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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: A comma is missing between palladium and osmium. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157).
Regarding claim 1, Dobo et al. teaches an inorganic monolithic hollow fiber having radially anisotropic internal void volume wall structure (corresponding to fiber body including one or more channels along surfaces of the fiber body) (column 4, lines 59-61; column 5, lines 64-66). The fibers comprise inorganic materials which are sintered in hollow fiber form, the preferred sinterable inorganic material are metals, such as the noble metals (corresponding to catalytic material) (column 6, lines 14-22).
Regarding claim 2, Dobo teaches a hollow fiber, which has a length which is very large compared to the diameter and has an axially disposed continuous channel which is devoid of the material that forms the giber (column 4, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 3, 5-7, fiber shapes other than circular (corresponding to curved) are contemplated, for instance having square, hexagonal (corresponding to polygonal), star (corresponding to lobes), or oblong shape (corresponding to curvelinear), or with fins etc. (column 7, lines 49-52).
Regarding claim 4, Figures 1-4 show the cross section of channels along the circumference of the fiber (Figures 1-4; column 5, lines 34-45).
Regarding claim 11, the intended use is noted. Dobo teaches the characteristics of these fibers provide those skilled in the art with a unique ability to produce fibers tailored for the application of interest (column 8, line 67; column 9, lines 1-3). While intended use recitations cannot entirely be disregarded, in composition and article claims, the intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. In re Casey, 370 USPQ 235 and In re Otto, 312 USPQ 458. It is the position of the examiner that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and therefore meets the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12, the inorganic materials are metals such as the noble metals (corresponding to Pt, Ir, Pd, Os, Rh, Ru) (column 6, lines 14-22).
Regarding claim 13, other material are amenable to the process, and the following materials illustrate materials which can form the final fibers without chemical modifications, are metals, ceramics, such as alumina, β-alumina, glass, mullite, silica, etc. (column 14, lines 12-37).
Regarding claim 14, a fiber forming organic polymer is used (column 9, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 17, typical polymers suitable for use in the process of the present invention can be substituted or unsubstituted polymers, and may be selected from polyimides (column 9, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 18, typical polymers suitable for use in the process of the present invention can be substituted or unsubstituted polymers, and may be selected from polyethers (column 9, lines 40-50), and typical substituents providing substituted polymers include monocyclic aryl groups, acyl groups, and the like (column 10, lines 7-11). It is the position of the examiner and polyether substituted with a monocyclic aryl group and acyl group would classify as a polyetherketone or polyetheretherketone.
Regarding claim 19, the inorganic material (i.e. noble metal) must be uniformly dispersed as e.g. small particles throughout the polymer solution (corresponding to catalytic material is particulate) (column 10, lines 66-67). Sufficient mixing must be carried out to achieve such a uniform dispersion (column 10, line 67; column 11, line 1).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157) with Aditya Ramgobin, Gaëlle Fontaine, Serge Bourbigot. Investigation of the thermal stability and fire behavior of high performance polymer: A case study of polyimide. Fire Safety Journal, 2021, 120 (103060), 1-9 to demonstrate an inherent state of fact.
Regarding claims 15-16, Dobo teaches typical polymers suitable for use in the process of the present invention can be substituted or unsubstituted polymers, and may be selected from polyimides (column 9, lines 40-49). The thermal stability of the polyimides is anticipated by Dobo as Ramgobin et al. demonstrates the thermal decomposition of polyimide occurs at 573 °C (page 2, section 3.1).
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157).
Regarding claims 8-9, the range of the internal void volumes is from 45 to about 90% (column 6, lines 57-59). The inorganic material (corresponding to catalytic material) is sintered into the hollow fiber to form a desired wall structure (column 6, lines 14-19). The inorganic material may act in dual capacity as both supporting and/or functional structure of the fiber as well as act as a catalytic material (column 7, lines 1-6). Dobo teaches the volume in which the catalytic material resides can be optimized to suit the need of the fiber. 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, these fibers can be prepared relatively economically with widely carrying physical configurations while utilizing many types of inorganic materials (column 6, lines 7-10). Fiber shapes other than circular are contemplated, for instance having square, hexagonal, star, or oblong shape, or with fins etc. (column 7, lines 49-52). Such shapes can be influenced by the spinneret design utilized and the fiber extruding and forming conditions (column 6, lines 51-53). While not explicitly stated, the helical channel as stated by the instant claims would be obvious, since the shapes and design of the fiber can be influenced. 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2008/0193765 A1).
Regarding claims 20-22, Dobo teaches it is also preferred to twist a plurality of the precursor hollow fibers into a cord (column 22, lines 57-59). Dobo teaches the fibers can be manipulated into different shapes and bundles but does not teach manipulating the fibers into a fabric.
However, Ogawa et al. teaches a noble fine particle support and method of manufacturing, in which there is almost no limitation on the type of substrate (abstract). Examples of the materials used as the substrate include glass materials and organic polymer materials (paragraphs [0002], [0046]). Ogawa teaches glass fibers are preferable, which are low cost and available in a wide variety of forms (paragraph [0053]). A woven or nonwoven fabric of glass fibers is preferable (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Dodo et al. with Ogawa et al. and use the glass fibers in woven and non woven fabrics as the support in the composition as taught by Dodo et al. for the purpose as suggested by Ogawa for using glass fibers since they are of low cost and available in a wide variety of forms.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 above, and further in view of Stark et al. (US 2018/0345190 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Dobo teaches it is preferred to twist a plurality of the precursor hollow fibers into a cord (column 22, lines 57-59). Dobo teaches the fibers can be manipulated into different shapes and bundles but does not teach manipulating the fibers into a fabric, or the amount of catalytic material present in the fabric.
However, Stark et al. teaches a catalytic filter material with fibers in the form of porous substrates (abstract). Stark teaches combing these filters with catalytic material (e.g. TiO2, V2O5, WO3) for catalytic application such as the reduction of NOx (paragraph [0003]). Stark teaches the active particles included in the filter in an amount that will provide a wide range, such as up to 70% (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Dodo with Stark and use TiO2, V2O5, WO3 as the inorganic materials in the composition as taught by Dobo for the purpose as suggested by Stark for catalytic NOx reduction. Dobo teaches tailoring the fibers for the application of interest. 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 above, and further in view of Sichuan Lijiu Intellectual Property Operation Co (CN 105664938 A) (reference made to machine translation).
Regarding claim 25, Dodo teaches fibers having a compact layer can be treated to obtain a porous compact layer (column 20, lines 23-27). Figure 6 illustrates the uniformly porous compact layer (column 20, lines 30-32). Dodo does not teach the fabric having a porosity of 40-80 vol%.
However, Sichuan Lijiu Intellectual Property Operation Co (now referred as Sichuan) teaches basalt fiber as an automotive exhaust purification material (paragraph [0013]). The fiber possesses characteristics of high porosity and large surface area, and effectively filters small particulate matter in exhaust gas and catalyzes the oxidation of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen monoxide, and sulfur dioxide (paragraph [0013]). The basalt fibers have a porosity of 30-80% (paragraph [0019]). The porous basalt has the advantages of large specific surface area and good adsorption which increases catalyst loading, increases contact area between exhaust gas and catalyst, and prolongs contact time between exhaust gas and catalyst, thereby improving the purification efficiency (paragraph [0024]). As the nano catalyst particles pass through the pores of the basalt fibers with the waste gas, the catalyst particles are intercepted and retained within the pores of the fiber (paragraph [0030]). The material that is formed increases reaction contact area and catalyst loading, which improves the purification efficiency of automotive gas (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Dodo et al. with Sichuan and use a fiber with a porosity of 30-80% in the composition as taught by Dodo et al. for the purpose as suggested by Sichuan in order to increase the catalyst loading and contact area between the exhaust gas and catalyst in order to increase the purification efficiency of the catalyst. 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 23, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobo et al. (US 4,329,157) as applied to claims 1-7, 11-14, 17-19 above, and further in view of Pirsch (US 4,309,386).
Regarding claim 23, Dobo teaches it is also preferred to twist a plurality of the precursor hollow fibers into a cord (column 22, lines 57-59). Dobo teaches the fibers can be manipulated into different shapes and bundles but does not teach manipulating the fibers into a fabric, or the catalytic material resides in the interstitial spaces defined by the catalytic fibers of the fabric.
However, Pirsch teaches the addition of filter bags as an integral catalyst to the gas stream to effect NOx removal (column 2, lines 53-55). Noble metals or non-metallic catalyst may be utilized (column 3, lines 32-40). Metals that are sufficiently ductile may be drawn into filament which may be interspersed with the filter fabric fibers into the production of matted fabrics, or twisted into the thread from which the fabric is woven (corresponding to catalytic material also rides in interstitial spaces) (column 3, lines 42-48). Another method of treating the filter bags with the catalyst is to coat the surface of the fabric fibers, either prior to or after the actual weaving process (column 3, lines 57-59). The catalyst may be sprayed on the fibers (column 3, line 60). The metal catalyst is weaved into the fabric of the filter so that the catalyst is an integral component of the fabric (claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Dodo with Pirsch and use filter bags with noble metals interspersed in the fabric with the fibers taught by Dobo for the purpose as suggested by Pisch for integrating the metal into the fabric in order to ensure catalytic NOx reduction. Dobo teaches tailoring the fibers for the application of interest. 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 (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 26, Dobo teaches it is also preferred to twist a plurality of the precursor hollow fibers into a cord (column 22, lines 57-59). Dobo teaches the fibers can be manipulated into different shapes and bundles but does not teach manipulating the fibers into a fabric. The characteristics of these fibers provide those skilled in the art with a unique ability to produce fibers tailored for the application of interest (column 8, line 67; column 9, lines 1-3). Dobo does not explicitly teach using the fibers in a bag architecture.
However, Pirsch teaches the addition of filter bags as an integral catalyst to the gas stream to effect NOx removal (column 2, lines 53-55). Pirsch teaches a filter house which includes a flue gas inlet and outlet passages and a plurality of filter bags disposed within the house, and the bags are treated with a catalyst to facilitate the selective catalytic reduction of NOx while simultaneously filtering out particulate matter entrained within the gas stream (column 2, lines 44-50).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Dodo with Pirsch and use filter bags as the fabric with the fibers taught by Dobo for the purpose as suggested by Pirsch to filter out particulate matter and selectively reduce NOx emissions.
Regarding claim 27, the intended use is noted. While intended use recitations cannot entirely be disregarded, in composition and article claims, the intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. In re Casey, 370 USPQ 235 and In re Otto, 312 USPQ 458. It is the position of the examiner that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and therefore meets the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANNAH E KETCHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/H.E.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
