the surface of the diatom shells enable the frustules to act as photonic crystals manipulating light in the visible range; the enabled frustules effectively increase active photocatalytic surfaces relative to any disabled frustules; or see EDDY at Conclusion for teaching that titania immobilization on natural quartz sand SiO2 increased photocatalytic efficiency).
Claim(s) 37-38 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of HOMMA, as applied to claims 30 and 35 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0260572 to Barakat (hereinafter referred to as “BARAKAT”).
As to claim 37, while LI in view of HOMMA teaches the method of catalyst preparation as set forth above, LI in view of HOMMA fails to explicitly teach comprising dipping the final composite in the solvent to coat the final composite with a compound to give added functionality as claimed. However, BARAKAT teaches a dip coating method in an efficient catalyst preparation for adding functionality (see BARAKAT at ¶128 for teaching a dip coating method and at ¶156 for coating a catalytic layer comprising titanium dioxide in treating an exhaust gas and VOC oxidation). Accordingly, BARAKAT teaches that it was well known in the catalyst preparation art to have used dip coating of a porous support (see BARKAT at ¶121). The method of catalyst preparation can comprise of dip coating of a porous support for adding a catalytic layer. Because BARAKAT teaches that such materials were operable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used catalyst preparation of LI in view of HOMMA and additional dip coating with a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combinations yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.)
As to claim 38, LI in view of HOMMA and BARAKAT teaches the method, wherein the solvent comprises one or more of dissolved metals (see BARAKAT at ¶118 for teaching the total concentration of metal(s) of solution C (wash-coat); see BARAKAT at ¶94 or 96 for teaching that the solution C comprising one or more of dissolved metals).
As to claim 41, LI in view of HOMMA and BARAKAT teaches the method, wherein the solvent comprises one or more of, inter alia, acetic acid (see BARKAT at ¶183 for teaching glacial acetic in solution B, which is used to make solution C, or the wash-coat).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
