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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/17/25 is acknowledged.
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 1-8 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.
With regards to claims 1-8, the phrase “long-lasting phosphor” is generally a well understood term in the art referring to persistent luminescent materials capable of emitting light for an extended duration. However, the precise boundary of what may be considered a long-lasting phosphor is not formally defined. The Examiner understands from the specification in paragraph [0050] that these materials include CaAl2O4:(Eu,Nd), SrAl2O4:(Eu,Dy), Sr4Al.sub.14O25:(Eu,Dy), BaAl2O4:(Eu,Dy), and [Ca,Sr,Ba]—Al—O compounds.
Claim 3 is indefinite because of the term “based” in CaAl2O4:(Eu,Nd)-based, SrAl2O4:(Eu,Dy)-based, Sr4Al.sub.14O25:(Eu,Dy)-based, BaAl2O4:(Eu,Dy)-based, and [Ca,Sr,Ba]-Al—O-based compounds. It is unclear what variations of ‘based’ may be included for example, whether the compounds (include CaAl2O4:(Eu,Nd), SrAl2O4:(Eu,Dy), Sr4Al.sub.14O25:(Eu,Dy), BaAl2O4:(Eu,Dy), and [Ca,Sr,Ba]—Al—O) is the compound, whether it is a main component of a broader mixture, or if ‘based’ means a similar stochiometric compound or structure.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “glaze” is vague and unclear. However, it will be interpreted as any type of binder comprising silica.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mavengere et al. “Photocatalytic Properties of g-C3N4-Supported on the SrAl2O4:Eu,Dy/SiO2” Coatings 2020,10,917 in view of Xiong et al. “Porous g-C-3N4/TiO2 foam photocatalytic Filter for treaing NO Indoor Gas” Enviorn. Sci.: Nano, 2021, 8, 1571.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Mavengere teaches a filter composite used for air pollution (page 1, line 2 in the Introduction) comprising:
A first coating comprising a long-lasting phosphor (SrAl2O4:Eu,Dy, page 2 first paragraph, line 3);
A second coating comprising a silica binder disposed on the first coating (page 2: 2nd paragraph line 5 and 3rd paragraph, lines 1-2);
A third coating comprising a photocatalyst (g-C3N4)(page 2, first paragraph lines 8-11).
Mavengere does not explicitly disclose that the three compounds are on a porous support. Instead, Mavengere teaches that the support is the SrAl2O4:Eu,Dy rather than a separate porous support. However, Xiong teaches a similar composite of a photocatalyst on (g-C3N4) on a metal foam filter that has been shown to greatly improve removing NOx components. Xioang teaches that the foam structure provides a high surface area to provide more active sites for driving photocatalytic reactions, gas permeability, and structural support for immobilizing photocatalytic coatings which enhances air purification efficiency (page 2, 1st column lines 1-10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the g-C3N4 and SrAl2O4:Eu,Dy-SiO2 material of Mavengere onto the porous substrate of Xiong to obtain a photocatalytic air purification filter capable of sustained visible light activity even under fluctuating conditions while providing efficient filtration. Both Mavengere and Xiong address photocatalytic degradation of pollutants using a g-C3N4 material, thus the combination of the two inventions would be compatible as well as obvious. The modification would have represented a predictable supported composite with Mavengere’s phosphor/photocatalyst using for extended light excitation and Xiong’s foam support that provides a greater surface area for better purification.
Regarding claim 3, Mavengere teaches the phosphor comprises SrAl2O4:Eu,Dy, page 2 first paragraph, line 3).
Regarding claim 4, Mavengere teaches SiO2 as a binder that is further incorporated into the phosphor layer (page 2, 3rd paragraph lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Mavengere teaches the binder comprises SiO2 (page 2, 3rd paragraph lines 1-2) which may be considered a glaze.
Regarding claim 6, Mavengere teaches the photocatalyst comprises g-C3N4(page 2, first paragraph lines 8-11). Xiong further teaches the photocatalyst comprises g-C3N4 and TiO2 (abstract).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mavengere in view of Xiong and in further view of Hu “TiO2/SiO2 Composite Films Immobilized on Foam Nickel Substrate for the Photocatalytic Degradation of Gaseous Acetaldehyde” International Journal of Photoenergy, ID: 679421, 2008.
Regarding claim 2, Mavengere and Xiong in combination do not explicitly teach the support is a metal foam (Xiong teaches titanium dioxide foam).
However, Hu discloses a foam nickel substrate with a photocatalyst film immobilized onto it used in a similar application of air purification (abstract). The metal foam has been found to provide mechanical strength and durability (page 2, 2nd column).
Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a metal foam for the filter composite because metal foam has shown to be a common substrate for photocatalysts and provides the benefit of mechanical strength and durability.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mavengere in view of Xiong and in further view of Zhu et al. “First-principle calculation study of tri-s-triazine-based g-C3N4: A review.” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, 224, 2018 pp983-999.
Regarding claim 7, Mavengere and Xiong teach the combination above. Xiong further teaches the photocatalyst comprises g-C3N4 and TiO2 (abstract). The aforementioned do not teach the g-C3N4 - TiO2 composite is doped with Fe, Cu, Co, Ni, or N.
However, Zhu teaches a g-C3N4 - TiO2 doping with non-metal and metals including Ni, Fe, Co, and Cu and found that it strongly enhanced photocatalytic activity for nitrogen adsorption (Section 3.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include doping of the g-C3N4 - TiO2 composite because the modification has been found to strongly enhanced photocatalytic activity for nitrogen adsorption, and thus expected to be more effective in filtering nitrogen-containing impurities in air.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772