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 Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response to the claim containing amendments and arguments. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous 112 rejection and previous cited prior art. However, upon further search and consideration, the newly amended claims were not found to be allowable over the prior art.
A Final Rejection follows.
FINAL REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. WO 2004/112958.
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a composite catalyst filter comprising:
a) A porous substrate (claim 15, paragraph [6]);
b) Photocatalyst particles (titanium dioxide, [9], [25]) and oxidation catalyst particles (gold, abstract, [6], [22]) on the surface of the substrate ([6], claim 15);
c) The photocatalyst particles and oxidation catalyst particles are in contact with each other since they are both dispersed and coated onto the substrate ([8], [10]) and are in contact with pollutants in the air ([34]).
Regarding claim 3, the substrate allows air to pass through as shown in Figure 2 where the catalyst filter is arranged in the path of the airflow’s inlet and outlet ([18],[19]).
Regarding claim 5, the photocatalyst particle comprises TiO2, and other metal oxides inducing ZnO, CuO, SnO2, ZrO2, WO3, CdS, SrTiO3, or Fe2O3 ([26]).
Regarding claim 8, the photocatalyst particle comprises TiO2, and other metal oxides, thus comprising a blend ([26]). The photocatalyst particles and oxidation catalyst particles are dispersed on the substrate ([20],[22]).
Regarding claim 18, Wei teaches a composite catalyst filter comprising:
a) A porous substrate (claim 15, paragraph [6]);
b) Photocatalyst particles (titanium dioxide, [9], [25]) and oxidation catalyst particles (gold, abstract, [6], [22]) on the surface of the substrate ([6], claim 15);
c) The photocatalyst particles and oxidation catalyst particles are in contact with each other since they are both dispersed and coated onto the substrate ([8], [10]) and are in contact with pollutants in the air ([34]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. WO 2004/112958 in view of Outland US 4,276,071.
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.
Outland teaches a ceramic monolith filter that has a porosity of at least 10% (column 2 line 65). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use known porosities for the filter because the working range has been proven to be beneficial in contaminant adsorption.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. WO 2004/112958 in view of Ji et al. US Patent 11,701,635.
Regarding claim 6, Wei teaches the oxidation catalyst particles are supported but does not explicitly teach the oxidation catalyst particles are a supported catalyst comprising a support and a transition metal supported on a surface of and partially inside the support, and the supports of the oxidation catalyst particles comprises at least one selected from zeolite, TiO2, SiO2, A1203, graphene, activated carbon, and a metal organic framework ("MOF").
However, 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 Wei 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.
Claim 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. WO 2004/112958.
Wei 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 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. Wei teaches that the filter is used for the removal of exhaust including carbon monoxide [24]).
Claim 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. WO 2004/112958 in view of Yu CN 109759039.
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 Wei and Yu modifies Wei’s coating with the adsorbent/decomposition layered materials. Therefore, in light of Wei and Yu, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-12, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights