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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). As claim 23 does not add any additional limitations or structure to the subject matter recited in claim 1, the claim is viewed to be so close as to cover the same thing as claim 1.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-16 and 22-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, the use of the word “including" in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the use of the word “including" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regard to claim 12, it is unclear if all or one of “the harmful microorganisms” is being recited. For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting wherein the harmful microorganisms comprise --at least one of-- the recited microorganisms.
Regarding claim 13, the use of the word “including" in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the use of the word “including" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In regard to claim 22, it is unclear if all or one of “the harmful microorganisms” is being recited. For the purpose of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting wherein the harmful microorganisms comprise --at least one of-- the recited microorganisms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-8, 11-16 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benedek et al. (US 2018/0264160; hereinafter “Benedek”) in view of Dey et al. (“The performance of highly active manganese oxide catalysts for ambient conditions carbon monoxide oxidation,” Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 3 (2020) 100012; hereinafter “Dey”).
In regard to claims 1-4, 13-16 and 23, Benedek discloses an air-cleaning device, system and method for reducing harmful gases including ethylene ([0020]) and harmful microorganisms ([0025]), the air-cleaning device comprising: an air inlet (proximal arrow 41 on left side of Figure 1) for intaking air from the outside; an ozone generating unit (in zone 44 for ozone generation) in which a corona discharge ozone generator (see [0068] and [0182]) is located; an ozone decomposition unit (in zone 48 for ozone removal) for removing ozone generated in the ozone generating unit, in which a support (“substrates”; [0037]) and an ozone decomposition catalyst structure including a manganese oxide (see [0035]) are located; and an air outlet (proximal arrow 41 on right side of Figure 1) for outflowing the internal air to the outside, wherein the manganese oxide is located on at least a portion of the inside and the surface of the support (in zone 48 on a substrate; [0192]). See Figure 1 and paragraphs [0178]. Thus, the device of Benedek functions by first reducing a harmful gas using the generated ozone and then by decomposing the generated ozone using a manganese oxide catalyst as recited in the method of claim 13.
Benedek is silent in regard to the crystalline structure and shape of the manganese oxide catalyst.
Dey discloses that nano manganese oxide catalysts are known to be used as oxidation catalysts for ambient condition reactions with gases such as carbon monoxide. Dey teaches that manganese dioxide has several crystalline structures, including α, β, γ and δ (see the right column of page 2; as recited in claims 2-4 and 14-16) and amorphous MnO2 (line 2 of the left column of page 10; recited in claim 4 and 16) which can be provided in a shape selected from a nanorod (Figure 5 on page 4; ; as recited in claims 2 and 14), nanofiber (“worm-like fibers”; right column of page 4; as recited in claims 2 and 14), nanoflower (Figure 5 on page 4; as recited in claims 3 and 15) or nanosheet (“nanobelt”; Figure 5 on page 4; as recited in claims 3 and 15). Dey teaches that the “size and morphologies of primary particles are often crucial factors in determining the catalytic performance of manganese oxides in structure-sensitive reactions and small particles sizes as well as the resultant more exposed surfaces are generally desirable in the catalytic oxidation reactions because sufficient activity sites can be accessed by the reactants” (right column of page 3). Dey discloses that manganese nanoparticles can be provided in the 20-40 nm size (within the diameter range of 1 to 500 nm as recited in claims 4 and 16) with a specific surface area in the 30-50 m2/g range, and manganese nanorods with particles ranging from 10 to 120 nm with a specific surface area in the 30-70 m2/g range. See the left column of page 5. Dey discloses that β-MnO2 nanorods can have an average length of 200-220 nm and a diameter of 17-23 nm, which would be an aspect ratio of approximately 1:10. Dey further discloses nanobelt (viewed to be equivalent to the nanosheet shape) particles with a thickness of ~15 nm and nanoparticles. See the right column of page 4 to the first partial paragraph on the left column of page 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one of the nano manganese oxide structures and shapes disclosed by Dey for the manganese oxide catalyst the device, system and method of Benedek for the purpose of providing manganese oxide with increased surface area as to increase the performance of the catalyst in decomposing the ozone gas. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). It is noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the aspect ratio of the nanorod or nanofiber shapes, the thickness of the nanoflower or nanosheet shapes, or the diameter of the nanoparticle. Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum or workable range to the above aspect ratio, thickness and diameter for a crystal morphology without creating any new or unexpected result in order to provide a desired specific surface area to provide a desired catalytic activity. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, F.). The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
In regard to claims 6 and 18, Benedek discloses wherein the manganese oxide catalyst further comprises a metal oxide (“corrugated metal oxide structure”) or activated carbon in combination as a catalytic decomposer. See [0192].
In regard to claims 7 and 19, Benedek discloses wherein the support is a ceramic material (“ceramic honeycomb monolith”), metal material (“metal honeycomb monolith”) in the form a monolith. See [0192].
In regard to claims 8 and 20, Benedek discloses that the catalyst can be configured as a metal honeycomb monolith, a ceramic honeycomb monolith, or a corrugated metal oxide structure and does not explicitly state that a binder is required. As Applicant does not disclose that any new or unexpected result is gained by the catalyst structure being binder-free, it is held that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to have formed the catalyst structure without a binder without creating any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claims 11-12 and 21-22, Benedek discloses wherein the harmful gas comprises ethylene ([0020]) and wherein the harmful microorganisms comprise fungi and viruses (see [0225]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774