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 .
Status of Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claim 10 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, Claim 10 has been canceled. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
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 require “the adsorbent material comprises potassium-modified manganese oxide”. Gu et al. does not disclose potassium-modified manganese oxide. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-5, 10, 12-13, 15-18, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1, 17, and 18 have been amended to require “the adsorbent material comprises potassium-modified manganese oxide”. Shore et al. does not disclose potassium-modified manganese oxide. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore et al. in view of Yashnik et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to require “the adsorbent material comprises potassium-modified manganese oxide”. Neither Shore et al. nor Yashnik et al. disclose potassium-modified manganese oxide. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shore et al. in view of Liu et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Claim 1 has been amended to require “the adsorbent material comprises potassium-modified manganese oxide”. Neither Shore et al. nor Liu et al. disclose potassium-modified manganese oxide. The rejections are WITHDRAWN.
With respect to the rejection of 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. Claim 1 (upon which Claims 8 and 9 depend) has been amended to require “the adsorbent material comprises potassium-modified manganese oxide”. Applicant argues “In Hu, potassium hydroxide is used merely as an alkaline precipitant (interchangeably with sodium hydroxide) the synthesis of a manganese-cerium oxide/activated carbon composite material. See Hu, claims 5 and 6. The resulting material in Hu is expressly identified as MnOx-CeO2 supported on activated carbon, where the activated carbon serves as the adsorbent, not potassium-modified manganese oxide. Id. at claim 12. Notably, the chemical formula for the manganese-cerium oxide active component in Hu contains no potassium. Id. While Hu mentions that potassium ions "can promote the oxygen capturing capacity of the generated manganese oxide," this observation relates to the catalytic activity for formaldehyde conversion, and not to the manganese oxide functioning as an adsorbent material as required by the claims, as amended. Id. at paragraph 0043. Thus, even if residual potassium ions remain in Hu's material after washing, Hu does not teach or suggest potassium-modified manganese oxide as an adsorbent material.” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 1]. This is unpersuasive. First, as noted in previous Office Actions, manganese oxide, being a solid material, will inherently adsorb gasses to the surface and can be considered an adsorbent material. Applicant argues that the manganese oxide of Hu et al. cannot function as an absorbent material simply because that is not disclosed as a property in the art, but does not actually address the basis of rejection that solid materials inherently adsorb gasses onto the surface, at least to some extent.
Secondly, it is noted that Claims 1, 17, and 18 do not actually require potassium to be present. They merely require the presence of magnesium oxide which has been modified by potassium, which Hu et al. explicitly discloses (“potassium ions can promote the ability of the generated manganese oxide to capture oxygen” [0044]). It is understood that if potassium hydroxide had not been used within the synthesis of Hu et al. that a magnesium oxide having different properties (oxygen capture/adsorption) would have been generated and therefore the potassium modified the magnesium oxide to have at least one property changed. The rejection is updated to incorporate Shore et al. in view of Hu et al. within the independent claims, but is otherwise MAINTAINED.
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, 8-9, 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. in view of CN 111167281 A Hu 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 potassium-modified 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. Shore et al. does not, however, disclose that the manganese oxide has been modified by potassium.
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]. Because the potassium changed at least one property of the manganese oxide (oxygen adsorption/capture) it is understood that the manganese oxide of Hu et al. is potassium modified manganese oxide. 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 similar 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.
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. Additionally the disclosure of Hu et al. renders the inclusion of potassium-modified manganese oxide obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Claim 1 above) which is understood to be a alkali-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. Additionally the disclosure of Hu et al. renders the inclusion of potassium-modified manganese oxide obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Claim 1 above).
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].
Claim 8 requires “the catalyst-adsorbent material comprises platinum-modified alumina and potassium-modified manganese oxide.”. Shore et al. discloses platinum-modified alumina (see Claim 1) and Hu et al. discloses potassium-modified manganese oxide (see Claim 1).
Claim 9 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) and Hu et al. discloses potassium-modified manganese oxide (see Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 attempts 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 Claim 12 does 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 potassium-modified 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. Shore et al. does not, however, disclose that the manganese oxide has been modified by potassium.
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]. Because the potassium changed at least one property of the manganese oxide (oxygen adsorption/capture) it is understood that the manganese oxide of Hu et al. is potassium modified manganese oxide. 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 similar 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.
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 potassium-modified 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. As such, the cited prior art teachings and suggestions vis-à-vis claim 1 are considered sufficient to meet/satisfy claims 21-22 as well.
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 CN 111167281 A Hu et al., in further 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. in view of Hu 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.
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 CN 111167281 A Hu et al., in further 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. in view of Hu 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 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) 1 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3116764 A1 Gu et al. in view of CN 111167281 A Hu 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 potassium-modified manganese oxide”. Gu et al. discloses manganese oxide “a manganese oxide catalyst adapted for converting gaseous pollutants” [0007], however is silent towards modifying it with potassium.
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]. Because the potassium changed at least one property of the manganese oxide (oxygen adsorption/capture) it is understood that the manganese oxide of Hu et al. is potassium modified manganese oxide. 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 similar 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.
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 a polymeric binder “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].
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights