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 Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for the phrase “catalyze adsorbed pollutants”, Claim 1 has been amended to recite “catalytically convert adsorbed pollutants”. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, 15-18, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shore et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the adsorbent material comprises manganese oxide, and wherein the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. Applicant argues “As to Shore, Applicant submits that Shore does not disclose an adsorbent material comprising manganese oxide as recited in claim 1, as amended. Shore uses zeolites as adsorbent materials and only discloses manganese as an "oxidation catalytic component," i.e., a catalyst. See Shore, column 7, lines 23-32. Additionally, Shore does not disclose the specific pollutants recited in the amended claims, namely pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.” [Remarks, Page 7, Paragraph 3]. This is unpersuasive. Shore et al. discloses manganese oxide which is inherently an adsorbent material because all solids have some capacity to adsorb gasses. Therefore the manganese oxide and zeolite of Shore et al. may be considered an absorbent material comprising manganese oxide (the entire material) and a catalyst (the manganese oxide and platinum particles). Regarding the specific pollutants to be catalytically converted the Applicant argues against the intended use established in the previous Office Action. Applicant argues “amended language is not mere intended use because the claimed pollutants, in combination with the structural limitations (manganese oxide adsorbent) and the "adapted to" language (adsorb at 20-150°C and catalytically convert at 120-300°C), defines the functional capability of the claimed system. The specific pollutants, temperature ranges, and manganese oxide adsorbent work together to define a system that is specifically configured to treat these particular pollutants. This is not merely intended use but rather defines what the claimed structure is adapted to do.” [Remarks, Page 7, Paragraph 5]. The previous Office Action stated “no structure is suggested by the intended use”, herein the Applicant does not argue that there is structure suggested by the intended use, but rather a functional capacity. This is not the requirement for intended use to be a claim limitation set forth by MPEP 2111.02.II. See also MPEP 2115, citing, e.g., In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580 (CCPA 1967) (stating that “the manner or method in which [the claimed] machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself”). See also Mendenhall v. Astec Indus. Inc., 13 USPQ2d 1913, 1922 (E.D. Tenn. 1988) (citing In re Casey in support of the position that apparatus claims at issue “are not limited to equipment which actually is in the process of introducing “asphaltic concrete particles” into the cooler zone of the drum, as long as the equipment has the presently existing capability of [doing so]”), and Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp., 846 F.Supp. 522, 536 (E.D. Tex. 1994) (citing Mendenhall v. Astec and In re Casey). In view of the foregoing, only the claimed system’s structural/compositional limitations have been accorded patentable weight. The rejection is MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the adsorbent material comprises manganese oxide, and wherein the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. Applicant argues “As to Gu, Applicant submits that Gu does not disclose the specific pollutants recited in claim 1, as amended. Gu discloses removing pollutants such as "formaldehyde, ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, amines (including ammonia), sulfur compounds (including thiols), chlorinated hydrocarbons, and other alkali or acidic chemicals." See Gu, paragraph [0055]. However, Gu does not explicitly disclose pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids as recited in the amended claims.” [Remarks, Page 7, Paragraph 4]. This is unpersuasive. Regarding the intended use the same analysis as above applies to the rejections over Gu et al., namely no structure is suggested by the Claim or Applicant. Furthermore it is understood that even if the intended use was given patentable weight the Claims would remain rejected as the absorbent material and catalyst being either substantially similar or the exact same as the absorbent material and catalyst claimed would have inherently has the same functional activity and ability to catalytically convert pollutants as the claimed material. See MPEP 2112.01.II, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties”. The rejection is MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Shore et al., Claims 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore et al. in view of Yashnik et al., Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore et al. in view of Liu et al., and Claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore et al. in view of Hu et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments. Applicant argues “As discussed above, Shore fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1. While Yashnik, Liu, and Hu were cited as allegedly teaching other aspects of the claims, these references fail to remedy the deficiencies of Shore discussed above.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 7]. This is unpersuasive as Shore et al. has not been found to be deficient (see above). The rejections are MAINTAINED.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 requires “the pollutants comprise one or more volatile organic compounds”, however Claim 1 already requires “the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. Because the pollutants listed in Claim 1 are volatile organic compounds no further limitation is required by Claim 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 3116764 A1 Gu et al. Claim 1 requires “A system for removing pollutants from an air flow, the system comprising: a substrate; and a catalyst-adsorbent material disposed on the substrate, the catalyst-adsorbent material comprising an adsorbent material and a catalyst material”. Gu et al. discloses “a catalyst-adsorbent filter comprises: a filter body comprising a material selected from polymeric foam, polymeric fiber, non-woven fabric, a ceramic, and pulp products (e.g., paper); and a coating formed on the filter body. The coating comprises: a manganese oxide catalyst adapted for converting gaseous pollutants into chemically-benign species; and an adsorbent adapted for adsorbing the chemically-benign species and other gaseous species for which the manganese oxide catalyst is not adapted to convert.” [0007].
