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 Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s argument at the bottom of page 11 of the Applicant’s remarks, wherein there is disagreement on if Lyons (D3) teaches the claimed thickness range; while the applicant pointed out the cited location in Lyons represents the thickness of a layer, prior to the lamination step, the claims do not specify their thickness pertains to the post-laminated thickness of this layer. However, even if the applicant had done so, Lyons explicitly teaches in paragraph 77 how layer 202 can be “any suitable thickness”. Given layer 202 is a part of what the applicant had intended to claim (referenced 209), this thickness of the resulting (209) layer, is a results effected variable, which can be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation, and does not hold patentable weight. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Due to the reasons set forth above, this argument was not found to be persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments at the bottom of page 13, wherein the Applicant argues Leonardi (D1) and Assemjan (D2) are non-analogous, the examiner respectfully disagrees as MPEP § 2141.01(a) recites, “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).” In this scenario, Leonardi and Assemjan both contain teachings of photocatalysts and gaseous components, (same field of endeavor) thus have analogy to one another. Due to these reasons, this argument is not found persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that on the bottom of page 15 wherein the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). While some sealing gaskets in Leonardi may not explicitly disclose their “air tightness”, rather only their “liquid tightness”, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that these components may also be “air tight” as Leonardi teaches gaseous components in their closed system (reference 4 in figure 6), along with a vent to release those components. It would be unreasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art to assume the system not to be air tight (including the sealing gaskets), given the gas releasing capabilities of Leonardi. Thus, for the reasons set forth, this argument is not persuasive.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges and entered the amendments for claims 1, 8 and 13.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent claim terminology regarding the phrase “top transparent window” and “said top window”. Please amend to ensure consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent claim terminology regarding the phrase “gas outlet ports” and “said outlet ports”. Please amend to ensure consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent claim terminology regarding the phrase “one flat panel” and “said panel”. Please amend to ensure consistent terminology throughout the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2), in view of Assemjan (WO2018158667A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leonardi teaches a photocatalytic panel reactor for the anaerobic photoreforming of waste aqueous effluents and the production of hydrogen as co-product characterized in that it comprises: at least one flat panel comprising: {Paragraph 29, "The structure 2 of reactor 1 presents a "panel" configuration"} a shallow container (4) {Figure 3 reference (1) and paragraph 28, "third flow layer 30 has a thickness of 1-20mm"} and a top transparent window (6), said top window (6) being intended to face a source of light; {Paragraph 37, "having at least 90% transmittance to radiation in the UV-visible spectrum, this is chosen from quartz glass" and figure 3 reference (40)}
a bed (5) composed of a photocatalyst material, {Paragraph 27, "support layer 10 on which a catalyst layer is present"} comprising at least one photoactive semiconductor, immobilised therein, {Paragraph's 34-35, "catalyst … mixture thereof is titanium dioxide" and "catalyst is in the form of nano-particles"} the bed being located on an irradiated surface of the flat panel; {Paragraph 27, "a third layer 30 which extends between the second catalyst layer 20 and a fourth layer 40 of vitreous or polymeric material having 40 at least 90% transmittance to radiation in the UV-visible spectrum."}
a flow region (8) located in the shallow container (4), {Paragraph 27, "third layer 30 is intended for the flowing of the organic liquid and for this reason is also indicated hereinafter by the phrase "third flow layer 30"."} said region being arranged so that a waste aqueous effluent flows through it and enters into contact with the photocatalyst material immobilised in the bed (5); {Paragraph 30, "second layer 20 of catalyst material comprise a first and a second opening defining respectively the inlet IN and the outlet OUT for the organic liquid into the third flow layer 30."}
and a sealing gasket (9) disposed between the shallow container (4) and the top transparent window (6), intended to ensure the tightness of the panel and its isolation from ambient air. {Paragraph 30, "Between the catalyst layer (second layer 20) and the vitreous layer (fourth layer 40) a first perimetral seal gasket is located to prevent liquid escape, together with a second perimetral gasket to facilitate contact and ensure a constant liquid thickness between the vitreous plate and the catalyst layer."}
While Leonardi I silent to the “air tightness” of the referenced sealing gaskets, it is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that these gaskets are both liquid and air tight, as Leonardi teaches a closed system with gaseous release in tank 4 of figure 6. If the system were not air tight, it would not be able to hold the gaseous components as taught, thus it would be unreasonable to one f ordinary skill in the art to assume the sealing components cited above are not also air tight.
Leonardi further teaches wherein the photocatalyst material also contains at least one co-catalyst {Paragraph 34, " catalyst based on titanium, vanadium, zirconium, tin or a mixture thereof"} in the form of particles deposited on the surface of the photoactive semiconductor, {Paragraph 35, "catalyst is in the form of nanoparticles … observed that the large surface area offered by nanoparticles"} said co-catalyst comprising: metals, metal oxides, metal sulphides, metal phosphides and/or organometallic species; and combinations thereof. {Paragraph 34, " catalyst based on titanium, vanadium, zirconium, tin or a mixture thereof"}
Leonardi fails to teach gas outlet ports (3) provided in the container (4), said outlet ports being connected through tubes to at least one gas-tight storage tank; or, alternatively, (ii) a recirculation circuit.
Assemjan, directed towards photocatalyst system that includes semiconductor materials for water splitting systems including waste materials {Paragraphs 2 and 49}, teaches gas outlet ports (3) provided in the container (4), {Paragraph 49, "(iv) a gas product outlet for releasing hydrogen liberated in the reaction chamber."} said outlet ports being connected through tubes to at least one gas-tight storage tank; {Paragraph 49, "include a storage chamber for collecting and storing the molecular hydrogen produced."} (Note this limitation is directed to the first limitation of the and/or list, not the recirculation circuit)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi with the addition of Assemjan’s teachings of gas outlet ports (3) provided in the container (4), said outlet ports being connected through tubes to at least one gas-tight storage tank; or, alternatively, (ii) a recirculation circuit as both of these inventions involve the removal of gases within the systems in order to filter the solution through photocatalytic materials, however, Leonardi does this process earlier in the system in a “scrubber (4)” as mentioned in paragraph 45 in Leonardi. The invention of Assemjan combines that process into its reactor device. Doing so would result in lower overall product of hydrogen costs as stated by Assemjan in paragraph 14.
Regarding claim 3, Leonardi teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor is chosen among: metal oxides, mixed metal oxides, metal sulphides, metal halides, metal phosphates, organic semiconductors, hybrid organic-inorganic semiconductors, and combinations thereof. {Paragraph 34, "catalyst … mixture thereof is titanium dioxide"}
Regarding claim 4, Leonardi teaches wherein the top transparent window (6) is made from borosilicate glass, low-iron glass, quartz, and/or polycarbonate. {Paragraph 37, "With regard to the vitreous or polymeric material … this is chosen from quartz glass"}
Regarding claim 5, Leonardi teaches wherein the shallow container (4) comprises material selected from the group consisting of a metal selected between aluminium, stainless steel, brass, iron, and/or titanium; a plastic selected between resins, polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane, polypropylene and/or polyethylene; a ceramic material selected between alumina, clay, and/or stone; and combinations thereof. {Paragraph 29, "This base is formed by a first plate of supporting metal material 10. This metal material is preferably titanium."}
Regarding claim 6, Leonardi teaches wherein the shallow container (4) is provided with at least one inlet port (1) and at least one outlet port (2) for the flow of the aqueous effluent. {Paragraph 30, " The first support layer 10 and the second layer 20 of catalyst material comprise a first and a second opening defining respectively the inlet IN and the outlet OUT for the organic liquid into the third flow layer 30."}
Regarding claim 8, Leonardi teaches a process comprising the step of feeding to a photocatalytic panel reactor according to claim 1, {Paragraph 50, "method for implementing the plant as described above (including the limitations of instant claim 1)} a waste aqueous effluent derived from: food industry activities, pharmaceutical industries, cosmetic or personal care products industries, chemical or petrochemical industries, biorefineries or biofuel production plants, papermaking industries, farming and/or agricultural activities and human sanitation activities. {Paragraph 50, "method for removing both organic and inorganic nitrogen in industrial and livestock effluents"}
Regarding claim 10, Leonardi teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal oxides selected from the group consisting of TiO2, FeO, Fe2O3, Fe3O4, CoO, Co2O3, Cr2O3, MnO, Mn2O, MnO2, NiO, Ni2O3, Cu2O, CuO, ZnO, ZrO2, WO3, SnO, SnO2, Nb2O5, Ta2O5, In2O3, Bi2O3, Sb2O3, Ce2O3, CeO2, Ag2O, Ga2O3, CdO, Hg2O, HgO, PbO, PbO2, and PdO. {Paragraph 34, "catalyst … mixture thereof is titanium dioxide"}
Regarding claim 11, Leonardi fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more mixed metal oxides selected from the group consisting of AlTiO3, Al2TiO5, BaTiO3, CaTiO3, MgTiO3, SrTiO3, CoTiO3, FeTiO3, NiTiO3, CuTiO3, MnTiO3, ZnTiO3, KNbO3, NaNbO3, YFeO3, CuFe2O4, BiVO4, KTaO3, and NaTaO3.
Assemjan teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more mixed metal oxides selected from the group consisting of AlTiO3, Al2TiO5, BaTiO3, CaTiO3, MgTiO3, SrTiO3, CoTiO3, FeTiO3, NiTiO3, CuTiO3, MnTiO3, ZnTiO3, KNbO3, NaNbO3, YFeO3, CuFe2O4, BiVO4, KTaO3, and NaTaO3. {Paragraph 44, "Nonlimiting examples of semiconductors include … SrTiO3 …"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi with Assemjan’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more mixed metal oxides selected from the group consisting of AlTiO3, Al2TiO5, BaTiO3, CaTiO3, MgTiO3, SrTiO3, CoTiO3, FeTiO3, NiTiO3, CuTiO3, MnTiO3, ZnTiO3, KNbO3, NaNbO3, YFeO3, CuFe2O4, BiVO4, KTaO3, and NaTaO3 as Assemjan teaches how the second semiconductor must have a wider band gap than the first semiconductor in order for the device to work properly, and these are taught to have wider band gaps than the claimed list from Leonardi in claim 10. {Assemjan, paragraph 44}
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Lyons (US20140106127A1).
Regarding claim 2, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach the panel reactor according to claim 1, wherein the bed (5) is a layer having a thickness in the range of 1-100 micrometers.
Lyons directed to a transparent polymer having a superhydrophobic surface {Lyons, Title}, similar to the transparent window of the invention of Leonardi and Assemjan, teaches the panel reactor according to claim 1, wherein the bed (5) is a layer having a thickness in the range of 1-100 micrometers. {Paragraph 77, "In general, layer 202 can have any suitable thickness … at least about 1 micrometers … at most 100 micrometers"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Lyons’ teachings the panel reactor according to claim 1, wherein the bed (5) is a layer having a thickness in the range of 1-100 micrometers as Lyons is attempting to create an “optically transparent hydrophobic surface” {Lyons, abstract} and paragraph 116 of Lyons mentions using their superhydrophobic surface with photocatalyst regions (similar to the regions of Leonardi modified by Assemjan. Doing so improves the efficiency of the device as stated in paragraph 116 of Lyons, conventional hydrophilic films (Leonardi modified by Assemjan) have a static boundary layer in which fluid flows, and once contaminant molecules enter this layer, additional molecules have to diffuse across them to be filtered, wherein the superhydrophobic surface taught by Lyons, overcomes this limitation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Chen (EP3023387B1).
Regarding claim 7, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach the panel reactor according to claim 1, also comprising a sun tracking system on which the at least one flat panel is mounted, the sun tracking system being intended to direct the top transparent window (6) of said panel along the azimuth.
Chen, directed to a sun tracking system meant to be implemented onto a photocatalytic system {Paragraph 2} (Leonardi modified by Assemjan), teaches the panel reactor according to claim 1, also comprising a sun tracking system on which the at least one flat panel is mounted, the sun tracking system being intended to direct the top transparent window (6) of said panel along the azimuth. {Paragraph 17, "the light collecting apparatus is formed by a servo control system or automatically tracking the elevation angle and the azimuth angle of the sun and the optic system for collecting, converging, conducting, and transmitting the sunlight, the photocatalytic reaction system adopted in the above technical scheme is capable of fluently transmitting the sunlight to the indoor photoreactor}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Chen’s teachings of the panel reactor according to claim 1, also comprising a sun tracking system on which the at least one flat panel is mounted, the sun tracking system being intended to direct the top transparent window (6) of said panel along the azimuth as the sun tracking system of Chen is meant to be implemented on a photocatalytic device. {Chen, paragraph 1}. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these inventions because again, as stated by Chen, advantages of their invention regarding the sunt racking system are so that the photocatalytic reaction can be conducted under the full spectrum of rays. {Chen, paragraph 17}
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Yoon (KR20170028343A). *Yoon is directed to the attached, English, machine-translated version.
Regarding claim 9, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach the panel reactor according to claim 1, wherein the co-catalyst comprises Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn, Sn, Cr, Pb, Bi, Ag, Au, Pd, Rh, Ru, Pt, Ir, or Cd.
Yoon, directed to a photocatalytic layer for the generation of hydrogen gas {Abstract}, teaches the panel reactor according to claim 1, wherein the co-catalyst comprises Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn, Sn, Cr, Pb, Bi, Ag, Au, Pd, Rh, Ru, Pt, Ir, or Cd. {Middle page 5, "the co-catalyst layer may be formed of Pt, Pd, Rh, Au, Ni, Cr, Ag, Cu, W, Mo, Nb, V, Ru, Sn, Zr, Co, Fe, Ta"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Yoon’s teachings the panel reactor according to claim 1, wherein the co-catalyst comprises Cu, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn, Sn, Cr, Pb, Bi, Ag, Au, Pd, Rh, Ru, Pt, Ir, or Cd as Yoon’s elemental choices of a cocatalytic layer compared to the layer of Leonardi modified by Assemjan because Yoon’s cocatalysts “improves the separation of protons and electrons generated by oxidizing water by the photocatalyst material under light irradiation” {Yoon, middle page 5}
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Nueraji (US20130266809A1).
Regarding claim 12, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises perovskite.
Nueraji, drawn to a photocatalytic nanomaterial {Nueraji, paragraph 14} teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises perovskite. {Paragraph 3, "investigating the photocatalytic properties of perovskite materials … [perovskites] exhibit improved properties over bulk materials"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Nueraji’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises perovskite as Nueraji further teaches perovskite can be used as a photocatalyst. {Nueraji, paragraph 14} Doing so would improve the properties over bulk materials because perovskites have unique ferroelectric and semiconductor properties. {Nueraji, paragraph 3}
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Sun (US20100264097A1).
Regarding claim 13, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal sulphides selected from the group consisting of TiS2, FeS, Fe2S3, CoS, Co2S3, Cr2S3, MnS, , NiS, Cu2S, CuS, ZnS, CdS, ZrS2, WS2, WS3, SnS, SnS2, MoS2, In2S3, Bi2S3, Ce2S3, CeS2, Ag2S, Ga2S3, Hg2S, HgS, PbS, PbS2, and PdS.
Sun, drawn to a material for photocatalytic reactions/activity {Sun, paragraph 45}, teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal sulphides selected from the group consisting of TiS2, FeS, Fe2S3, CoS, Co2S3, Cr2S3, MnS, , NiS, Cu2S, CuS, ZnS, CdS, ZrS2, WS2, WS3, SnS, SnS2, MoS2, In2S3, Bi2S3, Ce2S3, CeS2, Ag2S, Ga2S3, Hg2S, HgS, PbS, PbS2, and PdS. {Paragraph 40, " Metal sulfides include, but are not limited to CdS, In2S3 and ZnS.}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Sun’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal sulphides selected from the group consisting of TiS2, FeS, Fe2S3, CoS, Co2S3, Cr2S3, MnS, , NiS, Cu2S, CuS, ZnS, CdS, ZrS2, WS2, WS3, SnS, SnS2, MoS2, In2S3, Bi2S3, Ce2S3, CeS2, Ag2S, Ga2S3, Hg2S, HgS, PbS, PbS2, and PdS as Sun further teaches a use of their microporous material for the use in photocatalytic material, and doing so would creates stable photocatalytic activity and mechanical strength. {Sun, paragraph 120}
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Geng (CN101816943A). *Geng is directed to the attached, English, machine-translated version.
Regarding claim 14, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal halides selected from the group consisting of AgI, AgBr, AgCl, HgCl2, and Hg2Cl2.
Geng, drawn to a photocatalytic material and preparation method thereof {Geng, top page 1}, teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal halides selected from the group consisting of AgI, AgBr, AgCl, HgCl2, and Hg2Cl2. {Paragraph 8, "silver bromide sunshine photocatalytic material of the invention is composed of nano silver and micron-sized silver bromide, the chemical formula is Ag-Br"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Geng’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal halides selected from the group consisting of AgI, AgBr, AgCl, HgCl2, and Hg2Cl2 as Geng teaches the functional of this material for photocatalytic reactions, and doing so increases the conduction speed of the device as silver is one of the best conductors, which is capable of rapidly transferring electrons to the catalytic surface, greatly improving the efficiency of the material. {Geng, bottom page 3} Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Mouri (US5690922A).
Regarding claim 15, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal phosphates selected from the group consisting of Cu3(PO4)2, Cu2(OH)PO4, Ag3PO4, Fe3(PO4)2, Zn3(PO4)2, Ni3(PO4)2, FePO4, CePO4, BiPO4, and TiP2O7.
Mouri, drawn to a material for decomposition of components which can be used in combination with photocatalytic reactions {Mouri, column 6 lines 18-23}, teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal phosphates selected from the group consisting of Cu3(PO4)2, Cu2(OH)PO4, Ag3PO4, Fe3(PO4)2, Zn3(PO4)2, Ni3(PO4)2, FePO4, CePO4, BiPO4, and TiP2O7. {Column 5 lines 9-14 & 33-36, "the metal is a tetravalent metal" & "these phosphates of the tetravalent metals are usually insoluble or sparsely soluble in water"} Note that while Mouri is silent to the specifically claimed Ti2PO7, it has been described in the quoted reference above wherein titanium is a group IV metal on the periodic table, which in it’s natural state has a +4 (tetravalent) charge, which when combined with a phosphate, would yield the claimed formula of Ti2PO7 as claimed, once balanced.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Mouri’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more metal phosphates selected from the group consisting of Cu3(PO4)2, Cu2(OH)PO4, Ag3PO4, Fe3(PO4)2, Zn3(PO4)2, Ni3(PO4)2, FePO4, CePO4, BiPO4, and TiP2O7 as doing so would insures efficient elimination of carious or diverse compounds. {Mouri, column 6 lines 21-23}
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Luan (CN107970946A). *Luan is directed to the attached, English, machine-translated version.
Regarding claim 16, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more doped or undoped organic semiconductors selected from the group consisting of covalent organic frameworks, C3N4, polyacetylene, polythiophene, and polypyrrole.
Luan, drawn to a powder, nano-composite, photocatalytic material {Luan, Title}; teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more doped or undoped organic semiconductors selected from the group consisting of covalent organic frameworks, C3N4, polyacetylene, polythiophene, and polypyrrole. {Top page 2, "The invention relates to the field of environmental catalytic materials, in particular to the preparation and application … magnetic polythiophene nanocomposite photocatalytic materials"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Luan’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more doped or undoped organic semiconductors selected from the group consisting of covalent organic frameworks, C3N4, polyacetylene, polythiophene, and polypyrrole as Luan utilizes a powder application of the substances within the material which improves the specific surface area of the catalyst and promotes the full contact of organic pollutants and catalyst with broadens the corresponding range of visible light and has better visible light response performance. {Luan, bottom page 3}
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardi (EP2399871A2) modified by Assemjan (WO2018158667A1), in view of Eide (US20210038755A1).
Regarding claim 17, Leonardi modified by Assemjan fails to teach wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more hybrid organic-inorganic semiconductors selected from the group consisting of metal-organic frameworks.
Eide, drawn to a photocatalytic oxidation device, teaches wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more hybrid organic-inorganic semiconductors selected from the group consisting of metal-organic frameworks. {Paragraph 41, "Examples of additional or alternative photocatalytic materials that may be utilized in the coating include graphene oxide, metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), other semiconductor materials"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leonardi modified by Assemjan with Eide’s teachings wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises one or more hybrid organic-inorganic semiconductors selected from the group consisting of metal-organic frameworks Eide further teaches what is known as a “cell fraction” or a ratio of panel/material sizes within the device, and have discovered more optimal cell fraction ratios from about 0.2-0.7 that improves the overall performance of the device 100. {Eide, paragraph 57}
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maxwell (WO2008113128A1) directed towards photocatalytic panel reactor pertaining to the treatment of solids and gases, and other limitations claimed in the independent claim.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights