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 claims 1-12 and 18 in the reply filed on 11/26/25 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 1-12 and 18 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 phrase “particles of at least one type of catalyst … the particles of the catalyst comprising: particles of a photocatalyst, and particles of at least one type of adsorbent and oxidation catalyst” is unclear. It is unclear if the claim is meant to require “particles selected from the group comprising a photocatalyst, adsorbent, and oxidation catalyst” (in other words merely requiring only one of the three options) or requiring at least a photocatalyst and additionally one selected from adsorbent or oxidation, or requiring all three components of photocatalyst, adsorbent, and oxidation.
In further regards to claim 1, the term “type” when referring to the type of catalyst is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear if the type of catalyst is restricted to photocatalyst, adsorbent and oxidation or if other types may be included.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “at least two types of catalyst” is unclear. It is not clear if these are meant to be selected from the photocatalyst, adsorbent, and oxidation or another entity.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the adsorbent and the oxidation catalyst are a supported catalyst comprising a support and a transition metal supported on a surface of and partially inside the support” is unclear. Claim 6 depends on claim 1 which recites the porous filter substrate where the catalyst particles are on the surface of that porous substrate. Thus, implying in claim 1 that the porous substrate is the support. Claim 6’s recitation of support invites ambiguity whether if the support of claim 6 is the same as the porous substrate in claim 1 or if the support is a distinct entity. While the specification paragraphs [0058]-[0060] describes supported catalysts in which a transition metal is supported on particles such as zeolite, TiO2, SiO-2, Al2O3, graphene, activated carbon, and MOF, the claims do not clearly and consistently define particles of at least one type of adsorbent and oxidation catalyst are limited to these supported catalyst particles or whether other configurations fall within the scope of the claim language. As a result, one having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the boundaries of claim 6 with reasonable certainty. The Examiner will interpret claim 6 to require particle supports for the adsorbent and oxidation catalysts and the porous substrate in claim 1 is considered the filter body.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “at least one type of adsorbent and oxidation catalyst” is unclear. It is not clear if these are meant to be selected strictly the adsorption and oxidation or if “type” is meant to include something additional.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “at least one type of catalyst” is unclear. It is not clear if these are meant to be selected strictly from the adsorption and oxidation or if “type” is meant to include something additional.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “at least one type of adsorbent and oxidation catalyst and particles of a photocatalyst” is unclear. It is not clear if these are meant to be selected strictly from the adsorption and oxidation or if “type” is meant to include something additional. Furthermore, it is unclear if the claim should require a photocatalyst and additionally one of an adsorbent or oxidation, all three components, or only one of the three components.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 112 by virtue of their dependency to claim 1.
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 1-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Yu CN 109759039 in view of Ji et al. US Patent 11,701,635.
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches a composite layered catalyst filter comprising:
a) A porous substrate 100 comprising porous alumina (page 2, 6th paragraph);
b) A photocatalyst layer 300 (page 2 14th paragraph) on the surface of the porous substrate 100 (Figure 1).
Yu additionally teaches a metal powder layer comprising oxide 200, but does not explicitly teach an additional adsorbent and oxidation catalyst.
However, Ji teaches a filter for removing contaminants comprising an adsorption material for adsorption of a contaminant and a decomposition material for decomposing a contaminant (abstract, column 5 line 63 – column 6 line 3). Adding in adsorption and decomposition materials allow more contaminants to be sufficiently and safely removed (column 1 lines 25-43). Ji teaches that the adsorbent and/or decomposition material comprise a similar material to Yu’s metal powder layer (titania or alumina or both), thus it is within ordinary skill in the art to expect that Yu’s catalyst filter modified with explicit adsorbent and decomposition materials as with Ji will provide a predictable amount of success and integration since the materials in Yu’s metal powder oxide layer 200 are essentially the same as Ji’s adsorption and decomposition materials.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Yu and Ji into a composite filter that can efficiently remove a wide range of contaminants from the air stream. Adding adsorption and decomposition components along with Yu’s photocatalyst allows contaminants to be safely removed.
Regarding claim 2, the amount of porosity is not explicitly taught to comprise between about 5% to 90%, however this range is considered a result effective variable and determining a wide porosity range of 5% to 90% would be easily conducted by routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses the substrate is a porous filter thus inherently allows air to pass through (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Yu and Ji teach the combination above. Ji further teaches that the adsorbent and oxidation catalyst may be physically and or chemically coupled together thus forming a layer comprising these two catalysts (column 6 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches the photocatalyst comprises TiO-2 (Page 2 14th paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Ji teaches that the oxidation (decomposition) material maybe be supported on the surface of the adsorption material or inserted into the framework of the adsorption material (column 6 lines 4-16). The adsorption material may comprise transition metals, porous metal-organic frameworks, TiO2, SiO2, and Al-2O3, (column 4 lines 40-45) as well as graphene, activated carbon and combinations thereof (column 4 line 12). Example 1 further describes the impregnation of Pt and Mn precursors onto activated carbon followed by drying and heat treatment which is recognized in the art as a standard method of forming supported metal catalysts wherein metal species reside both on the external surface and within the internal porous network of the support. Thus, it is therefore obvious to utilize supported catalyst structures in the composite filter of Yu as modified by Ji.
Regarding claim 7, Ji teaches particle diameters of 1 nm to 500 nm (column 5 line 61), thus overlapping the claimed range of 10 nm to 10 micrometers.
Regarding claim 8, Ji teaches the adsorbent and oxidation catalysts can be physically and/or chemically coupled (column 6 lines 1-3), thus teaching a blend of adsorbent and oxidation catalyst.
Regarding claim 9, Yu and Ji do not explicitly teach the ratio of photocatalyst to adsorbent/oxidation is in the range of 2:8 to 8:2. However, this ratio of components is deemed as a result effective variable and it would therefore be within ordinary skill in the art to arrive at this range by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10, Yu teaches a layered catalyst structure in Figure 1 comprising the porous carrier substrate 100, photocatalyst layer 300 and metal powder 200. The combination of Yu with Ji modifies Yu’s layer 100 with the adsorbent/decomposition materials. Therefore, in light of Yu and Ji, at least two catalyst layers are disposed on the surface wherein one layer comprises the photocatalyst and the other comprises the adsorbent/decomposition layer.
Regarding claim 11, Yu teaches the catalyst layer comprises about 5-30 microns (Example 1), thus overlapping the claimed range of 100 nm to 100 micrometers.
Regarding claim 12, the removal of C1-C6 or nitrogen compounds is considered an intended use of the composite and does not add functional weight to the claim. However, since the composite structure is taught by Yu and Ji, then it is reasonably expected that the contaminants for removal include C1-C6 hydrocarbons and nitrogen compounds.
Regarding claim 18, , Yu teaches a composite layered catalyst filter comprising:
a) A porous substrate 100 comprising porous alumina (page 2, 6th paragraph);
b) A photocatalyst layer 300 (page 2 14th paragraph) on the surface of the porous substrate 100 capable of coming in contact with air pollutants (Figure 1).
Yu additionally teaches a metal powder layer comprising oxide 200, but does not explicitly teach an additional adsorbent and oxidation catalyst.
However, Ji teaches a filter for removing contaminants comprising an adsorption material for adsorption of a contaminant and a decomposition material for decomposing a contaminant (abstract, column 5 line 63 – column 6 line 3). Adding in adsorption and decomposition materials allow more contaminants to be sufficiently and safely removed (column 1 lines 25-43). Ji teaches that the adsorbent and/or decomposition material comprise a similar material to Yu’s metal powder layer (titania or alumina or both), thus it is within ordinary skill in the art to expect that Yu’s catalyst filter modified with explicit adsorbent and decomposition materials as with Ji will provide a predictable amount of success and integration since the materials in Yu’s metal powder oxide layer 200 are essentially the same as Ji’s adsorption and decomposition materials.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Yu and Ji into a composite filter that can efficiently remove a wide range of contaminants from the air stream. Adding adsorption and decomposition components along with Yu’s photocatalyst allows contaminants to be safely removed.
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