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
With respect to the rejection of Claims 34-38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as being indefinite, Claims 34-35 have been canceled. As understood by the Examiner the traversal of Claims 36-38 rely on amendments. Claim 36 has been amended to recite “activated carbon is derived from a precursor selected from” rather than “activated carbon is selected from” as previously presented. Additionally, the phrase “other suitable carbonaceous material” has been removed. This clarifies the indefiniteness issue raised with Claim 36. The rejection for Claim 36 is hereby WITHDRAWN.
However, Claims 37 and 38 still require “the activated carbon comprises carbonaceous granular bituminous coal [37]/ coconut shell [38]”. It remains unclear if the scope of these claims is intended to cover a composite material of activated carbon and coal/coconut or activated carbon derived from coal/coconut or both. It remains unclear how activated carbon could comprise the raw material which has not been activated. The rejections of Claims 37-38 are MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 20-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pepin et al., as understood the traversal relies on amendments. Applicant has amended Claim 20 to include limitations requiring the first metal oxide to be copper oxide and the second metal oxide to be zinc oxide. Applicant argues “the Office Action presents a prima facie case of clear error with rejections that are clearly erroneous-e.g., rejections plainly contrary to both the law and the facts, unsupported by evidence; and in fact, contrary to the evidence, including the teachings of the present specification and the disclosure in Pepin” [Remarks, Page 12].
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged that “The Examiner is respectfully directed to the case law, namely, that there must be some prior art teaching which would have provided the necessary incentive or motivation for modifying the reference teachings. In re Laskowski, 12 USPQ 2d 1397, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Obukowitz, 27 USPQ 2d 1063 (BOPAI 1993). Although a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine is no longer rigidly required for a finding of obviousness, it remains the primary guarantor against a non-statutory hindsight analysis. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” [Remarks, Page 12, emphasis added]. The Examiner believes no comment is necessary as the case law cited clearly indicates that a prior art motivation for modifying a reference is not rigidly required. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Applicant further argues “Applying the law to the instant facts, the reference relied upon by the Office Action does not disclose, suggest or enable Applicants' invention individually or in any combination.” [Remarks, Page 12]. This is unpersuasive. Although paragraph 0076 was not originally relied upon to teach the previous limitations of Claim 20, it explicitly discloses the claimed invention as required by amended Claim 20 (see the rejection thereof, below). Note that prior art is applicable for all that it contains, including sections not explicitly pointed out by the Examiner, see MPEP 2123 I. Notwithstanding applicant’s arguments, these rejections have been adjusted as necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant further argues “Further, the worked examples of Pepin are limited to only singular metal oxides in each and every layer deposited, i.e., titanium oxide or palladium, individually, in each worked example. Each layer or cycle of atomic layer deposition in Pepin is the same.” [Remarks, Page 15]. Applicant is reminded that prior art is good for all that it contains, including prophetic examples, and is not limited solely to the working examples, see MPEP 2123.II.
Applicant further argues “Moreover, the structure implied by the process steps of a product-by-process limitation should be considered especially (i) where the product can only be defined by the process steps, or (ii) where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See M.P.E.P. § 2113, para. I (citing In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)).” [Remarks, Page 13] However, this argument is moot as all product-by-process limitations have been removed from currently amended Claim 20.
Applicant further argues “Applying the law to the instant facts, the reference relied upon by the Office Action does not disclose, suggest or enable Applicants' invention individually or in any combination … Pepin lacks specific enabling details and fails to disclose depositing a second different metal species on a substrate that is an activated carbon the surface of which includes the previously deposited first metal species as required in the amended claims of this application” [Remarks, Page 13-15]. This is unpersuasive. Applicant is reminded that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421. Therefore, there is no basis to assert that Pepin et al. does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a multistep ALD process based on the explicit disclosure of multiple metals and a single step ALD process. One of ordinary skill in the art could easily fill in the gaps to realize that to form a second layer they need only to perform the step of adding a layer to a structure that already has had a layer deposited thereon. Moreover MPEP 2121 I. states “When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability.”. In other words the disclosed subject matter of Pepin et al. that corresponds to combinations of copper and zinc oxides deposited on activated carbon is presumed to be operable. It is unclear what the Applicant means when they state “Pepin lacks specific enabling details”; what details are lacking? A good showing that the process of applying a layer via ALD as disclosed by Pepin et al. would have covered activated carbon but failed to cover copper oxide would be persuasive, however a bare assertion of inoperability is regarded as a mere unpersuasive opinion of counsel. MPEP 2145 I.
Applicant further argues “The MacKay and Hern Declaration state that the structural stack of the metal oxide layers, which is the result of the order of deposition or the arrangement of the metal oxide layers in an end product, is surprisingly advantageous to performance of the end product. See para. 3(j) - 3(q). The reverse order of the structural stack of metal oxide layers was also tested for comparison and it was discovered that one order was more effective (i.e., better performance) than the other. This was a surprising and unexpected result that is not disclosed, taught or suggested by any prior art. Additionally, this result further supports the non-obviousness and novelty of the inventive concept embodied in the claims, as amended.” [Remarks, Page 15]. This is persuasive and the rejections have been WITHDRAWN. Notwithstanding the foregoing, new rejections appear below, necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 requires “… each of the copper oxide layer and the zinc oxide layer is in a range of 0.5% to 15% by weight”. Claim 20 does not explicitly disclose what components add up to 100 wt.% and therefore it is understood that the entire filter media adds up to 100 wt.%. furthermore because the phrase “copper oxide layer/zinc oxide layer” is used it is understood that the 0.5-15 wt.% is calculated based on CuO, Cu2O, and/or ZnO rather than Cu or Zn alone. Claims 43, 45, and 47 similarly recite a wt.% and are interpreted the same.
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 37-38 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as 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 44 requires “first metal oxide layer is selected from a first group consisting of copper, zinc, or molybdenum” and “the second metal oxide layer is selected from a second group consisting of copper, zinc, and molybdenum”. As written Claim 44 requires picking a metal oxide from a group that contains no metal oxides (only metals) and therefore is unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action Claim 44 is interpreted as requiring first metal oxide layer is selected from a first group consisting of copper oxide, zinc oxide, or molybdenum oxide and the second metal oxide layer is selected from a second group consisting of copper oxide, zinc oxide, and molybdenum oxide in order to be consistent with what is disclosed as examples of the invention within the specification ([0071]-[0073]), however appropriate correction is still required.
Claims 37 and 38 require “the activated carbon comprises carbonaceous granular bituminous coal [37]/ coconut shell [38]. It is unclear if the scope of these claims is intended to cover a composite material of activated carbon and coal/coconut or activated carbon derived from coal/coconut or both. It is unclear how activated carbon could comprise the raw material which has not been activated and therefore for the purpose of this Office Action Claims 37-38 are interpreted as requiring the activated carbon is derived from bituminous coal [37]/ coconut shell [38] in order to be consistent with Claim 36, however appropriate correction is still required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/4th par. as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 38 reads “the filter media of claim wherein …” In other words, Claim 38 fails to reference an independent claim. For the purpose of this Office Action Claim 38 is interpreted as depending upon Claim 20, because that was the independent claim that Claim 38 originally was presented under.
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 43 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210381103 A1 Pepin et al. Claim 43 requires “A filter media for removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants comprising:”. The phrase “for removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants” is considered intended use. MPEP 2111.02.II states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Here, the limitations of the claimed invention are fully set forth in the body of the claim and the intended use of removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants does not suggest structural limitations.
Claim 43 further requires “a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises an activated carbon;”. Pepin et al. discloses “Presently described are porous structures and methods of making the same. Surprisingly and unexpectedly, it was discovered that porous materials, for example, as activated adsorbent materials, such as activated carbon, can serve as substrates for ALD [atomic layer deposition]” [0007].
Claim 43 further requires “at least two metal oxide layers, wherein the at least two metal oxide layers include: a first metal oxide layer on the substrate to form a first metal activated carbon; and a second metal oxide layer on the first metal activated carbon to form a first metal-second metal activated carbon, wherein the first metal oxide layer and the second metal oxide layer form a bilayer coating on the activated carbon”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure includes a metal species deposited on the substrate including the activated adsorbent material. The metal species can include metals … ; metal oxides, such as titanium oxide, copper oxide, cerium oxide, phosphorous oxide, hafnium oxide, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide, tantalum oxide, tungsten oxide, and vanadium oxide; … , or any combination thereof” [0076].
Claim 43 requires “wherein each of the first metal oxide layer and the second metal oxide layer is in a range of 0.01% to 25% by weight”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure can include from about 0.1 to about 50 wt %, or about 0.5 to about 50 wt % of the metal of the metal species, based on the total weight of the structure” [0078].
Claim 43 further requires “wherein the first metal-second metal activated carbon is configured for gas phase and vapor phase protection against air contaminants”. The phrase “configured for gas phase and vapor phase protection against contaminants” is given identical treatment regarding intended use as the phrase “for removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants” as above.
Claim 45 requires “the at least two metal oxide layers comprises a third metal oxide layer on the first metal-second metal activated carbon to form a trilayer coating on the activated carbon wherein the third metal oxide layer is in a range of 0.01 % to 25% by weight.”. Pepin et al. does not limit their combinations to binary combinations, on the contrary they disclose “any combination thereof” which is understood to include trinary combinations.
Claim 46 requires “the third metal oxide layer is selected from a group consisting of a Group 4 metal selected from a group consisting of titanium, zirconium, hafnium, rutherfordium, or any combination thereof, a Group 6 metal selected from a group consisting of chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, seaborgium, or any combination thereof, a Group 11 metal selected from a group consisting of silver, gold, roentgenium, or any combination thereof, a Group 12 metal is selected from a group consisting of cadmium, mercury, copernicium or any combination thereof, or any combination thereof.”. There is significant overlap between the third metal oxide as required by Claim 46 and the metal oxides disclosed as effective by Pepin et al. (see Claim 43), namely Ti, Zr, Hf, and W. The inclusion of any one of them would be obvious given that they are all disclosed as effective. Additionally, Pepin et al. discloses an example composition that includes Ti (“The activated carbon powder modified with titanium oxide has superior catalytic activity as compared with AEROXIDE® P25 TiO2 ( commercially available from Evonik , Hanau - Wolfgang , Germany” [0090]) making its inclusion particularly obvious.
Claims 20-21, 25, 28, 30-32, 36-42, 44, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210381103 A1 Pepin et al., in view of “ZnO-CuO supported on activated carbon for H2S removal at room temperature” Balsamo et al.
Claim 20 requires “A filter media for removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants comprising:”. The phrase “for removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants” is considered intended use. MPEP 2111.02.II states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”. In this case the limitations of the claimed invention are fully set forth in the body of the claim and the intended use of removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants does not suggest structural limitations.
Claim 20 further requires “a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises an activated carbon;”. Pepin et al. discloses “Presently described are porous structures and methods of making the same. Surprisingly and unexpectedly, it was discovered that porous materials, for example, as activated adsorbent materials, such as activated carbon, can serve as substrates for ALD [atomic layer deposition]” [0007].
Claim 20 further requires “and at least two metal oxide layers, wherein the at least two metal oxide layers include a copper oxide layer on the substrate to form a copper activated carbon; and a zinc oxide layer on the copper activated carbon to form a copper-zinc activated carbon, wherein the copper oxide layer and the zinc oxide layer form a bilayer coating on the activated carbon”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure includes a metal species deposited on the substrate including the activated adsorbent material. The metal species can include … metal oxides, such as …, copper oxide, …, zinc oxide, …, or any combination thereof” [0076]. Since Pepin et al. is directed to a synthesis by atomic layer deposition it is understood that any combination thereof can refer to either a layer of copper oxide on zinc oxide on activated carbon (which is outside of the scope of the claims) or a layer of zinc oxide on copper oxide on activated carbon (which is with the scope of Claim 20).
Claim 20 further requires “wherein each of the copper oxide layer and the zinc oxide layer is in a range of 0.5% to 15% by weight”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure can include from about 0.1 to about 50 wt %, or about 0.5 to about 50 wt % of the metal of the metal species, based on the total weight of the structure” [0078]. It is understood that the claims require 0.5-15 wt.% of each copper oxide and zinc oxide whereas Pepin et al. discloses 0.5-50 wt.% of the metal (copper or zinc). The following converts the range disclosed by Pepin et al. into a wt.% based on the oxide rather than the metal. 0.5 * (63.546/(63.546+15.999)) = 0.4, 50 * (63.546/(63.546+15.999)) = 40, 0.5 * (65.38/(65.38+15.999)) = 0.4, 50 * (65.38/(65.38+15.999)) = 40. Therefore, it is understood that Pepin et al. discloses a wt.% of 0.4-40% metal oxide based on the total weight of the adsorbent material. This could be in any ratio of Zn:Cu, for example as 0.2-20 wt.% of each.
Claim 20 further requires “and wherein the copper-zinc activated carbon is configured for gas phase and vapor phase protection against contaminants.”. The phrase “configured for gas phase and vapor phase protection against contaminants” is given identical treatment regarding intended use as the phrase “for removing gas phase and vapor phase contaminants” as above.
Although Pepin et al. explicitly discloses a combination of copper oxide and zinc oxide on activated carbon they do so as part of a long list of possible embodiments, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art may not find a motivation to have selected that particular embodiment within the disclosure of Pepin et al. alone. To remedy this lack of motivation Balsamo et al. is relied upon. Balsamo et al. is similarly directed to adsorbent materials, specifically mixture of CuO and ZnO on activated carbon (see title). From Figure 5 [Page 403] it can been seen that a 50-50 mixture of CuO and ZnO has the best performance (highest breakthrough time) for adsorbing H2S, a well-known pollutant. Furthermore Balsamo et al. discloses a 10 wt.% total loading (“ICP-MS analysis of metals in the functionalized sorbents revealed a content of Cu + Zn in the range 10.0 ±0.5% wt, with a mean value equal to 10.2% wt, in good agreement with the target loading.” [Page 401, Section 3.1]) which further motivates selecting the narrower range of Cu and Zn presented in Claim 20 (0.5-15 wt.%) compared to the broader range of Cu and Zn loading disclosed by Pepin et al. (0.4-40 wt.%, see above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Balsamo et al. with the method of Pepin et al. because they are within the same field of solid sorbents for harmful gasses.
Claim 21 requires “each of the copper oxide layer and the zinc oxide layer is an atomic-layer-deposited layer”. Pepin et al. discloses “In an additional aspect, the description provides a method for preparing a structure according to the steps comprising: … (b) administering or performing at least one atomic layer deposition cycle to deposit a metal species, e.g., a metal oxide” [0009].
Claim 25 requires “the at least two metal oxide layers comprises a third metal oxide layer on the copper-zinc activated carbon of a Group 11 metal selected from a group consisting of copper, silver, gold, roentgenium, or any combination thereof to form a trilayer coating on the activated carbon.”. The suggestion motivated by the combination of Pepin et al. and Balsamo et al. does not particularly limit the order or number of copper oxide and zinc oxide layers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a third layer comprising copper oxide.
Claim 28 requires “the at least two metal oxide layers comprises a third metal oxide layer on the copper-zinc activated carbon of a Group 12 metal is selected from a group consisting of zinc, cadmium, mercury, copernicium or any combination thereof to form a trilayer coating on the activated carbon.”. The suggestion motivated by the combination of Pepin et al. and Balsamo et al. does not particularly limit the order or number of copper oxide and zinc oxide layers. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a third layer comprising zinc oxide. Additionally Pepin et al. discloses layers that are multiple atoms thick (see Claim 31, below), this is interpreted as being equivalent to multiple single atom thick layers. In other words a filter treatment agent that is activated carbon followed by 2 layers of copper oxide followed by 2 layers of zinc oxide may be interpreted as either a bilayer of copper oxide and zinc oxide or a trilayer of copper oxide, zinc oxide, and zinc oxide.
Claim 30 requires “each of the two metal oxide layers has a thickness defined as at least a single atomic layer”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure can include a single layer or multiple layers” [0077].
Claim 31 requires “the copper oxide layer has a first thickness of multiple atomic layers on the activated carbon and the zinc oxide has a second thickness of multiple atomic layers on the copper activated carbon”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure can include a single layer or multiple layers” [0077].
Claim 32 requires “the copper oxide layer is on a first surface area of the activated carbon in a range from a first discrete area of coverage of the activated carbon having a uniform and controlled thickness to a first complete area of coverage of the activated carbon having a controlled thickness and the zinc oxide is on a second surface area of the copper activated carbon in a range from a second discrete area of coverage of the copper activated carbon having a uniform and controlled thickness to a second complete area of coverage of the copper activated carbon having a controlled thickness”. Pepin et al. discloses “Typically, it is desirable to have sufficient adsorption site density on the surface of the substrate to provide uniform monolayer coverage of the substrate” [0056]. It is understood that a uniform monolayer coverage is a complete area of coverage with the thickness controlled to 1 atom thick.
Claim 36 requires “the activated carbon is derived from a precursor selected from the group consisting of wood, wood dust, saw dust, wood flour, peat, carbohydrates, coconut, coal, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, anthracite, pitch, coke, coal tar pitch, fruit stones, nut shells, nut pits, polymers, synthetic polymers, natural polymers, lignite, cotton, linters, palm, rice hull, straw or other lignocellulosic material”. Pepin et al. discloses Example 2 with activated carbon from coconut “A thermally activated, coconut-based carbon” [0104].
Claim 37 requires “the activated carbon comprises carbonaceous granular bituminous coal.”. Pepin et al. discloses “The activated adsorbent material can be derived from an activated adsorbent material precursor. By way of non-limiting example, the activated adsorbent material precursors may be …, coal, …, coal tar pitch, …” [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used bituminous coal as the activated carbon precursor for at least the reason that Pepin et al. discloses it as effective.
Claim 38 requires “the activated carbon comprises carbonaceous coconut shell”. Pepin et al. discloses using coconut (see claim 36). Although they do not specify what part of the coconut is used, using the shell as the carbon source would have been obvious at least for the reason that the shell represents non-edible biomass, in other words it is a waste product of coconut agriculture.
Claim 39 requires “An air purification filter assembly comprising a frame and a filter media of Claim 20 disposed within the frame.”. Pepin et al. discloses “The structure is not limited to any application. Non-limiting examples of applications for the structures disclosed herein include catalytic, filtration, …” [0079]. In the embodiment of the application of the composite of Pepin et al. wherein it is used as a filter including a frame would have been obvious for at least the reason that frames are known in the filtration art and the results are predictable.
Claim 40 requires “The air purification filter assembly of claim 39 wherein the frame is a component of a respirator cartridge”. It would have been obvious to use the filter of Pepin et al. as a respiratory filter because Pepin et al. does not particularly restrict the filter application and respiratory filters are a known application of filters. Furthermore, the specific embodiment including copper and zinc oxides motivated by Balsamo et al. (see Claim 20) is operable at body/room temperature for H2S (Page 403, Figure 5, “T=30 °C”), which is a known human health hazard. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the CuO/ZnO embodiment would be useful as a respirator for at least protection against H2S gas.
Claim 41 requires “the frame is a component of a central whole building indoor air purifier.”. It would have been obvious to use the filter of Pepin et al. as a central whole building indoor air purifier because Pepin et al. does not particularly restrict the filter application and central whole building indoor air purifiers are a known application of filters. The results would be predictable.
Claim 42 requires “the frame is a component of a portable air purifier.”. It would have been obvious to use the filter of Pepin et al. as a portable air purifier because Pepin et al. does not particularly restrict the filter application and portable air purifiers are a known application of filters. The results would be predictable.
Regarding Claim 44, Pepin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 43. Claim 44 further requires “the first metal oxide layer is selected from a first group consisting of copper, zinc, or molybdenum and the second metal oxide layer is selected from a second group consisting of copper, zinc, and molybdenum but different than the first metal oxide layer”. 112(b) issues notwithstanding, as discussed in Claim 20 (above) Balsamo et al. motivates a combination of CuO and ZnO, with either copper oxide as the first layer and zinc oxide as the second layer or vice versa.
Regarding Claim 47, Pepin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 43. Claim 47 further requires “each of the first metal oxide layer and the second metal oxide layer is in a range of 0.5% to 15% by weight.”. Pepin et al. discloses 0.4-40 wt.% for the total metal oxide loading (see Claim 20).
Regarding Claim 48, Pepin et al. teaches all of the limitations of Claim 43. Claim 48 further requires “each of the first metal oxide layer and the second metal oxide layer are sequential atomic-layer-deposited layers”. Pepin et al. discloses atomic layer deposition layers “In an additional aspect, the description provides a method for preparing a structure according to the steps comprising: … (b) administering or performing at least one atomic layer deposition cycle to deposit a metal species, e.g., a metal oxide” [0009]. Although Pepin et al. does not explicitly disclose sequential ALD this is the most obvious way one of ordinary skill in the art could have realized the embodiment of Pepin et al. that requires a combination of metal oxides.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210381103 A1 Pepin et al., in view of “ZnO-CuO supported on activated carbon for H2S removal at room temperature” Balsamo et al., in further view of “Zirconia: Selective oxidation catalyst for removal of tar and ammonia from biomass gasification gas” Juutilainen et al.
Regarding Claim 22 all of the limitations of Claim 20 are taught by the combination of Pepin et al. and Balsamo et al. Claim 22 further requires “the at least two metal oxide layers comprises a third metal oxide layer on the copper-zinc activated carbon of a Group 4 metal selected from a group consisting of titanium, zirconium, hafnium, rutherfordium, or any combination thereof to form a trilayer coating on the activated carbon.”. Pepin et al. discloses that titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, and hafnium oxide are suitable (see Claim 43 above) but does not specifically motivate their inclusion.
