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
This is a first action on the merits for this divisional application filed on 01/10/2025
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
In claim 2, line 4, Applicant states “solvent mainly containing”. The examiner is unable to clearly and precisely understand what “mainly” represents. The examiner is respectfully requesting that the term “mainly” be replaced with a numerical range value.
In claim 2, line, Applicant states “and then the resulting coated object”. The examiner is unable to understand what the phrase “and then the resulting coated object” mean. Does Applicant mean that the coated object is obtained? The examiner is respectfully requesting that the phrase “and then the resulting coated object” be replaced with a positive recitation step.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, Applicant states “in a range of from 5000 to 30000, an acid value in a range of from 1 to 50”. This phrase does not include any units and therefore the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this claim. It is respectfully requested that Applicant add units to the recited range values.
Dependent article claim 11 depends from method claim 9. the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of this claim because it is not recited in claim 11 what is or is not included from method claim 9 and method claim 1. It is respectfully requested that Applicant change the dependency of claim 11 to article claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the article body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoke et al. (US 6,818,254 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoke et al. discloses an ozone degradation method (col.8, lines 50-62) comprising bringing an ozone-degradable coating film (col.14, lines 5-7) comprising a manganese oxide-based catalyst (col.14, lines 29-32), activated carbon (col.26, lines 3-12), a polyacrylate-based dispersant (col.25, line 14), and a resin (col.25, line 23) into contact with the atmosphere, thereby degrading ozone in the atmosphere (col.3, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 2, Hoke et al. discloses a method of forming an ozone-degradable film (col.26, lines 66-67 through col.27, lines 1-34), comprising coating an object to be coated, with an aqueous coating material composition comprising not only a manganese oxide-based catalyst, activated carbon, a polyacrylate-based dispersant, and a resin (col.25, line 23), but also a solvent mainly containing water and a pH adjuster (col.16, lines 55-64), and then the resulting coated object (col.26, lines 66-67 through col.27, lines 1-34).
Regarding claim 10, Hoke et al. discloses an ozone-degradable coating film-bearing article (col.3, lines 23-30) comprising an article body (col.29, lines 15-18) and an ozone-degradable coating film that is provided on the article body and that comprises a manganese oxide-based catalyst (col.14, lines 29-32), activated carbon (col.26, lines 3-12), a polyacrylate-based dispersant (col.25, line 14), and a resin (col.25, line 23).
Regarding claim 3, Hoke et al. discloses that the manganese oxide-based catalyst is a manganese dioxide-based catalyst (col.14, lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 4, Hoke et al. discloses that a compounding ratio of the activated carbon (col.26, lines 3-13 and col.30, lines 22-36) to the manganese oxide-based catalyst (col.14, lines 29-36) satisfies 20/80 ≤ activated carbon/manganese oxide-based catalyst (40/60) ≤ 80/20, in terms of a mass ratio.
Regarding claim 5, Hoke et al. discloses that a total amount of the manganese oxide-based catalyst (col.14, lines 29-36) and the activated carbon (col.26, lines 3-13 and col.30, lines 22-36) with respect to the ozone-degradable coating film is from 60% by mass to 90% by mass.
Regarding claim 6, Hoke et al. discloses that the polyacrylate-based dispersant (col.25, line 14) is a dispersant having a weight average molecular weight in a range of from 5000 to 30000, an acid value in a range of from 1 to 50, and a hydrogen-ion exponent in a range of from pH 4 to pH 9 (the polyacrylate in col.25, line 14 is deemed to possess the recited inherent chemical properties) .
Regarding claim 7, Hoke et al. discloses that a content of the polyacrylate-based dispersant (col.25, line 14) is in a range of from 1.5 parts by mass to 75 parts by mass (col.24, lines 54-58) with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total amount of the manganese oxide-based catalyst (col.14, lines 29-36) and the activated carbon (col.26, lines 3-13 and col.30, lines 22-36).
Regarding claim 8, Hoke et al. discloses that the resin is at least one selected from a (meth)acrylic resin or a polypropylene resin (col.25, line 11 and lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 9, Hoke et al. discloses a cured coating film of an aqueous coating material composition (col.26, lines 39-44) comprising not only a manganese oxide-based catalyst, the activated carbon, the polyacrylate-based dispersant, and the resin (col.25, line 23), but also a solvent mainly containing water and a pH adjuster (col.16, lines 55-64), and then the resulting coated object (col.26, lines 66-67 through col.27, lines 1-34).
Regarding claim 11, Hoke et al. discloses that the article body is a honeycomb structural member (col.7, lines 24-25), a filter member, a duct, or a building material (col.12, lines 8-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Steffens reference (2011/0274600 A1) discloses a method of oxidizing ozone using manganese oxide, activated carbon, and polyacrylate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights