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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 8, 9, 14 and cancellations of claims 10 and 11 have been acknowledged. Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to traverse to rejection by cancelling claim 10 and 11 and inserting their limitations into claim 8 (Remarks of 05/04/2026 at 6). The applicant further argues that Heller neither teaches or suggests (i) selecting a polymer substrate, (ii) heating the substrate to at or above its glass transition temperature, (iii) inducing a phase change of the substrate, or (iv) bonding the photocatalyst through substrate softening followed by cooling. Applicant’s argument is persuasive to the extent that Heller alone does not explicitly teach heating a polymer substrate at or above the glass-transition temperature of the polymer substrate and subsequently cooling the polymer substrate below the glass-transition temperature to bond the photocatalyst thereto. However, the rejection has been updated below to rely upon Park (KR 2010-0040337 A)(See translated doc attached) and Linkous (US 7,641,940) for these limitations. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection as presently formulated.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (US 5849200 A) in view of Park (KR 2010-0040337) (See translated doc attached) and further in view of Linkous (U.S. 7,641,940)
With respect to claim 8, the claim requires “A method for manufacturing a filter having a photocatalyst attached thereto” Heller teaches a process of a photocatalyst being dispersed in a binder contacting a photocatalytic surface wherein the surface can be a filter (Heller, claims 1, 9, and 15).
Claim 8 further requires “the method comprising: dispersing a solution containing a photocatalyst and a polymer binder;” Heller teaches a photocatalyst dispersed in a binder, wherein the binder comprises silicone (polymer) (Heller, claims 1 and 9). Heller does not explicitly teach heating a polymer substrate at or above the glass-transition temperature of the polymer substrate in order to soften the polymer substrate and attach the photocatalyst thereto. Park teaches a synthetic-resin substrate having a glass-transition temperature (Park, abstract). Park further teaches that heating changes the synthetic resin from a hard solid into a soft, rubber-like condition that provides suitable conditions for attaching photocatalyst particles to the polymer substrate (Park 4, [0028]). Park further teaches that the photocatalyst particles may become partially embedded in and attached to the softened synthetic resin (Park 4, [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to heat the plastic or polymer substrate coated with the photocatalyst-binder composition of Heller at or above the glass-transition temperature of the polymer substrate, as taught by Park because softening the polymer surface would facilitate use of photocatalyst-containing material, therefore improving attachment of the photocatalyst to the polymer substrate (Park, [0020]).
Linkous teaches applying photocatalyst to a thermoplastic sheet, heating the thermoplastic surface above its softening temperature, embedding the photocatalyst into the softened thermoplastic until bonding occurs, removing the photocatalyst-bonded sheet from the heated press, and cooling the bonded sheet. The reference therefore teaches cooling a heat-softened polymer substrate after photocatalyst attachment so that the thermoplastic substrate hardens and retains the photocatalyst at its surface (Linkous, abstract) (Linkous 3, line 23-25).
It would have been obvious to cool the heat-softened polymer substrate resulting from the combination of Heller and Park, as taught by Linkous, because cooling a softened thermoplastic substrate causes the substrate to return to a hardened condition and thereby mechanically retain the photocatalyst at the substrate surface. Such cooling would have produced the predictable result of a durable photocatalyst-bearing polymer substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Heller teaches photocatalysts can be adhered to the substrate by heat sintering or calcifying (Heller 2, line 22-24).
Regarding claim 12, Heller teaches binder comprising alumina and silica or mixtures thereof which are consider naturally hydrophilic materials (Heller, claim 8)
Regarding claim 13, Heller teaches a photocatalyst, a binder, and a solvent together by dispersing the photocatalyst through the use of a mixer with a high shear impellor operated (Heller 10, line 26).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heller (US 5849200 A), in view of Park (KR 2010-0040337 A) (See translated doc attached) and Linkous (U.S. 7,641,940) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Odhiambo (“Synthesis of TiO2/WO3 Composite Nanofibers by a Water-Based Electrospinning Process and Their Application in Photocatalysis,” 2020).
Regarding claim 14, the claim requires “method for manufacturing a filter having a photocatalyst attached thereto,” Heller teaches a process of a photocatalyst being dispersed in a binder contacting a photocatalytic surface wherein the surface can be a filter (Heller, claims 1, 9, and 15)
Claim 14 further “the method comprising: dispersing a solution containing a photocatalyst and a polymer binder; dropping the solution onto a substrate;” Heller teaches a photocatalyst dispersed in a binder, wherein the binder comprises silicone (polymer) (Heller, claims 1 and 9).
Claim 14 further “cooling the substrate Heller teaches a photocatalyst comprising titanium dioxide that is photoactive in both its anatase and rutile phases, teaching wavelengths shorter than about 410 nm (rutile) or about 390 nm (anatase) (Heller 8, line 26-Heller 9, line 2).
Claim 14 further requires “tungsten trioxide, and wherein a mixing ratio of the titanium dioxide in which the rutile phase is selectively reduced to the tungsten trioxide is more than 1:2 and less than 1:4” Heller does not explicitly teach mixing ratio of the titanium dioxide in which the rutile phase is selectively reduced to the tungsten trioxide is more than 1:2 and less than 1:4. Changes in size/amount are not inventive because limitations relating to the size of the invention are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Odhiambo teaches 10% Ti precursor corresponding to increasing amount of WO3 - powder (Odhiambo, 2.2. Preparation and Characterization of TiO2/WO3 Fibers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, Odhiambo as teaches pairing TiO2 with WO3 can increase the absorption edge of the fibers, hence making the fibers absorb light at a higher wavelength of the spectrum, thereby improving the photocatalytic property of TiO2 (Odhiambo, 4.Conclusions).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights