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
Claims 13-15, 17, 19-25, and 28-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5 February 2026.
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1, 3-10, and 12 in the reply filed on 5 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 6 and 9 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 6, line 2, recites "the planar heating element comprises…". It is unclear if claim 6 requires the heating is performed using the planar heating element. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the heating is performed using the planar heating element.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation "the aspect ratio" in line 4 and line 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rikimaru (JP 10328568).
Regarding Claim 1, Rikimaru discloses a method for regenerating a used manganese-based catalyst used in an ozone deodorizing process (regenerating a used catalyst meets the limitation of a catalytic activity recovery method; [0030]), wherein the ozone deodorizing catalyst contains manganese dioxide (manganese dioxide meets the limitation of manganese oxide; [0029]) by heating, in an air atmosphere, the used manganese-based catalyst [0030]. Rikimaru further discloses the used manganese-based catalyst has been used to decompose ozone [0010]. Rikimaru further discloses the activity of the catalyst is reduced from 99.9% on average to 78.5% on average (reduced activity from 99.9% to 78.5% meets the limitation of 10% or more of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency thereof; [0031]). Rikimaru further discloses a final regeneration temperature of 150 to 350°C, preferably 180 to 250°C (180 to 250°C meets the limitation of 80°C to 250°C; [0033]). Rikimaru further discloses an ozone decomposition rate calculated from the formula: (ozone concentration at reactor inlet - ozone concentration at reactor outlet) / (ozone concentration at reactor inlet) x 100 (%) [0032], wherein the ozone decomposition rate of the catalyst after regeneration was 99.5%-99.9% ([0034]; Table 2). The decomposition rate formula of Rikimaru is mathematically the same as the ozone decomposition efficiency of Equation 1: ozone decomposition efficiency (%) = [1-(concentration of ozone flowing out of the reactor)/(concentration of ozone flowing in the reactor)] × 100. Therefore, the ozone decomposition rate of 99.5%-99.9% taught by Rikimaru meets the limitation of recovering an ozone decomposition efficiency represented by Equation 1 of 90% or more of an initial ozone decomposition efficiency.
Regarding Claim 8, Rikimaru discloses the catalyst is a manganese-based honeycomb catalyst [0010]. Rikimaru further discloses the honeycomb catalyst is a 230 mm square and 12 mm thick [0031], such that the manganese oxide catalyst of Rikimaru meets the broad limitation of having a sheet shape.
Regarding Claim 12, Rikimaru further discloses the ozone deodorizing catalyst contains manganese dioxide as a main component and may comprise titanium oxide (metal oxide), silica (silicon oxide), alumina (metal oxide) [0029].
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikimaru (JP 10328568) in view of Terui (JP H0738936).
Regarding Claim 3, Rikimaru teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Rikimaru discloses heating for a period of time sufficient for the activity of the catalyst to be restored [0016]. Rikimaru further discloses heating for 10 minutes to 1 hour (10 minutes to 1 hour meets the limitation of 10 minutes to 10 hours) in a temperature range of 180 to 250°C (180 to 250°C meets the limitation of 80°C to 250°C) in a catalyst regeneration furnace [0024]. Rikimaru further discloses the activity of the catalyst is reduced from 99.9% on average to 78.5% on average [0031], wherein an ozone decomposition rate of the catalyst after regeneration was 99.5%-99.9% ([0034]; Table 2), such that Rikimaru meets the limitation of heating in a cycle set to a time period from a time point when the ozone decomposition efficiency represented by Equation 1 is reduced to less than 90% of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency to a time point when the ozone decomposition efficiency is recovered to 90% or more of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency. Rikimaru further discloses when the catalytic activity of such an ozone deodorizing catalyst is reduced due to long-term use, it is advantageous to regenerate and reuse the catalyst that has become so-called spent due to the reduction in catalytic activity, in order to reduce the cost of the catalyst and the operating cost of the deodorizing treatment and to improve the economic efficiency of the treatment of malodorous gases [0003].
Rikimaru is silent to periodical heating.
Terui discloses a method of catalytically decomposing ozone using a catalyst (pg. 1, par. 1). Terui further discloses the catalyst consists of Mn (pg. 2, par. 15) or manganese dioxide (pg. 3, par. 4). Terui further discloses the heating may be controlled intermittently as follows: using the catalyst for ozone decomposition at room temperature, regenerating the catalyst by heating, stopping heating, and using the catalyst at room temperature for ozone decomposition, wherein the operation can be repeated (controlled intermittent heating/repeating the operation meets the limitation of periodical heating; pg. 3, par. 11). Terui further discloses by repeating such operation, it is possible to maintain a highly efficient ozone decomposition treatment capacity for a long period of time while saving running costs (pg. 3, par. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Terui to implement periodical heating, because it is advantageous to regenerate and reuse the spent catalyst in order to reduce the cost of the catalyst, the operating cost of the deodorizing treatment, and to improve the economic efficiency of the treatment of malodorous gases, as recognized by Rikimaru [0003], and, by repeating such operation, it is possible to maintain a highly efficient ozone decomposition treatment capacity for a long period of time while saving running costs, as recognized by Terui (pg. 3, par. 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Rikimaru discloses heating for a period of time sufficient for the activity of the catalyst to be restored [0016]. Rikimaru further discloses heating for 10 minutes to 1 hour (10 minutes to 1 hour meets the limitation of 10 minutes to 10 hours) in a temperature range of 180 to 250°C (180 to 250°C meets the limitation of 80°C to 250°C) in a catalyst regeneration furnace [0024]. Rikimaru further discloses the activity of the catalyst is reduced from 99.9% on average to 78.5% on average [0031], wherein an ozone decomposition rate of the catalyst after regeneration was 99.5%-99.9% ([0034]; Table 2), such that Rikimaru meets the limitation of heating in a cycle set to a time period from a time point when the ozone decomposition efficiency represented by Equation 1 is reduced to less than 90% of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency to a time point when the ozone decomposition efficiency is recovered to 90% or more of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency. Rikimaru further discloses when the catalytic activity of such an ozone deodorizing catalyst is reduced due to long-term use, it is advantageous to regenerate and reuse the catalyst that has become so-called spent due to the reduction in catalytic activity, in order to reduce the cost of the catalyst and the operating cost of the deodorizing treatment and to improve the economic efficiency of the treatment of malodorous gases [0003].
Rikimaru is silent to periodical heating.
Terui discloses a method of catalytically decomposing ozone using a catalyst (pg. 1, par. 1). Terui further discloses the catalyst consists of Mn (pg. 2, par. 15) or manganese dioxide (pg. 3, par. 4). Terui further discloses the heating may be controlled intermittently as follows: using the catalyst for ozone decomposition at room temperature, regenerating the catalyst by heating, stopping heating, and using the catalyst at room temperature for ozone decomposition, wherein the operation can be repeated (controlled intermittent heating/repeating the operation meets the limitation of periodical heating; pg. 3, par. 11). Terui further discloses by repeating such operation, it is possible to maintain a highly efficient ozone decomposition treatment capacity for a long period of time while saving running costs (pg. 3, par. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Terui to implement periodical heating, because it is advantageous to regenerate and reuse the spent catalyst in order to reduce the cost of the catalyst, the operating cost of the deodorizing treatment, and to improve the economic efficiency of the treatment of malodorous gases, as recognized by Rikimaru [0003], and, by repeating such operation, it is possible to maintain a highly efficient ozone decomposition treatment capacity for a long period of time while saving running costs, as recognized by Terui (pg. 3, par. 12).
Rikimaru further discloses a heating rate of 50°C/h or less [0020], which is equivalent to 0.83°C/min or less. Rikimaru further discloses it is important to appropriately control the heating rate so that the catalyst can be regenerated without incurring combustion of the organic substances by separating and volatilizing the various organic substances that have adhered to and accumulated on the catalyst according to temperature [0020]. Rikimaru further discloses if the heating rate of the heated air supplied to the regeneration furnace is slower than 15°C/hour, it will take an unnecessarily long time to regenerate the catalyst, and if the heating rate is faster than 50°C/hour, the organic matter will burn on the catalyst [0023].
Regarding the heating rate in claim 4, it appears that 0.83°C/min taught by Rikimaru is close to the claimed range of 1°C/min to 10°C/min such that the range taught by Rikimaru obviates the claimed range, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikimaru (JP 10328568) in view of Terui (JP H0738936) and Oh (CN 106179173).
An alternative rejection of claim 4 is provided in case the heating rate of Rikimaru does not obviate the claimed heating rate.
Alternatively, regarding claim 4, Rikimaru and Terui teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 3.
Rikimaru discloses heating for a period of time sufficient for the activity of the catalyst to be restored [0016]. Rikimaru further discloses heating for 10 minutes to 1 hour (10 minutes to 1 hour meets the limitation of 10 minutes to 10 hours) in a temperature range of 180 to 250°C (180 to 250°C meets the limitation of 80°C to 250°C) in a catalyst regeneration furnace [0024]. Rikimaru further discloses the activity of the catalyst is reduced from 99.9% on average to 78.5% on average [0031], wherein an ozone decomposition rate of the catalyst after regeneration was 99.5%-99.9% ([0034]; Table 2), such that Rikimaru meets the limitation of heating in a cycle set to a time period from a time point when the ozone decomposition efficiency represented by Equation 1 is reduced to less than 90% of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency to a time point when the ozone decomposition efficiency is recovered to 90% or more of the initial ozone decomposition efficiency. Rikimaru further discloses when the catalytic activity of such an ozone deodorizing catalyst is reduced due to long-term use, it is advantageous to regenerate and reuse the catalyst that has become so-called spent due to the reduction in catalytic activity, in order to reduce the cost of the catalyst and the operating cost of the deodorizing treatment and to improve the economic efficiency of the treatment of malodorous gases [0003].
Rikimaru is silent to periodical heating.
Terui discloses a method of catalytically decomposing ozone using a catalyst (pg. 1, par. 1). Terui further discloses the catalyst consists of Mn (pg. 2, par. 15) or manganese dioxide (pg. 3, par. 4). Terui further discloses the heating may be controlled intermittently as follows: using the catalyst for ozone decomposition at room temperature, regenerating the catalyst by heating, stopping heating, and using the catalyst at room temperature for ozone decomposition, wherein the operation can be repeated (controlled intermittent heating/repeating the operation meets the limitation of periodical heating; pg. 3, par. 11). Terui further discloses by repeating such operation, it is possible to maintain a highly efficient ozone decomposition treatment capacity for a long period of time while saving running costs (pg. 3, par. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Terui to implement periodical heating, because it is advantageous to regenerate and reuse the spent catalyst in order to reduce the cost of the catalyst, the operating cost of the deodorizing treatment, and to improve the economic efficiency of the treatment of malodorous gases, as recognized by Rikimaru [0003], and, by repeating such operation, it is possible to maintain a highly efficient ozone decomposition treatment capacity for a long period of time while saving running costs, as recognized by Terui (pg. 3, par. 12).
Rikimaru further discloses a heating rate of 50°C/h or less [0020], which is equivalent to 0.83°C/min or less. Rikimaru further discloses it is important to appropriately control the heating rate so that the catalyst can be regenerated without incurring combustion of the organic substances by separating and volatilizing the various organic substances that have adhered to and accumulated on the catalyst according to temperature [0020]. Rikimaru further discloses if the heating rate of the heated air supplied to the regeneration furnace is slower than 15°C/hour, it will take an unnecessarily long time to regenerate the catalyst, and if the heating rate is faster than 50°C/hour, the organic matter will burn on the catalyst [0023].
Rikimaru is silent to a heating rate of 1 °C/min to 10 °C/min.
Oh discloses a manganese oxide-copper oxide mixture which has a strong ozone decomposition ability [0116]. Oh discloses substances (i.e. ozone) are adsorbed by the manganese-based mixture [0038], followed by increasing the temperature of the manganese mixture to desorb and oxidize the adsorbed substances adsorbed by the manganese mixture, wherein the heating is carried out at a heating rate of 1 to 15°C per minute [0042]. Oh further discloses the adsorbate in the mixture will be discharged during regeneration based on temperature increase [0090].
