DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a National Phase Application of International Application Serial No. PCT/JP2021/021355, filed June 4, 2021, which claims the benefit of and priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2020-106170, filed June 19, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 12/16/2022, and 04/18/2023 have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 are under examination on the merits.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Patent Application Publication No. JP2002136811A (“the `811 publication”) to Mitsuru et al. evidenced by STS-21, Characteristics of ST series product, ISHIHARA SANGYO KAISHA, LTD (downloaded 2025).
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a titanium oxide composition comprising: titanium oxide particles; a component A that is at least one kind selected from a group of sepiolite and attapulgite; and a component B that is at least one kind selected from a group of high silica zeolite and hydrophobic silica, wherein a mass ratio of the component A to the titanium oxide particles is 0.75 to 3.25, and a mass ratio of the component B to the component A is 0.25 to 3.0.
The `811 publication [0011] discloses a photocatalytic deodorizing filter in which photocatalytic particles are supported on the surface of a porous molded body containing at least hydrophobic zeolite. The `811 publication [0014-0015] discloses Example 1 of preparing the photocatalytic deodorizing filter, wherein the photocatalytic particles are titanium oxide sol STS-21 containing 40 wt% titanium oxide. Said photocatalytic particles were applied to the surface of the filter. The filter contains 30 parts of hydrophobic zeolite Absent 3000 (manufactured by Union Showa), a high silica zeolite (SiO2/Al2O3=149); 37 parts of Sepiolite Milcon G-200 (manufactured by Showa Mining); 5 parts of Glass fiber (manufactured by Asahi Fiberglass); and 28 parts of Fused silica. The weight ratio of titanium oxide photocatalyst to the hydrophobic zeolite (i.e., high silica zeolite) = 0.39. Accordingly, the titanium oxide photocatalytic deodorizing filter has a mass ratio of the component A (Sepiolite) to the titanium oxide particles is 3.16, which reads on the claimed range of 0.75 to 3.25; and a mass ratio of the component B to the component A is 0.81 (30/37), which reads on the claimed range of 0.25 to 3.0. Therefore, the `811 publication anticipates claims 1-2.
In terms of claim 3, wherein the titanium oxide particles have an average particle size of 5 to 30 nm, the `811 publication [0014] discloses Example 1 of preparing the photocatalytic deodorizing filter, wherein the photocatalytic particles are titanium oxide sol STS-21 (manufactured by Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha) containing 40 wt% titanium oxide. According to Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha product catalog, titanium oxide sol STS-21 has X-ray particle size of 20 nm, STS-21, Characteristics of ST series product, ISHIHARA SANGYO KAISHA, LTD (downloaded 2025). The titanium oxide STS-21 is commercially available at least before year of 2008 based on Google search “Titanium oxide sol STS-21 ishihara Sangyo Kaisha”. Therefore, the `811 publication anticipates claim 3.
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Patent Application Publication No. JP2000210534A (“the `534 publication”) to Suzaki Katsumitsu in view of Japan Patent Application Publication No. JP2002136811A (“the `811 publication”) to Mitsuru et al. and further evidenced by STS-21, Characteristics of ST series product, ISHIHARA SANGYO KAISHA, LTD.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `534 publication (claim 4) discloses a photocatalytic deodorizing filter in which at least a photocatalyst and an adsorbent are supported on a three-dimensional network structure protected by an inorganic binder, wherein the three-dimensional network structure is a plastic foam, and the adsorbent is high-silica zeolite. The `534 publication [0029] further discloses the
high-silica zeolite has a proportion of silica being greater than that of alumina with the oxygen atoms in the silica structure having almost no basicity and are not involved in the formation of hydrogen bonds, and the Si-O-Si bonds on the zeolite surface are water-repellant and do not adsorb water molecules, and the greater the ratio of silica to alumina, the greater the water repellency. The `534 publication [0052, 0054] discloses one part by weight of clay binder was dissolved in 99 parts by weight of water to prepare a 1 wt% coating solution to prepare a coating liquid. The coating liquid was applied by impregnation to a 5 mm thick urethane foam to make a protected urethane foam by an inorganic clay binder. 15 parts by weight of TiO2 powder as a photocatalyst, 30 parts by weight of high-silica zeolite (HSZ-690HOA, manufactured by Tosoh Corporation), and 30 parts by weight of zeolite were dispersed by weight of water. 625 parts by weight of a 4% clay binder aqueous solution was added as an inorganic binder and stirred to obtain a coating liquid with a solid of 10% by weight, and used as a photocatalytic coating liquid. The photocatalytic coating liquid was applied by impregnation to the pre-coated urethane foam to prepare a photocatalytic deodorizing filter with a coating amount of 100 g/m2, as Example 3.
The `811 publication [0011] discloses a photocatalytic deodorizing filter in which photocatalytic particles are supported on the surface of a porous molded body containing at least hydrophobic zeolite. The `811 publication [0014-0015] discloses Example 1 of preparing the photocatalytic deodorizing filter, wherein the photocatalytic particles are titanium oxide sol STS-21 containing 40 wt% titanium oxide. Said photocatalytic particles were applied to the surface of the filter. The filter contains 30 parts of hydrophobic zeolite Absent 3000 (manufactured by Union Showa), a high silica zeolite (SiO2/Al2O3=149); 37 parts of Sepiolite Milcon G-200 (manufactured by Showa Mining); 5 parts of Glass fiber (manufactured by Asahi Fiberglass); and 28 parts of Fused silica. The weight ratio of titanium oxide photocatalyst to the hydrophobic zeolite (i.e., high silica zeolite) = 0.39. Accordingly, the titanium oxide photocatalytic deodorizing filter has a mass ratio of the component A (Sepiolite) to the titanium oxide particles is 3.16, which reads on the claimed range of 0.75 to 3.25; and a mass ratio of the component B to the component A is 0.81 (30/37), which reads on the claimed range of 0.25 to 3.0.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claims 1-2 and the `534 publication is the prior art does not teach a component A is sepiolite or attapulgite, a specific type of clay. Instead, the `534 publication teaches the component A is a generic type of clay binder.
In addition, the `534 publication does not specifically teach a mass ratio of the component A to the titanium oxide particles is 0.75 to 3.25, and a mass ratio of the component B to the component A is 0.25 to 3.0. Instead, the `534 publication teaches a method of preparing a titanium oxide composition in Examples 1-5.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, the instantly claimed titanium oxide composition would have been obvious over the titanium oxide composition disclosed in the `534 publication because the difference is further taught by the `811 publication. The `811 publication [0014-0015] Example 1 teaches the inorganic clay as component A is Sepiolite Milcon G-200, and the titanium oxide photocatalytic deodorizing filter has a mass ratio of the component A (Sepiolite) to the titanium oxide particles is 3.16, which reads on the claimed range of 0.75 to 3.25; and a mass ratio of the component B to the component A is 0.81 (30/37), which reads on the claimed range of 0.25 to 3.0. Therefore, the `534 publication in view of the `811 publication would have rendered claims 1-2 obvious.
In terms of claim 3, wherein the titanium oxide particles have an average particle size of 5 to 30 nm, the `811 publication [0014] discloses Example 1 of preparing the photocatalytic deodorizing filter, wherein the photocatalytic particles are titanium oxide sol STS-21 (manufactured by Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha) containing 40 wt% titanium oxide. According to Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha product catalog, titanium oxide sol STS-21 has X-ray particle size of 20 nm, see STS-21, Characteristics of ST series product, ISHIHARA SANGYO KAISHA, LTD (downloaded 2025). The titanium oxide STS-21 is commercially available at least before year of 2008 based on Google search “Titanium oxide sol STS-21 Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha”.
In terms of claim 4, wherein the titanium oxide composition further comprises an aqueous dispersion medium, the `534 publication [0052, 0054] teaches a coating aqueous liquid comprising titanium oxide and the component A and component B.
In terms of claim 5, drawn to a member having the titanium oxide composition according to claim 1 on a surface, the `534 publication (claim 4) discloses a photocatalytic deodorizing filter in which at least a photocatalyst and an adsorbent are supported on a three-dimensional network structure protected by an inorganic binder, wherein the three-dimensional network structure is a plastic foam. Therefore, the `534 publication teaches a member (filter) having titanium oxide composition on a surface of the three-dimensional network structure, which is a plastic foam.
Conclusions
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731