Juutilainen et al. discloses using zirconium oxide to remove ammonia “We tested a new and promising catalytic material, zirconia, for removal of tar and ammonia” [Page 87, Section 1] and noted that the presence of H2S did not significantly interfere with ammonia conversion “Fig. 6 shows the toluene conversions on the two catalysts with and without H2S in the feed. Whereas H2S deactivated the nickel catalyst drastically, it had little effect on the zirconia catalyst. The same trends can be seen in the ammonia conversions in Fig. 7.” [Page 90, § 3.1].
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the CuO/ZnO catalyst suggested by Balsamo et al., which is intended to remove H2S, with an additional ZrO2 layer which is intended to remove an additional pollutant (ammonia) and is compatible with H2S. The motivation to have included a third layer intended to adsorb ammonia would have been that the filter is capable of removing multiple harmful gasses simultaneously and therefore offers the user more general protection.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210381103 A1 Pepin et al., in view of “ZnO-CuO supported on activated carbon for H2S removal at room temperature” Balsamo et al., in further view of “Role of surface heterogeneity in the removal of ammonia from air on micro/mesoporous activated carbons modified with molybdenum and tungsten oxides” Petit et al.
Regarding Claim 23 all of the limitations of Claim 20 are taught by the combination of Pepin et al. and Balsamo et al. Claim 23 further requires “the at least two metal oxide layers comprises a third metal oxide layer on the copper-zinc activated carbon of a Group 6 metal selected from a group consisting of chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, seaborgium, or any combination thereof to form a trilayer coating on the activated carbon”. Pepin et al. does not disclose chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, or seaborgium oxides.
Petit et al. discloses molybdenum and tungsten oxide on activated carbon for the treatment of gasses “Four different carbon samples loaded with either tungsten oxide or molybdenum oxide were prepared … Adsorption capacity for removal of ammonia was measured in dynamic conditions, at room temperature.” [Page 62, Sections 2.1-2.2].
It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the CuO/ZnO catalyst suggested by Balsamo et al., which is intended to remove H2S at room temperature, with an additional layer comprising either molybdenum or tungsten oxide which is intended to remove an additional pollutant (ammonia). The motivation to have included a third layer intended to adsorb ammonia would have been that the filter is capable of removing multiple harmful gases simultaneously and thus offers the user more general protection.
Claim 24 requires “the Group 6 metal oxide is molybdenum oxide”. Petit et al. discloses both molybdenum oxide and tungsten oxide (see Claim 23) and specifically motivates molybdenum oxide over tungsten oxide in Table 1 [Page 63] where it can be seen that all samples with Mo (BAX-Mo…) have about the same or higher breakthrough capacity than all of the samples with W (BAX-W…).
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210381103 A1 Pepin et al., in view of “ZnO-CuO supported on activated carbon for H2S removal at room temperature” Balsamo et al., further in view of “Adsorption of silver nano-particles modified activated carbon filter media for indoor formaldehyde removal” Chang et al.
Regarding Claim 25 all of the limitations of Claim 20 are taught by the combination of Pepin et al. and Balsamo et al. Claim 25 further requires “the at least two metal oxide layers comprises a third metal oxide layer on the copper-zinc activated carbon of a Group 11 metal selected from a group consisting of copper, silver, gold, roentgenium, or any combination thereof to form a trilayer coating on the activated carbon.”. Pepin et al. does not disclose silver, gold, or roentgenium oxides.
Chang et al. discloses silver oxide on activated carbon for the treatment of gasses for the removal of formaldehyde “The aim of this study was to compare the adsorption performance characteristics of untreated activated carbon (UAC) and activated carbon modified by silver nitrate (AgNO3-AC) in formaldehyde adsorption process.” [Page 2, Paragraph 2], Figure 5 [Page 4] clearly shows that silver oxide is present in the material, and Figure 8 [Page 7] shows the ability of the material to remove formaldehyde. It thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the CuO/ZnO catalyst suggested by Balsamo et al., which is intended to remove H2S, with an additional layer comprising silver oxide which is intended to remove an additional pollutant (HCHO). The motivation to have included a third layer intended to adsorb formaldehyde would have been that the filter is capable of removing multiple harmful gasses simultaneously and therefore offers the user more general protection.
Claim 27 requires “the Group 11 metal is silver oxide”. Chang et al. discloses silver oxide (see Claim 25).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-T and Th-F 8am-6pm PST. 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.
/J.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights