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 .
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 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.
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 1-9, 15-18, 20, 43, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palm et al. (US Patent Application No. 2004/0055957) in view of Haghdoost et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0190139).
Regarding claim 1, Palm et al. teach a composition comprising an agglomeration of a plurality of porous microparticles (page 1, paragraphs [0002], [0015], page 4, paragraph [0048], page 7, paragraph [0076], page 9, paragraph [0105]).
Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the microparticles forming a hierarchically porous material structure. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the microparticles of Palm et al. in a hierarchical structure as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Palm et al. teach wherein said microparticles comprising a biogenic material including diatomaceous earth (page 2, paragraph [0015], page 5, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Palm et al. teach wherein said microparticles comprise a synthetic material (page 1, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Palm et al. teach wherein said microparticles include a combination of a biogenic material and a synthetic material (page 1, paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claims 6-9, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein at least one of said plurality of microparticles includes a first plurality of nanoscale features disposed on at least a portion of a surface thereof. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]), and include a first plurality of nanoscale features providing a first nanostructured coating and a second plurality of nanoscale features providing a second nanostructure coating (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide nanoscale features on the microparticles of Palm et al. as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first nanostructured coating has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]), and include a first plurality of nanoscale features providing a first nanostructured coating and a second plurality of nanoscale features (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]).
Haghdoost et al. do not disclose wherein the first nanostructured coating has a thickness in a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the coating of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide nanoscale features on the microparticles of Palm et al. as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first nanostructured coating is at least partially coated with a second coating. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]), and include a first plurality of nanoscale features providing a first nanostructured coating and a second plurality of nanoscale features (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]), wherein the first nanostructured coating is at least partially coated with a second coating (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide nanoscale features on the microparticles of Palm et al. as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 17, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the second coating includes a second plurality of nanoscale features. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]), and include a first plurality of nanoscale features providing a first nanostructured coating and a second plurality of nanoscale features (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]), wherein the first nanostructured coating is at least partially coated with a second coating (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]), wherein the second coating includes a second plurality of nanoscale features (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide nanoscale features on the microparticles of Palm et al. as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the second coating comprises an inorganic material. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]) and include a first plurality of nanoscale features providing a first nanostructured coating and a second plurality of nanoscale features (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]), wherein the first nanostructured coating is at least partially coated with a second coating (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]), wherein the second coating comprises an inorganic material (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide nanoscale features on the microparticles of Palm et al. as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first plurality of nanoscale features exhibits a barbed morphology. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]), and include a first plurality of nanoscale features (page 1, paragraph [0005], page 2, paragraph [0007]).
Haghdoost et al. do not disclose wherein the first plurality of nanoscale features exhibits a barbed morphology. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in morphology involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the morphology of the nanoscale features of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide nanoscale features on the microparticles of Palm et al. as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 43, Palm et al. teach a filtration system comprising a filter medium (page 4, paragraphs [0042], [0044], page 8, paragraph [0104]), a granulated filtration material coupled to said filter medium (page 1, paragraphs [0002], [0015], page 2, paragraphs [0014], [0015], page 4, paragraph [0042], [0044], [0048], page 7, paragraph [0076], page 8, paragraph [0104], page 9, paragraph [0105]), wherein said granulated filtration material includes an agglomeration of a plurality of microparticles (page 1, paragraphs [0002], [0015], page 4, paragraph [0048], page 7, paragraph [0076], page 9, paragraph [0105]).
Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the microparticles forming a hierarchically porous material structure. However, Haghdoost et al. teach a plurality of surface features providing a hierarchical structure (page 1, paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the microparticles of Palm et al. in a hierarchical structure as that of Haghdoost et al. in order to impart functional or aesthetic characteristics (Haghdoost et al., page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 44, Palm et al. teach wherein said microparticles comprise a plurality of porous microparticles (page 1, paragraphs [0002], [0015], page 4, paragraph [0048], page 7, paragraph [0076], page 9, paragraph [0105]).
Claims 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palm et al. (US Patent Application No. 2004/0055957) in view of Haghdoost et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0190139), in further view of Shirman et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0205803).
Palm et al. and Haghdoost et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 10, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first nanostructured coating is configured to provide any of a catalytic and a sorption function. However, Shirman et al. teach a composite comprising porous particles (page 1, paragraph [0003]), wherein the composite provides any of a catalytic and a sorption function (page 2, paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide catalytic or sorption function in Palm et al. as that of Shirman et al. in order to exhibit multiple functions (Shirman et al., page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 11, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first nanostructured coating is configured to provide sorption and storage of CO2. However, Shirman et al. teach a composite comprising porous particles (page 1, paragraph[0003]), wherein the composite provides any of a catalytic and a sorption function (page 2, paragraph [0014]), wherein the composite provides sorption and storage of CO2 (page 1, paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sorption function in Palm et al. as that of Shirman et al. in order to exhibit multiple functions (Shirman et al., page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first nanostructured coating is configured to treat any of gaseous and particulate contaminants. However, Shirman et al. teach a composite comprising porous particles (page 1, paragraph[0003]), wherein the composite provides any of a catalytic and a sorption function (page 2, paragraph [0014]), wherein the composite is configured to treat any of gaseous and particulate contaminants (page 1, paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sorption function in Palm et al. as that of Shirman et al. in order to exhibit multiple functions (Shirman et al., page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the first nanostructured coating is configured to provide sorption of at least one volatile organic compound. However, Shirman et al. teach a composite comprising porous particles (page 1, paragraph[0003]), wherein the composite provides any of a catalytic and a sorption function (page 2, paragraph [0014]), wherein the composite is configured to provide sorption of at least one volatile organic compound (page 1, paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sorption function in Palm et al. as that of Shirman et al. in order to exhibit multiple functions (Shirman et al., page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 19, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the second coating is configured to enhance any of a catalytic function, a sorption function, and a biocidal function of the composition. However, Shirman et al. teach a composite comprising porous particles (page 1, paragraph [0003]) configured to enhance any of a catalytic function and sorption function (page 2, paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide catalytic or sorption function in Palm et al. as that of Shirman et al. in order to exhibit multiple functions (Shirman et al., page 2, paragraph [0014]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palm et al. (US Patent Application No. 2004/0055957) in view of Haghdoost et al. (US Patent Application No. 2017/0190139) and Shirman et al. (US Patent Application No. 2021/0205803), in further view of Stabler et al. (US Patent Application No. 2018/0104670).
Palm et al., Haghdoost et al. and Shirman et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 14, Palm et al. fail to teach wherein the at least one volatile organic compound is formaldehyde. However, Stabler et al. teach a porous article (page 1, paragraph [0001]) comprising microparticles (page 1, paragraph [0001]) and nanoparticles (page 1, paragraph [0011]), wherein the article provides purification and/or filtration of formaldehyde (page 5, paragraphs [0073], [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the composition of Palm et al. to provide sorption of formaldehyde as that of Stabler et al. in order to provide the purification and/or filtration of formaldehyde (Stabler et al., (page 5, paragraphs [0073], [0086]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 10/17/2025