Claim 1 further requires “the catalyst-adsorbent material is adapted to adsorb pollutants at a first temperature of 20-150 °C and catalytically convert adsorbed pollutants at a second temperature of 120-300 °C.”. Gu et al. does not explicitly disclose these temperatures, however they use the same material for the absorbent and catalyst as claimed in Claims 2 and 5 and therefore would have inherently had the properties as claimed. Specifically Claim 2 suggests that “silica gel, alumina, activated carbon, faujasite, chabazite, clinoptilolite, mordenite, silicalite, zeolite X, zeolite Y, ultrastable zeolite Y, ZSM zeolite, offretite, beta zeolite, metal organic frameworks, metal oxide, polymers, or resins” will adsorb at 20-150 °C and Gu et al. discloses “the adsorbent is selected from a group consisting of: silica gel, activated carbon, faujasite, chabazite, clinoptilolite, mordenite, silicalite, zeolite X, zeolite Y, ultrastable zeolite Y, ZSM zeolite, offretite, beta zeolite, metal organic frameworks, metal oxide, polymers, resins, and combinations thereof.” [0008]. Additionally Claim 5 suggests that “manganese, platinum, palladium, or cerium” will catalyze pollutants at 120-300 °C and Gu et al. discloses manganese “a manganese oxide catalyst adapted for converting gaseous pollutants” [0007].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the absorbent material comprises manganese oxide”. Gu et al. discloses manganese “a manganese oxide catalyst adapted for converting gaseous pollutants” [0007]. Although described as part of the catalyst it is understood that manganese oxide, being a solid material, will inherently adsorb gasses to the surface and therefore can be considered an adsorbent material.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. The preamble of Claim 1 recites “A system for removing pollutants from an air flow”. This is considered intended use. MPEP 2111.02.II states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. In the instant case the body of Claim 1 fully sets forth the structure of the system (substrate, adsorbent, catalyst) and no structure is suggested by the intended use “for removing pollutants”. Since no structure is suggested by the use of removing pollutants further restricting which pollutants are intended to be removed similarly does not suggest structural limitations to Claim 1.
Claim 13 requires “the catalyst- adsorbent material comprises a washcoat formed on the substrate, the washcoat comprising a physical mixture of the adsorbent material and the catalyst material.”. Gu et al. discloses “In certain embodiments, the substrate may be in the form of a solid surface having a washcoat containing a plurality of catalytic particles and/or adsorbent particles. A washcoat may be formed by preparing a slurry containing a specified solids content (e.g., 30-50% by weight) of catalytic particles and/or adsorbent particles, which is then coated onto a substrate and dried to provide a washcoat layer.” [0045].
Claim 14 requires “the washcoat comprises a polymeric binder, and wherein the polymeric binder is selected from a group consisting of: polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin copolymer, polyisoprene, polybutadiene, polybutadiene copolymer, chlorinated rubber, nitrile rubber, polychloroprene, ethylene-propylene-diene elastomer, polystyrene, polyacrylate, polymethacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, poly(vinyl ester), poly(vinyl halide), polyamide, cellulosic polymer, polyimide, acrylic polymer, vinyl acrylic polymer, styrene acrylic polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, thermoplastic polyester, thermosetting polyester, poly(phenylene oxide), poly(phenylene sulfide), fluorinated polymer, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) polyvinylidene fluoride, poly(vinylfluoride) chloro/fluoro copolymer, ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer, polyamide, phenolic resin, epoxy resin, polyurethane, acrylic/styrene acrylic copolymer, latex, silicone polymer, and combinations thereof.”. Gu et al. discloses “In certain embodiments, the coating further comprises a polymeric binder, and the polymeric binder is selected from a group consisting of: polyethylene, polypropylene, polyolefin copolymer, polyisoprene, polybutadiene, polybutadiene copolymer, chlorinated rubber, nitrile rubber, polychloroprene, ethylene-propylene-diene elastomer, polystyrene, polyacrylate, polymethacrylate, polyacrylonitrile, poly(vinyl ester), poly(vinyl halide), polyamide, cellulosic polymer, polyimide, acrylic polymer, vinyl acrylic polymer, styrene acrylic polymer, polyvinyl alcohol, thermoplastic polyester, thermosetting polyester, poly(phenylene oxide), poly(phenylene sulfide), fluorinated polymer, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) polyvinylidene fluoride, poly(vinylfluoride) chloro/fluoro copolymer, ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer, polyamide, phenolic resin, epoxy resin, polyurethane, acrylic/styrene acrylic copolymer, latex, silicone polymer, and combinations thereof.” [0013].
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 12-13, 15-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6319484 B1 Shore et al. Claim 1 requires “A system for removing pollutants from an air flow, the system comprising: a substrate; and a catalyst-adsorbent material disposed on the substrate”. Shore et al. discloses “The walls of the fine gas flow passages of upstream contact member 24 are coated with a first (upstream) abatement composition for abatement of volatile organic compounds in accordance with the present invention. For example, the first abatement composition may comprise one or more protective zeolites having a minimum pore aperture of from about 6.5 to 13 Angstroms intimately combined with a suitable oxidation catalytic component, for example, platinum dispersed on fine particles of activated alumina.” [Column 6, Lines 47-56]. The walls of the contact member are identified as a substrate and the abatement composition is identified as a catalyst-adsorbent material.
Claim 1 further requires “the catalyst-adsorbent material comprising an adsorbent material and a catalyst material”. The abatement composition of Shore et al. contains zeolites (an adsorbent material) and an oxidation catalyst (see above).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the catalyst-adsorbent material is adapted to adsorb pollutants at a first temperature of 20-150 °C and catalytically convert adsorbed pollutants at a second temperature of 120-300 °C.”. Shore et al. discloses adsorbing at a lower temperature and reacting at a higher temperature “For example, heat exchanger 22 may be used to cool the air stream to a desired temperature within an adsorption temperature range, e.g., about 20 to 100° C., or about 25 to 80° C., and heat exchanger 22' may be used to heat the air stream to a desired temperature within an oxidation temperature range, e.g., about 70 to 500° C., or about 100 to 500° C., or about 100 to 300° C., or about 100 to 250° C., or about 100 to 200° C.” [Column 6, Lines 29-36].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the absorbent material comprises manganese oxide” Shore et al. discloses “Generally, the oxidation catalytic component may be one or more platinum group metals, preferably one of more of platinum, palladium and rhodium, and/or one or more transition metal oxides such as oxides of copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel and vanadium.” [Col. 7, Lines 23-27]. Although described as part of the catalyst it is understood that manganese oxide, being a solid material, will inherently adsorb gasses to the surface and therefore can be considered an adsorbent material. Although Shore et al. does not disclose any working examples of an adsorbent material comprising manganese oxide including it would have been obvious because it is disclosed as effective.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. The preamble of Claim 1 recites “A system for removing pollutants from an air flow”. This is considered intended use. MPEP 2111.02.II states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. In the instant case the body of Claim 1 fully sets forth the structure of the system (substrate, adsorbent, catalyst) and no structure is suggested by the intended use “for removing pollutants”. Since no structure is suggested by the use of removing pollutants further restricting which pollutants are intended to be removed similarly does not suggest structural limitations to Claim 1.
Claim 2 requires “the adsorbent material comprises one or more of silica gel, alumina, activated carbon, faujasite, chabazite, clinoptilolite, mordenite, silicalite, zeolite X, zeolite Y, ultrastable zeolite Y, ZSM zeolite, offretite, beta zeolite, metal organic frameworks, metal oxide, polymers, or resins.”. Shore et al. discloses multiple types of zeolites are effective “One aspect of the present invention provides for the protective adsorbent to be one or more of Beta, Y and Mordenite zeolites, and for the second adsorbent to be one or more of silver-containing ZSM-5, silver-containing Y, silver-containing Beta and copper-containing Y zeolites.” [Column 4, Lines 6-10].
Claim 3 requires “the adsorbent material comprises one or more of a basic metal oxide or an alkali-modified or alkaline earth-modified metal oxide.”. Shore et al. discloses “In one aspect of the present invention the protective adsorbent comprises a cation-containing zeolite, the cation being selected from the group consisting of one or more of proton, alkali metal, alkaline earth metal and rare earth metal cations.”. [Column 4, Lines 14-18]. Because zeolites are metal oxides an alkali or alkaline earth containing zeolite is an alkali or alkaline earth modified metal oxide.
Claim 4 requires “the adsorbent material comprises one or more of a potassium-modified manganese oxide or a sodium- exchanged zeolite.”. Shore et al. discloses “In one aspect of the present invention the protective adsorbent comprises a cation-containing zeolite, the cation being selected from the group consisting of one or more of proton, alkali metal, alkaline earth metal and rare earth metal cations.”. [Column 4, Lines 14-18]. Sodium exchanged zeolite is a type of alkali metal containing zeolite and therefore the use of a sodium exchanged zeolite would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used for at least the reason that Shore et al. discloses that they are effective.
Claim 5 requires “the catalyst material comprises one or more of manganese, platinum, palladium, or cerium.”. Shore et al. discloses platinum “Certain aspects of the invention provide that the first and second oxidation catalysts may be one or more of platinum group metal catalytic components and transition metal catalytic components.” [Column 4, Lines 36-39].
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, Claims 10 and 12 attempt to further restrict Claim 1 by modifying the pollutants mentioned in the preamble (“A system for removing pollutants from an air flow”) of Claim 1. The preamble of Claim 1 is considered intended use (see above) and therefore Claims 10 and 12 do not suggest any structural limitations.
Claim 13 requires “the catalyst- adsorbent material comprises a washcoat formed on the substrate, the washcoat comprising a physical mixture of the adsorbent material and the catalyst material.”. Shore et al. discloses “A comparative Sample C1 was prepared by coating respective cordierite carriers with a washcoat composition comprising fine particles of ZSM-5 zeolite and activated alumina, the latter having platinum dispersed thereon.” [Column 12, Lines 28-31].
Claim 15 requires “the washcoat comprises an inorganic binder.”. Shore et al. discloses “An ammonium silicate solution was added as a binder to give a final SiO2 concentration from the binder in the dehydrated slurry of 2% by weight of the weight of dehydrated solids … The carrier was coated to provide a washcoat coating” [Column 14, Lines 2-11].
Claim 16 requires “the inorganic binder comprises one or more of a silica sol or an alumina sol.”. The ammonium silicate solution of Shore et al. (see Claim 15) is identified as a silica sol.
Claim 17 requires “A system for removing pollutants from an air flow, the system comprising: a first catalyst-adsorbent material layer on a first substrate; and a second catalyst-adsorbent material layer on a second substrate downstream from the first substrate”. Shore et al. discloses two treatment systems in series “Upstream contact member 24 is housed in the known manner within a first canister 26 which is connected in air flow communication by a transition conduit 28 with a second canister 30 within which is contained a downstream contact member 32.” [Column 6, Lines 5-9]. Regarding the first catalyst adsorbent material Shore et al. discloses “The walls of the fine gas flow passages of upstream contact member 24 are coated with a first (upstream) abatement composition for abatement of volatile organic compounds in accordance with the present invention. For example, the first abatement composition may comprise one or more protective zeolites having a minimum pore aperture of from about 6.5 to 13 Angstroms intimately combined with a suitable oxidation catalytic component, for example, platinum dispersed on fine particles of activated alumina.” [Column 6, Lines 47-56]. Regarding the second catalyst adsorbent material Shore et al. discloses “Downstream contact member 32 may be similar to upstream contact member 24, i.e., it may comprise another honeycomb-type refractory substrate member which is similar or identical to the substrate of upstream contact member 24.” [Column 6, Lines 60-64].
Claim 17 further requires “one or more of the first catalyst-adsorbent material layer or the second catalyst-adsorbent material layer is adapted to adsorb pollutants at a first temperature of 20- 150 °C and catalytically convert adsorbed pollutants at a second temperature of 120-300 °C.”. Shore et al. discloses adsorbing at a lower temperature and reacting at a higher temperature “For example, heat exchanger 22 may be used to cool the air stream to a desired temperature within an adsorption temperature range, e.g., about 20 to 100° C., or about 25 to 80° C., and heat exchanger 22' may be used to heat the air stream to a desired temperature within an oxidation temperature range, e.g., about 70 to 500° C., or about 100 to 500° C., or about 100 to 300° C., or about 100 to 250° C., or about 100 to 200° C.” [Column 6, Lines 29-36].
Claim 17 further requires “wherein at least one of the first catalyst-adsorbent material layer or the second catalyst-adsorbent material layer comprises an adsorbent material comprising manganese oxide” Shore et al. discloses “Generally, the oxidation catalytic component may be one or more platinum group metals, preferably one of more of platinum, palladium and rhodium, and/or one or more transition metal oxides such as oxides of copper, cobalt, iron, manganese, nickel and vanadium.” [Col. 7, Lines 23-27]. Although described as part of the catalyst it is understood that manganese oxide, being a solid material, will inherently adsorb gasses to the surface and can be considered an adsorbent material. Although Shore et al. does not disclose any working examples of an adsorbent material comprising manganese oxide it would have been obvious to have chosen manganese oxide because it is disclosed as effective.
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. This is considered intended use (see Claim 1).
Claim 18 requires “A system for removing pollutants from an air flow, the system comprising: a first catalyst-adsorbent material layer to adsorb a pollutant and/or generate an intermediate compound from the pollutant”. Shore et al. discloses a first catalyst adsorbent material for large VOCs “The protective adsorbent adsorbs, and thereby protects the second adsorbent from, certain relatively large molecule volatile organic compounds … In either case, the protective oxidation catalyst serves to promote oxidation of the relatively large molecule volatile organic compounds before they can contact the second adsorbent” [Column 2, Lines 23-36].
Claim 18 further requires “a second catalyst-adsorbent material layer downstream from the first catalyst-adsorbent material layer, wherein the second catalyst-adsorbent material layer is adapted to convert the pollutant after desorption from the first catalyst-adsorbent material layer and/or the intermediate compound.”. Shore et al. discloses converting large VOCs into small VOCs for the second catalyst adsorbent material “In either case, the protective oxidation catalyst serves to promote oxidation of the relatively large molecule volatile organic compounds before they can contact the second adsorbent and be adsorbed thereon. The second adsorbent adsorbs relatively small volatile organic compounds which pass through the protective adsorbent.” [Column 2, Lines 33-39].
Claim 18 further requires “wherein at least one of the first catalyst-adsorbent material layer or the second catalyst-adsorbent material layer comprises an adsorbent material comprising manganese oxide, and wherein the pollutants comprise one or more of pentanoic acid, turbine oil compounds, polyol esters, tri-cresyl phosphate, phosphate esters, hydraulic fluid compounds, jet fuel compounds, dodecane, propionic acid, or carboxylic acids.”. These limitations are presented in Claim 17 and support for them may be found within Claim 17 (above).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Claims 21 and 22 further limit Claim 1 by modifying the intended use, regarding intended use MPEP 2111.02.II states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. In the instant case the body of Claim 1 fully sets forth the structure of the system (substrate, adsorbent, catalyst) and no structure is suggested by the intended use of an aircraft environmental control system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6319484 B1 Shore et al. in view of NPL “The Nature of Synergetic Effect of Manganese Oxide and Platinum in Pt–MnOX–Alumina Oxidation Catalysts” Yashnik et al. Regarding Claim 6, Shore et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 6 further requires “the catalyst- adsorbent material comprises platinum particles having a diameter of 2 nanometers to 5 nanometers and manganese oxide.”. Shore et al. discloses platinum (see Claim 1) but does not disclose particle size or manganese oxide.