Regarding the heating rate in claim 4, it appears that 1 to 15°C per minute taught by Oh overlaps the claimed range of 1°C/min to 10°C/min such that the range taught by Oh obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Oh to heat at a heating rate of 1 °C/min to 10 °C/min, because it is important to appropriately control the heating rate so that the catalyst can be regenerated without incurring combustion of the organic substances, as recognized by Rikimaru [0020], and catalyst regeneration is based on heating rate, as recognized by Oh [0090], such that discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikimaru (JP 10328568) in view of Kuma (JPH0957111).
Regarding Claim 5, Rikimaru teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Rikimaru discloses heating using heated air [0011], which is heated by a heating device (burner) [0013].
Rikimaru is silent to heating using one of a planar heating element, an electric resistance heating device, a heating furnace, a heating oven, infrared-ray heating, or a microwave generator.
Kuma discloses a catalyst carrier or ozone decomposing element which can be regenerated and activated by heating when the catalyst or ozone decomposing agent becomes deactivated [0001]. Kuma further discloses the catalyst or ozone decomposition agent is fixed inside or on the surface of a sheet containing a heating element, and electrodes are connected to both ends of the heating element so that the temperature can be controlled by applying electrical heat (claim 1). Kuma further discloses the catalyst may include oxides of manganese (claim 2). Kuma further discloses a metal film (metal film meets the limitation of a metal material) is embedded in the sheet as a planar heating element (claims 5-6). Kuma further discloses that in the prior art it was necessary to heat a large amount of air to the optimum humidity for reaction and then pass it through the catalyst or ozone decomposition element; however, since the catalyst carrier or ozone decomposition element of the present invention is constructed as described above, it is possible to heat the sheet- or block-shaped supported catalyst or ozone decomposition element to the desired temperature quickly and uniformly over its entire area by passing an electric current through it, thereby enabling efficient use of thermal energy and resulting in significant savings in thermal energy [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Kuma to recovery the catalytic activity of a manganese oxide catalyst by heating using a planar heating element, because this heating method heats the catalyst to the desired temperature quickly and uniformly over its entire area by passing an electric current through it, thereby enabling efficient use of thermal energy and resulting in significant savings in thermal energy, as recognized by Kuma [0020].
Regarding Claim 6, Kuma discloses a metal film (metal film meets the limitation of a metal material) is embedded in the sheet as a planar heating element (claims 5-6).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikimaru (JP 10328568) in view of Lee (KR 101994361; KR Patent Pub of IDS Doc WO 2020036303).
Regarding Claim 7, Rikimaru teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Rikimaru is silent to the manganese oxide catalyst comprising a nano manganese oxide including at least one of α-MnO2, β-MnO2, γ-MnO2, δ-MnO2, or amorphous MnO2.
Lee discloses a catalyst structure for ozone decomposition comprising an α-MnO2 catalyst [0012]. Lee discloses the α-MnO2 catalyst may include α-MnO2 particles having a diameter of 50 nm to 5 μm [0020], such that Lee meets the limitation wherein the manganese oxide catalyst comprises a nano manganese oxide. Lee further discloses the ozone decomposition catalyst structure may further include a catalyst selected from β-MnO2, γ-MnO2, amorphous MnO2, activated carbon, or a combination thereof [0021]. Lee discloses depending on the crystal structure, manganese dioxide exists in α-type, β-type, γ-type, δ type, and λ-type, and among these, α-MnO2 catalyst has an abundant oxygen vacancies structure related to ozone decomposition, and thus has excellent ozone decomposition catalytic activity compared to manganese dioxide having a different crystal structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Lee wherein the manganese oxide catalyst comprising a nano manganese oxide including at least one of α-MnO2, β-MnO2, γ-MnO2, δ-MnO2, or amorphous MnO2, because using nano manganese oxide as a catalyst is a process parameter well-known in the art of ozone decomposition and regeneration as taught by Lee, and α-MnO2 catalyst has an abundant oxygen vacancies structure related to ozone decomposition, and thus has excellent ozone decomposition catalytic activity compared to manganese dioxide having a different crystal structure, as recognized by Lee [0052].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikimaru (JP 10328568) in view of Lee (KR 101994361) and Tian (CN 106006748).
Regarding Claim 9, Rikimaru teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Rikimaru is silent to the manganese oxide catalyst being at least one of α-MnO2 or β-MnO2.
Lee discloses a catalyst structure for ozone decomposition comprising an α-MnO2 catalyst [0012]. Lee further discloses depending on the crystal structure, manganese dioxide exists in α-type, β-type, γ-type, δ type, and λ-type, and among these, α-MnO2 catalyst has an abundant oxygen vacancies structure related to ozone decomposition, and thus has excellent ozone decomposition catalytic activity compared to manganese dioxide having a different crystal structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Lee wherein the manganese oxide catalyst is α-MnO2, because the α-MnO2 catalyst has an abundant oxygen vacancies structure related to ozone decomposition, and thus has excellent ozone decomposition catalytic activity compared to manganese dioxide having a different crystal structure, as recognized by Lee [0052].
Rikimaru is further silent to the α-MnO2 or β-MnO2 having a nanorod shape, a nanofiber shape, a nano sea-urchin shape, or a nanoflower shape, and having an aspect ratio of 1:5 to 1:1000.
Tian discloses a method of preparing nano-manganese dioxide with controllable morphology [0002]. Tian further discloses manganese dioxide can be widely used as catalysts [0004]. Tian further discloses obtaining manganese dioxide nanorods [0011], wherein different morphologies are formed by controlling the amount of dispersant added, thereby achieving controllable morphology and particle size of manganese dioxide [0025]. Tian further discloses adopting appropriate methods to control the crystal form and morphology of manganese dioxide and preparing nano-manganese dioxide materials with large tunnel structures and large specific surface areas is of great significance for their industrial production [0005].
Tian discloses an example of nano-manganese dioxide nanorods with an average length of 278 nm and a diameter of 40 nm [0048], which results in an aspect ratio of 1:7 (1:7 meets the limitation of 1:5 to 1:1000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Tian wherein the α-MnO2 or β-MnO2 has a nanorod shape, a nanofiber shape, a nano sea-urchin shape, or a nanoflower shape, and has an aspect ratio of 1:5 to 1:1000, because the crystal form, morphology, and size of manganese oxide catalysts can be easily controlled and the properties of the manganese dioxide are of great significance for their industrial production, as recognized by Tian [0005].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rikimaru (JP 10328568) in view of Lee (KR 101994361) and Shi (CN 105692701).
Regarding Claim 10, Rikimaru teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Rikimaru is silent to the manganese oxide catalyst being α-MnO2.
Lee discloses a catalyst structure for ozone decomposition comprising an α-MnO2 catalyst [0012]. Lee further discloses depending on the crystal structure, manganese dioxide exists in α-type, β-type, γ-type, δ type, and λ-type, and among these, α-MnO2 catalyst has an abundant oxygen vacancies structure related to ozone decomposition, and thus has excellent ozone decomposition catalytic activity compared to manganese dioxide having a different crystal structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Lee wherein the manganese oxide catalyst is α-MnO2, because the α-MnO2 catalyst has an abundant oxygen vacancies structure related to ozone decomposition, and thus has excellent ozone decomposition catalytic activity compared to manganese dioxide having a different crystal structure, as recognized by Lee [0052].
Rikimaru is further silent to the α-MnO2 having a nanorod or nano sea-urchin shape, and having an aspect ratio of 1:100.
Shi discloses MnO2 based catalyst nanorods, wherein the crystal is α-MnO2, and having a diameter of 1-10 nm and a length of 10-200 nm (Abstract), such that the aspect ratio of Shi is 1:1 to 1:200. Shi further discloses the method of forming the catalyst has simple preparation technique, low cost, good repeatability, easy industrial production (Abstract). Shi further discloses the shape and particle size of the catalyst affects catalytic activity (“The background technology”).
Regarding the aspect ratio in claim 10, it appears that 1:1 to 1:200 taught by Shi overlaps the claimed value of 1:100 such that the range taught by Shi obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rikimaru to incorporate the teachings of Shi wherein the α-MnO2 has a nanorod shape, and has an aspect ratio of 1:100, because forming the catalyst has simple preparation technique, low cost, good repeatability, easy industrial production (Abstract), and regarding the shape and size of the catalyst, discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735