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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 17-18, 20-21, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weinberger US 2020/0171464.
Regarding claim 1 and 37, Weinberger teaches a process of removing organic pollutants from ambient air using a catalyst (Abstract; Paragraph [0041]). The pollutants may include formaldehyde, which is an aldehyde, and the catalyst may include manganese oxide (Abstract). The catalyst interacts with the formaldehyde in an apparatus that provides air flow (Paragraph [0066]). It is inherent that the flow region would have a less than ambient pressure in order to remove the contaminated air for treatment through the apparatus. The negative pressure facilitates the movement of air, such as a vacuum pressure to evacuate contaminated air.
Regarding claim 2, Weinberger teaches the catalyst may be cryptomelane (Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Weinberger teaches that the pollutants may include acetaldehyde and/or hexaldehyde, which include at least two carbon atoms (Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Weinberger teaches the catalyst may be supported on a substrate, which is a support (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, the substrate may be at least a foam, metal, or ceramic substrate, which is a support (Paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, the catalyst composition may be loaded on the substrate in amounts of 0.5 g/in^3 to 4 g/in^3 (Paragraph [0055]), and example of the catalyst having a loading of 1 or 2 g/in^3 (Examples).
Weinberger does not expressly state that the support is 10 to 90 wt.% of the catalyst. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The catalyst of Weinberger is substantially similar to the instant catalyst because it contains similar materials used in the same manner.
Regarding claim 9, the catalyst may include a binder (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the catalyst may contain 10 weight percent binder (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, the treated air may be ambient air (Paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, the process occurs at room temperature (Paragraph [0041], [0134]).
Regarding claim 17, the flow rate of the carrier gas containing the formaldehyde may be configured to produce up 100% conversion of the formaldehyde (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 18, the formaldehyde may be present 1 ppb to 50 ppm (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding claim 20, the impurities may be removed in a first and second stage having two different efficiencies (Paragraph [0073]). Thus, some of the impurities are removed in the first stage before the contacting step of the second stage (Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 21, the impurities may be removed by a filter (Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 37, Weinberger teaches a process of removing organic pollutants from ambient air using a catalyst (Abstract; Paragraph [0041]). The pollutants may include formaldehyde, which is an aldehyde, and the catalyst may include manganese oxide (Abstract).
Regarding claim 38, Weinberger teaches the catalyst may be cryptomelane (Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 39, Weinberger teaches that the pollutants may include acetaldehyde and/or hexaldehyde, which include at least two carbon atoms (Paragraph [0022]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, 17-18, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akkiraju WO 2018/098450.
Regarding claim 1 and 37, Akkiraju teaches a process of removing organic pollutants from a gas using a catalyst (Abstract). The pollutants may include formaldehyde, which is an aldehyde, and the catalyst may include manganese oxide (Page 6, line 21). The gas may be ambient air (Page 3, line 24).
Regarding claim 2 and 38, Akkiraju teaches the catalyst may be manganese (IV) oxide (Page 7, line 16).
Regarding claim 3 and 39, Akkiraju teaches that the pollutants may include acetaldehyde, which includes at least two carbon atoms (Page 2, line 7).
Regarding claim 6-7, Akkiraju teaches the catalyst may be supported on silica (Page 6, line 25), which is a ceramic support.
Regarding claim 11, the treated air may be ambient air (Page 3, line 24).
Regarding claim 12, the process occurs at room temperature (Page 7, line 16).
Regarding claim 17, the flow rate of the carrier gas containing the formaldehyde may be configured to produce up 100% conversion of the formaldehyde (Page 7, line 19).
Regarding claim 18, the formaldehyde may be present 10 to 100 ppm (Page 6, line 7).
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.
Claim(s) 22-23, 27 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkiraju WO 2018/098450.
Regarding claim 22, the catalyst may be regenerated in the presence of oxygen (Page 4, line 31) at a temperature of 30 to 125 deg. C (Page 6 lines 2-3), which overlaps the claimed temperature. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The catalyst interacts with the formaldehyde in an apparatus that provides air flow (Examples). It is inherent that the flow region would have a less than ambient pressure in order to remove the contaminated air for treatment through the apparatus. The negative pressure facilitates the movement of air, such as a vacuum pressure to evacuate contaminated air.
Regarding claim 23, the heating steps occurs to regenerate the catalyst such that it may be reused, which would require a subsequent contacting step.
Regarding claims 27 and 32, a regeneration step of the catalyst is carried out at a temperature between 30°C and 125°C (page 6, lines 2-3) in the presence of oxygen (page 4, line 31 - page 5, line 1) for a duration greater than 15 minutes, greater than 20 minutes, greater than 30 minutes, or greater than 1 hour (page 5, lines 21-25), whereas the duration of the contacting step with the catalyst can be at least 10 to 60 minutes (page 5, lines 25-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest treatment at pressure less than ambient pressure. In response, the catalyst interacts with the formaldehyde in an apparatus that provides air flow (Weinberger Paragraph [0066]; Akkiraju Examples). It is inherent that the flow region would have a less than ambient pressure in order to remove the contaminated air for treatment through the apparatus. The negative pressure facilitates the movement of air, such as a vacuum pressure to evacuate contaminated air.
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 JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights