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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I with Species A1, encompassing claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because the different inventions are drawn into different classes and each invention requires a different field of search. Applicants’ attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements, which introduces additional search and examination burden. Applicants’ arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive in so far as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “essentially spherical”, which renders the claims vague and indefinite. What it means to be “essentially spherical” is not clear from the specification. There are no disclosed or implied limits as to how far they could deviate from sphere and still be considered in “essentially spherical”. The limitation "essentially" is subjective and therefore makes the claim scope unclear.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "preferably", which is an exemplary language and it is not clear whether the limitations following the language is required. The limitation "preferably" is subjective and therefore makes the claim scope unclear.
Claims 3-5, and 7-9 recite the limitation "in particular" and/or "preferably", which is an exemplary language and it is not clear whether the limitations following the language is required. The limitations are subjective and therefore makes the claim scope unclear.
Claims 4-6 recite “it”. It is not clear what “it” is regarded. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, and 8-9 recite “the semiconductor material a, a’”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claim, claims 2-9 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmignani et al (PG-PUB US 2005/0224335) in view of Heller et al (U.S. 5,256,616).
Regarding claim 1, Carmignani et al disclose a catalytic bed having photocatalytic packing material (ABSTRACT). The catalytic bed comprises photocatalytic semiconductor particles on packing material, wherein the packing material may be spherical glass or quartz (i.e., structuring particles made of mineral material b … with at least one semiconductor material a having photocatalytic properties … or by … deposition of semiconductor material a on the structuring particles b, Figures 1 & 3-4, paragraphs[0037], [0040] –[0041], [0045] – [0046] & Example 3).
Carmignani teaches that the photocatalytic material on spherical glass packing material for destructing organic compounds (Example 3), does not teach the spherical packing material having the claimed size. However, Heller et al disclose a photocatalytic material (ABSTRACT). Heller teaches that the photocatalytic material comprises hollow glass or hollow ceramic spherical beads 11 having photocatalytic particles 12/12’ thereupon, wherein the spherical beads have equivalent diameter in a range of 30 nm to 200 µm for optically guiding and trapping light with more economical use to accelerate oxidation of organic compounds (Figures 1-3, col. 2, line 23-35, col.3, line 46-65, col. 4, line 28-30, & col. 5, line 20). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize spherical beads having diameter in a range of 30 nm to 200 µm as suggested by Hiller in order to optically guide and trap light for more economical use to accelerate oxidation of organic compound within the device of Carmignani.
Regarding claim 2, Carmignani teaches that the photocatalytic material on the packing material are arranged randomly in the reactor bed (Figures 1, & 3-4).
Regarding claim 3, Heller teaches that the photocatalytic particles having diameter in a range of 30 to 200 nm are dispersed on the spheric bead (Figure 3, col. 5, line 15-20).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Carmignani teaches that the bead diameter and the void/dilution ratio affect the performance of destruction of organic compounds (Examples & paragraph [0091]), hence result-effective variables. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to try to adjust the void/dilution ratio in order to achieve desired treatment results within the device of Carmignani/Heller.
Regarding claim 6, Carmignani teaches that various different photocatalyst may be utilized together to enhance conversion rate (paragraphs [0048] & Examples).
Regarding claim 7, Carmignani teaches that the packing material may comprise alumina and/or silica/glass (paragraph [0045]). Heller teaches that the beads may comprise glass or ceramic or silicon dioxide or aluminum oxide (col. 3, line 32-45).
Regarding claim 8, Carmignani teaches that the photocatalyst may comprise TiO2 (paragraph [0048]). Heller teaches that the photocatalyst may comprise TiO2 (col. 5, line 18-20).
Regarding claim 9, Carmignani teaches that the photocatalyst may be chromium doped (paragraph [0050]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are rejected. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights