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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weinberger et al. (US 11,203,009).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 10
Weinberger discloses a composition made by dispersing activated carbon (i.e., porous carbonaceous particle) and manganese oxide (i.e., metal oxide with formula MnO, MnO2 or Mn3O4) in water and adding acetic acid (i.e., first compound with a carbonyl group and a reducing agent) and sodium carbonate (example 17). Under such conditions the first compound and the metal oxide would be supported on the activated carbon.
Weinberger discloses that the compositions are useful for removing formaldehyde (i.e., second compound) (abstract).
Regarding claim 2
The temperature of absorption/desorption is a property of the composition, and as the composition of the reference reads directly on the claimed invention it would also be expected to have the same properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 9
Weinberger does not disclose these metals in the composition.
Regarding claim 12
Weinberger discloses coating the slurry of the catalyst onto an aluminum substrate (i.e., solid substrate) and placed into an unpurified air stream (Example 17).
Regarding claim 13
Weinberger discloses that the catalyst may be in a housing (column 3, lines 42-56).
Regarding claim 14
The removal recovery ratio is a property of the composition, and as the composition of the reference reads directly on the claimed invention it would also be expected to have the same properties. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 15, 17-18
Weinberger discloses calcining the catalyst (Column 16, lines 31-46). Weinberger also discloses that the catalyst can remove ozone (Claim 1), and as there is ozone in the air, it would be expected that some ozone would be absorbed on the catalyst before calcining.
Regarding claim 16
Weinberger discloses that the calcining temperature may be 250 C, and the time may be about 1 hour (Column 16, lines 31-46).
Regarding claim 19
Weinberger discloses drying the composition (Column 16, lines 31-46).
Although Weinberger does not disclose the order of mixing, it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.04, section C, and also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), and In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
Regarding claim 20
Weinberger discloses drying at about 90C (which reads on or makes obvious 100 C) from about 2 minutes to 8 hours (Column 16, lines 31-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 8 and 11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest the limitations of these claims in combination with the limitations of the base claim(s) from which they depend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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 E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734