DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 29-31, 33, 35, 38-39, 45-46, 49, and 52-53 in the reply filed on 8/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/7/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 29-31, 33, 35, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sigmund et al. (USPN 7,541,509 B2) (hereafter “Sigmund”).
Regarding claim 29, Sigmund discloses a structure for decontamination (photocatalyst nanocomposite), comprising: a first surface (carbon nanotube); and a decontamination layer (photocatalytic coating layer) on the first surface, the decontamination layer comprising a nanostructured photocatalyst (see col. 2, lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 30, Sigmund discloses that the nanostructured photocatalyst is formed as nanotubes (see col. 2, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 31, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Sigmund and the apparatus of Sigmund is capable of being in contact with human coronavirus when the virus is present in the air. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Sigmund (see MPEP §2114). NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case,
Regarding claims 33 and 35, Sigmund discloses that the nanostructured photocatalyst is titanium dioxide which has a bandgap greater that 3eV (see col. 2, lines 30-56; col. 5, lines 57-63).
Regarding claim 38, Sigmund discloses wherein the nanostructured photocatalyst is formed as nanotubes and the nanotubes are crystalline (Col. 4, lines. 62-67, the resulting TiO2 coated MWNTs can be centrifuged, and dried. The dried TiO2 coated MWNTs are preferably then heated to a temperature sufficient to result in crystallization of the TiO2).
5. Claim(s) 49, 52, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 2639766 Y – English machine translation).
Regarding claim 49, Zhang et al. disclose a system (figures 1-2) comprising a structure for decontaminating, the structure having a first surface (steel wire mesh 8) coated with a decontamination layer (nanostructured photocatalyst (9)); an illumination source (UV lamp 7) that generates UV radiation and/or visible light and exposes the decontamination layer of the structure to the UV radiation and/or visible light, wherein the illumination source (7) comprises a UV lamp that is separate from the existing light source used to illuminate an area around or in a vicinity of the structure (see English translation).
Regarding claim 52, Zhang et al disclose one or more optical components (reflecting plate 6) that direct UV radiation from the illumination source (7) to the decontamination layer (see English translation).
Regarding clam 53, Zhang discloses that the system is an air handling device (see English translation and figure 2) and the first surface of the structure is arranged such that human coronaviruses circulating in air processed by the air handling device are incident on the decontamination layer (Zhang discloses that the system is for purifying indoor air and therefore capable of decontaminating air containing coronavirus.
6. Claim(s) 29 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rousseau (CN 101873886 A – English translation).
Regarding claim 29, Rousseau discloses a structure (11) for decontamination, comprising: a first surface (support 3); and a decontamination layer (4 – titanium dioxide layer having nanometer thickness) on the first surface, the decontamination layer comprising a nanostructured photocatalyst (see para [00592]-[0061] of the translation).
Regarding claim 46, Rousseau discloses at least two electrodes (1 and 6) electrically coupled to the decontamination layer (4) and configured to apply a voltage to the decontamination layer (See English translation; See figure 2b).
7. Claim(s) 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2014007597 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Kim et al. discloses a structure (200) for decontamination, comprising: a first surface (substrate 210); and a decontamination layer (photocatalyst layer 250 – having nanoparticle layer (NP) )on the first surface (see figure 2), the decontamination layer comprising a nanostructured photocatalyst (see English translation and figure 2).
Regarding claim 39, Kim et al. discloses that the decontamination layer (250) comprises an electrically conductive additive comprising graphene (G) (see figure 2; see English translation) and that the decontamination layer (250) is in contact with the first surface of substate (210) (see figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigmund as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Whiteford et al. (US 2013/0150809).
Sigmund is set forth above with regards to claim 29 but does not appear to teach that the decontamination layer is a paint or coating that includes particles of silica or alumina.
Whiteford teaches a nano structured photocatalyst layer that is coated on a surface wherein the disposing of layer the comprises spray painting, brush painting, roll painting, dip coating, spin coating, or any combination thereof (Whiteford, Para. [0426], The coating composition may be applied to a surface such as, for example, metal, wood, sheet rock, ceramic, cultured marble and plastic, using conventional coating application methods ... such as, for example, air-assisted spray, airless spray, high volume low pressure spray, and air-assisted electrostatic spray.)
Whiteford further teaches wherein the coating composition comprises silica pigment particles (see para [0377]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the structure of Sigmund to include silica particles as taught by Whiteford for the purpose of adding pigment to the decontamination layer, especially when the surface is one where multiple people may touch and has the potential to spread bacteria and viruses and other unwanted biologic materials thereby reducing the transmission of unwanted biologic materials.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799