Yashnik et al. is similarly related to catalysts for removing VOCs from air. Yashnik et al. discloses a Pt-MnOx-Al2O3 catalyst with platinum particles having a diameter of 2.0 ± 0.3 nm [Page 55, Table 2, entry 4]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the system of Shore et al. with the catalyst of Yashnik et al. because they both disclose catalysts for removing VOCs from the air. Furthermore both catalysts similarly contain both platinum and are supported on alumina showing similarity to each other. The motivation to have included the catalyst of Yashnik et al. is a synergistic effect between the platinum and manganese oxide disclosed by Yashnik et al. “We observed previously the synergetic effect between manganese oxides and Pt in the reactions of oxidation of carbon monoxide, propane/propene, and butane over monolithic catalysts containing Pt–MnOx/Al2O3 as washcoat [17, 19]. In Fig. 1, this synergetic effect is illustrated by butane oxidation.” [Page 56, Section 3.1]. MPEP 716.02(c)II, 2143 I.(A), 2144 II, & 2144.06 I.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6319484 B1 Shore et al. in view of NPL “Combined promoting effects of platinum and MnOx–CeO2 supported on alumina on NOx-assisted soot oxidation: Thermal stability and sulfur resistance” Liu et al. Regarding Claim 7, Shore et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 7 further requires “the catalyst- adsorbent material comprises platinum particles having a diameter of 2 nanometers to 5 nanometers, manganese, and cerium.”. Shore et al. discloses platinum (see Claim 1) but does not disclose particle size, manganese, or cerium.
Liu et al. is similarly directed to catalysts for removing VOCs from air. Liu et al. discloses a platinum, manganese, and cerium containing catalyst with platinum particles with an average diameter of 1.9 nm [Page 30, Table 2, entry 2]. Furthermore from Figure 4(b) which is a TEM image of the catalyst it can be seen that the particle size is not uniform. In other words the catalyst of Lui et al. is a mixture of platinum particles sizes greater than 1.9 nm (2 nm or greater) and less than 1.9 nm. The open claim language “comprises” allows for such a mixture of smaller and larger particle sizes. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 deals with the obviousness of similar ranges and states “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”, in this case the platinum particle sizes of 1.9 nm and 2.0 nm are so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected to see any noticeable difference between them.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the system of Shore et al. with the catalyst of Liu et al. because they both disclose catalysts for removing VOCs from the air. Furthermore both catalysts similarly contain both platinum and are supported on alumina showing similarity to each other.
The motivation to combine the catalyst of Liu et al. with the system of Shore et al. is disclosed by Liu et al. as reducing the amount of platinum necessary and to improving activity for removing soot “Pt/Al2O3 catalyst is modified by introduction of MnOx–CeO2 mixed oxides to reduce the loading amount of platinum and to improve the activity for soot oxidation by providing abundant NO2 at low temperatures.” [Page 34, section 5].
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6319484 B1 Shore et al. in view of CN 111167281 A Hu et al. Regarding Claim 8, Shore et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 8 further requires “the catalyst- adsorbent material comprises platinum-modified alumina and potassium-modified manganese oxide.”. Shore et al. discloses platinum-modified alumina (see Claim 1) but does not disclose potassium-modified manganese oxide.
Hu et al. is similarly related to catalysts for the removal of VOCs from air, specifically formaldehyde. Hu et al. discloses “Preferably, the alkaline precipitant is potassium hydroxide. The present technicians further discovered that potassium ions can promote the ability of the generated manganese oxide to capture oxygen and improve the formaldehyde conversion rate.” [0044].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the system of Shore et al. with the catalyst of Hu et al. because they both disclose catalysts for the same problem, namely removing VOCs from the air. The motivation to have included the catalyst of Hu et al. is to better capture and decompose formaldehyde.
Regarding Claim 9, Shore et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claim 9 further requires “the catalyst- adsorbent material comprises platinum-modified alumina, potassium-modified manganese oxide, and zeolite.”. Shore et al. discloses platinum-modified alumina and zeolites (see Claim 1) but does not disclose potassium-modified manganese oxide. The obviousness and motivation for including potassium-modified manganese oxide is the same as is given from Claim 8 (above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736