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, corresponding to claims 1-4 and 7-15 in the reply filed on January 16th, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5 & 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “a mass ratio of the activated carbon, the titanium dioxide, the zinc oxide, the graphene, the tourmaline powders, the nano-copper solution, the carvacrol and the deionized water is (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-1000).” Such a wording of the limitation is confusing and unclear, as it is not clear what two components the mass ratio is between, and whether the parentheticals are part of the limitations. Therefore, said claim is rejected.
It is suggested to amend to, “a mass ratio of the activated carbon to deionized water is 1-100, the titanium dioxide to deionized water is 1-100, the zinc oxide to deionized water is 1-100, the graphene to deionized water is 1-100, the tourmaline powders to deionized water is 1-100, the nano-copper solution to deionized water is 1-100, and the carvacrol to deionized water is (1-1000).”
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Document Identification No. CN 108014360 to Changsha Wudao Ind Design Co LTD (herein referred to as Changsha) in view of Hiroki (Document Identification No. WO 2019/087883 A1) and Chen (Document Identification No. TW M553796 U).
Changsha discloses a photocatalytic material (Abstract), comprising activated carbon, titanium dioxide, graphene, tourmaline powders and deionized water (page 8, claim 1). While Changsha discloses that the material includes a nano-silver (page 3, last paragraph to page 4), the reference does not appear to disclose that the material comprises a nano-copper solution. Hiroki discloses an antiviral composition that also acts as a photocatalytic material (Abstract; page 19, “photocatalyst”), wherein the composition comprises an antibacterial agent that includes silver particle solutions (page 18, last paragraph to page 19, first paragraph). The reference continues to disclose that a particle nano-copper solution may be utilized in place of the silver particle solution because copper is a well-known substitute for silver for successfully acting as a metal antibacterial agent (page 18, last paragraph to page 19, first paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize copper instead of silver in the nano-metal antibacterial solution of Changsha because Hiroki discloses that copper is a well-known substitute for silver for successfully acting as a metal antibacterial agent. Therefore, these limitations are met by Changsha in view of Hiroki.
Changsha also does not appear to disclose that the material comprises zinc oxide or carvacrol. Chen discloses a photocatalytic material utilized for removing pollutants and contaminants in the air (Abstract), wherein the material is provided with activated carbon (page 4, second to last paragraph to page 5, first paragraph), tourmaline powders and titanium dioxide (page 5, paragraphs 3-6). The reference continues to disclose that the material includes zinc oxide in order to improve antibacterial effects and prevent mildew creation (page 4, third to last paragraph), and carvacrol in order to provide the material with a pleasing fragrance that does not produce free radicals (page 2, paragraph 3 beginning with “A free radical...”; page 2, paragraph 6 beginning with “In view of the above…”; page 5, third to last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize zinc oxide and carvacrol in the material of Changsha because zinc oxide improves antibacterial effects and prevents mildew creation, and carvacrol provides the material with a pleasing fragrance while not producing free radicals as exemplified by Chen. Thus, these limitations are met by Changsha in view of Chen.
As such, claim 1 is not patentable over Changsha in view of Hiroki and Chen (herein referred to as modified Changsha).
Concerning claim 2, modified Changsha does not appear to disclose the specific mass ratio of the activated carbon, the titanium dioxide, the zinc oxide, the graphene, the tourmaline powders, the nano-copper solution, the carvacrol and the deionized water being (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-1000). Nonetheless, such are considered result effective variables. As such, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mass ratio of the activated carbon, the titanium dioxide, the zinc oxide, the graphene, the tourmaline powders, the nano-copper solution, the carvacrol and the deionized water to (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-100): (1-1000) in order to provide the proper amount of polluting gases absorbency, photocatalytic activity, antibacterial effects, and pleasing aroma for a particular application based upon economic feasibility and availability for each component to produce the optimally desired result; as said ratios are considered result effective variables that one of ordinary skill would optimize through routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claim 2 does not provide a patentable distinction over modified Changsha. Therefore, said claim 2 is rejected over Changsha in view of Hiroki and Chen as well.
Similarly with respect to claim 4, Changsha does not appear to disclose that the activated carbon has a specific surface area greater than 500 m²/g and a particle size of 1 to 3 µm. However, such is considered a result effective variable as well, wherein the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have also been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the activated carbon with a specific surface area greater than 500 m²/g and a particle size of 1 to 3 µm in order to create a material that successfully absorbs the desired amount of pollutant while minimizing pressure loss of an airflow therethrough; and/or producing an economically desirable product that also absorbs the appropriate amount of contaminating gases for a particular application; as said surface area and particle size of the activated carbon are considered result effective variables that would be optimized during routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill as well.
Thus, claim 4 does not provide a patentable distinction over Changsha, and is rejected over Changsha in view of Hiroki and Chen also.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-15 are allowed. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799