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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 2/6/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 14-17, 19 and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-22 are pending in the instant application, wherein claims 16-19 remain withdrawn in response to restriction.
Applicant has amended the claims to remove indefinite language; the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 21 of Remarks that the prior art “as a whole” does not teach or suggest a filter as claimed, arguing that a monolith provides relatively low resistance to breathing, the jacket reduces the risk of damage or breaks if a mechanical impact acts on the filter unit, and the substance-to-substance bond “ensure[s] a safe connection.”
The Examiner disagrees. The prior art discloses or teaches these elements as discussed in the updated rejections below, and the Examiner notes that all of the “advantages” asserted by Applicant were well known and predictably provided by the combinations discussed in the updated rejections below, see e.g. Tennison (e.g. paras [0099-100]) demonstrating the known low resistance of monolithic filters, Rieger demonstrating known impact protection provided by elastically deformable filter jackets, and Becker and Braun, which both disclose curing a substance onto another to create a substance-to-substance bond as disclosed.
Applicant argues on page 22 of Remarks that Becker “does not disclose a substance-to-substance bond” because “[p]ositively and/or non-positively describes a form-fit or friction-locked (force-fit) connection but not a curing onto.”
The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant acknowledges on page 22 of Remarks that Becker discloses a heated mixture [which comprises a meltable polymer(s) per Becker para [0010]] that is pressed, while hot, into a molded piece, and which is then cooled to create a positive connection with the molded piece, i.e. cured onto the molded piece; therefore, Becker discloses a substance-to-substance bond in as far as such a bond is instantly disclosed, see the Claim Interpretation section, below. As such, the rejections in view of Becker are maintained/updated below.
Applicant argues on page 22 of Remarks that Becker does not disclose a jacket that encloses an area of an inflow-side end face of the filter or a cover in contact with a filter as claimed, and argues that the jacket of Becker is not disclosed as configured to absorb kinetic energy.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner agrees that Becker does not disclose a kinetic-energy-absorbing jacket that encloses an area of an inflow-side end face of the filter or a cover in contact with a filter as claimed, which is why Rieger and Fiet were applied in the rejections maintained/updated below to teach these obvious limitations, in order to predictably provide shock impact on the periphery and around the edges of the filter of Becker (as taught by Rieger) as well as to provide a canister that is configured to sit more closely to the respiratory mask and/or to provide additional structural support across the outlet-side surface of the filter (as taught by Fiet).
Applicant argues on page 23 of Remarks that “[a] stable connection provided by the tongue 5 [of Becker] and releasable connection provided by the fasteners 3 cannot be reliably fulfilled with an elastically deformable material.”
The Examiner disagrees with these unfounded assertions. An elastically deformable tongue 5 would still be capable of functioning as disclosed by Becker, i.e. as a mechanical locking projection, because it would still be a projection of material extended into molten material and the molten material cured around it, and the releasable connection provided by the fastener 3 would actually be enhanced by an elastically deformable material, because it would be easier and/or protective of the molded piece 2 (and, indeed, suggested to some degree if the adapter is not flexible) when snapping the combined connecting part 1/molded piece 2 into the adapter 4 as disclosed by Becker para [0012] and in light of the structure of Becker Fig. 1, because elastic deformability would allow the connecting part to resiliently flex to some degree to allow it to initially slide past the ridge in the adapter without crushing the molded piece and then snap back behind the ridge to lock the filter into place in the adapter. As such, the rejections in view of Becker are maintained/updated below.
Applicant argues on page 23 of Remarks that one would not look to Rieger to modifed Becker because Rieger is directed to a filter unit for a combustion engine, which has nothing to do with a filter unit for a respiratory mask, and is directed to a filter made of paper, not a matrix-bonded filter medium, concluding that Rieger is non-analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that Rieger is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner respectfully notes that independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) are not limited to a respiratory filter; they only recite a gas filter unit. Therefore, the field of endeavor is considered to be all gas filters. Rieger is a gas filter, and the nature of the filter structure, other than it being capable of impact damage, is not germane to Rieger’s impact mitigation teachings, in as far as both paper filters and monolithic/matrix-bonded filters are both capable of being damaged by impact. Since both the Becker and Rieger references are in the gas filtration field, and Rieger is pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (i.e. impact protection of damageable filter material), the rejections in view of Rieger are maintained below.
Applicant argues on page 24 of Remarks that “Rieger fails to be concerned with securing components together…does not involve solving the problems related to press-fitting components as featured in [Becker].”
The Examiner respectfully notes that Rieger is not relied on to teach “securing components together” or for “solving problems associated with press-fit connections”. The base reference of Becker already discloses components that are secured and snap-fit together, and while forming the connecting part 1 of Becker from an elastically deformable material may have additional benefits with regards to the snap-fitting (e.g. as described at the top of page 5 above), the motivation to modify the connecting part 1 to comprise an elastically deformable material is found directly in the teachings of Rieger, i.e. to provide impact absorption/protection, as discussed in the rejections maintained/updated below.
Applicant argues on page 24 of Remarks that Rieger does not teach a monolith filter formed of activated carbon or a cover as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner agrees that Rieger does not disclose these limitations; however, the base reference of Becker discloses (at least in one interpretation) a monolith filter formed of activated carbon, and Becker in view of Fiet teaches a cover as claimed. Therefore, the claims remain rejected in view of the prior art as maintained/updated below.
Applicant argues on page 25 of Remarks that Rieger does not teach a jacket of elastically deformable material that encloses a shell surface and an area of an inflow-side end face of the filter because area 3.1, 3.1’ “encloses only a part of the shell surface and does not absorb kinetic energy acting anywhere…[o]nly the web 3.2, 3.2’…serves to compensate for impacts…collar 3’’ is comprised of a rigid material….web 3.2, 3.2’…does not protect the entire shell surface.”
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that the base reference of Becker already discloses a jacket that encloses the entire shell surface [although the Examiner notes that the claims do not require the jacket to enclose the entire shell surface]; Rieger was not relied (or needed) to teach this limitation. Second, collar 3’’ is not relevant to, and not referenced, in the rejection. Third, area 3.1 and web 3.2 are taught to be integral parts of the same impact-absorbing collar 3; therefore, they absorb impact wherever they are present, and they educate the jacket of Becker to be impact absorbent and to include a similar jacket area extension enclosing an inflow-side end face of the filter (i.e. the way web 3.2 encloses the end face of filter of Rieger Fig. 2), in order to provide the impact and edge protection explicitly taught by Rieger. Therefore, it is the combination of references renders the instant limitations obvious, as discussed in the maintained/updated rejections below.
Applicant further argues on page 25 of Remarks that Rieger “does not teach or suggest a substance-to-substance bond that connects a jacket to a shell surface of a filter.”
The Examiner respectfully notes that the base reference of Becker already discloses such a bond as discussed in the maintained/updated rejections below; Rieger was not relied (or needed) to teach this limitation.
Applicant argues on page 26 of Remarks that Fiet does not disclose a monolith filter or an elastically deformable jacket as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner agrees that Fiet does not disclose these limitations; however, the base reference of Becker discloses (in one interpretation) a monolith filter formed of activated carbon, and Becker in view of Rieger teaches an elastically deformable jacket as claimed. Therefore, the claims remain rejected in view of the prior art as maintained/updated below.
Applicant further argues on page 26 of Remarks that Fiet does not disclose a cover that is in contact with a filter because “output end 36 with a concave outlet wall 38…is not in contact with the filter bed 53…outlet wall 38 is in contact with the filter chamber 52…output end 36…is not in contact with the filter 53.”
The Examiner is confused by Applicant’s statements. The concave wall 38 is part of the output end 36, and Fiet para [0032] states: “The convex inlet wall 34 and the concave outlet wall 38 may be in a parallel, spaced-apart relationship joined by a peripheral outside wall 50 to define an enclosed filter chamber 52” (emphasis added), such that the outlet wall 38, which Applicant acknowledges is in contact with filter chamber 52, of end 36 is thus in contact with the filter material 53 immediately above wall 38 in chamber 52 of Fiet Fig. 3, because wall 38 forms the lower wall of the chamber 52/supports/defines the lower extent of material 53. Since Fiet clearly teaches an outlet/cover wall that contacts the entire periphery of the bottom/outlet face of a filter (especially if including ribs as discussed in the rejection maintained below), Fiet educates modified Becker to arrive at the claimed invention as discussed in the maintained/updated rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 27 of Remarks that Taylor refers to a third technical domain (water filter), and does not teach a jacket and cover as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully notes that nature of the fluid through the filter is not relevant to the teachings of Taylor applied in the rejection, namely, the inclusion of multiple stacked filters within a jacket [indeed, Braun, now applied below to alternatively reject amended claim 1, teaches this same, known concept in an air filter, and the Examiner notes that the main reason Taylor was originally applied was for compact prosecution because it also taught the longitudinal axis limitation that has now been removed from claim 22], and Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches a jacket and cover as claimed. The motivation to combine, i.e. to include stacked filters within the jacket, is provided by Taylor, i.e. to provide different degrees of filtering for broad application and/or a filtering gradient for efficiency (Taylor col. 3, line 61-col. 4 line 6), which is a teaching that is equally applicable to gaseous flows as it is to liquid flows [as further evidenced by the similar disclosure of Braun]. Therefore, since the teachings of Taylor remain relevant to modified Becker, the rejections in view of Taylor in view of claims 6 and 21 are maintained below.
On page 28 of Remarks, Applicant reiterates their piecewise list of elements missing from each prior art reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references arrives at the claimed invention as discussed in the maintained/updated rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 29 of Remarks that Kern does not teach a monolith filter, jacket and cover as claimed.
The Examiner refers to the discussions above and the updated rejections below, which point out where these elements are taught by the prior art of Becker, Rieger and Fiet, and therefore need not be taught by Kern. Kern teaches a housing with a mechanically-connected outlet cover and inlet grip protection per claims 8 and 10, which educates modified Becker to include the same, which Applicant does not contest. Therefore, the rejections in view of Kern are maintained below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14, 15 and 20-22 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims 2-4, 6-12, 14, 15 and 20-22), it is unclear in the claims whether “a monolith, the monolith being formed of activated carbon” (emphasis added) is intended to mean the monolith comprises activated carbon (supported by instant paras [0004], [0017, [0024, [0095]), or consists of activated carbon (supported by instant para [0097] and item #1 on page 48). For purposes of compact prosecution, both interpretations will be considered, but Applicant should make the intended interpretation clear in their response to this Office Action to address this rejection.
Further regarding claim 22, line 3 has been amended to recite “a central axis,” wherein it is unclear whether this is the same central axis as claim 1, line 3, or a different central axis, and it is unclear whether claim 22, line 5, is referring to the central axis of claim 1 or claim 22. As best understood, for purposes of examination, they are all the same central axis, such that Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 22, line 3 to read “the central axis”.
Claim Interpretation
A “substance-to-substance bond” is understood to be the bonding connection that arises from a curing of one material onto another, see paras [0051], [0066], and [0104] of the instant specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 2002/0000229 A1; hereinafter “Becker”) in view of Rieger (CN 101505853 A; hereinafter “Rieger”, wherein the citations below refer to the translation supplied with the Office Action mailed 2/12/2025) and Fiet et al. (US 2013/0298775 A1; hereinafter “Fiet”).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a filter unit (Fig. 1; paras [0002-6]) comprising:
a filter (molded piece 2) in a form of a monolith, the monolith being formed of [comprising] activated carbon (a mixture of a granular adsorbent, absorbent, chemisorptive or catalytic material, particularly activated carbon and (a) meltable polymer(s) is heated under pressure and thus pressed into a molded piece 2, para [0010]), the filter extending along a central axis (up and down in Fig. 1) and having a shell surface (outer, vertically-oriented cylindrical surface of molded piece 2 in Fig. 1) surrounding the central axis, an inflow side end face (facing up in Fig. 1), and an outflow side end face (facing down in Fig. 1), and configured to filter at least one gas and/or particles out of a gas mixture, which flows through the filter (paras [0002-7] and [0010]);
a jacket (connecting part 1) wherein the jacket encloses the shell surface of the filter (Fig. 1), the jacket being connected at the shell surface of the filter to the filter via a substance-to-substance bond (mixture [of molded piece 2] is heated under pressure…and is thereby positively…pressed into [connecting part 1]…the connection between said connecting part and the compacted mixture is gastight, Becker claim 1), the substance-to-substance bond being established over an entirety of the shell surface or at least over an area of the shell surface (Fig. 1); and
a cover (adapter 4), wherein the filter unit has outflow side with an outflow-side opening formed in the cover (facing down in Fig. 1) and an inflow side with an inflow-side opening (facing up in Fig. 1), the jacket surrounding the inflow-side opening (Fig. 1), wherein the filter unit is configured for a gas mixture to flow from the inflow side through the inflow-side opening, through the filter and through the outflow-side opening to the outflow side (Fig. 1; paras [0004-8], [0012-14]).
While Becker indicates that the connecting part 1 can be made of a polymer (para [0008]) and recognizes that the mechanical stability of molded pieces is “limited along their edges” (para [0005]), Becker does not recite a particular polymer material, such that Becker is silent regarding wherein the jacket/connecting part 1 is comprised of an elastically deformable material and is configured to absorb kinetic energy, which acts on the shell surface. However, Rieger demonstrates that it was well known in the air filter art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter (filter body 1) (Figs. 1-2) with a jacket (protective collar/ring sleeve 3) comprised of an elastically deformable material and is configured to absorb kinetic energy, which acts on the shell surface/outer cylindrical surface of the filter (Figs. 1-2; elastomer material protective ring sleeve…an impact can be absorbed by the protective collar, first para on page 2; first four full paras on page 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the jacket/connecting part 1 of Becker to be comprised of an elastically deformable material and is configured to absorb kinetic energy, which acts on the shell surface as taught by Rieger, in order to provide the predictable result of protecting the filter/molded piece 2, particularly the edges thereof, from impacts that could damage the filter/molded piece 2 (Becker para [0002]; Rieger first para on page 2 and first four full paras on page 3).
Becker is silent regarding wherein the jacket encloses an area of the inflow side end face of the filter. However, Rieger further educates modified Becker to include wherein the jacket encloses an area of the inflow-side end face (end surface 2) of the filter (the area covered by side tab 3.2) (Rieger Fig. 2; first para on page 2 and first four full paras on page 3), because it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Becker to include wherein the jacket encloses an area of the inflow side end face of the filter as further taught by Rieger, in order to provide the predictable result of ensuring robust corner/edge impact protection by wrapping the jacket around the inflow side edge of the filter (Rieger, second and fourth full paras on page 3).
Becker is silent regarding the cover being in contact with the filter, and wherein the cover adjoins the jacket at an end of the jacket, which end points towards the outflow side, because it appears from Becker Fig. 1 that, when snapped in, the lower face/end of connecting part 1 and the piece 2 that points toward the outflow side will be cantilevered over the inwardly-angled portion of adapter 4, rather than being in contact with/adjoining the adapter. However, Fiet teaches that it was known in the respiratory canister filter art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cover (comprising outlet wall 38) being in contact with the filter (filter bed 53), and wherein the cover adjoins the filter at an end of the filter, which end points towards the outflow side (Fig. 3; paras [0031-32], and see also para [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Becker to include the cover being in contact with the filter, and wherein the cover adjoins the jacket at an end of the jacket, which end points towards the outflow side as taught by Fiet, in order to flatten the lower conical projection of the adapter 4 of Becker against the bottom of the connecting part 1 and piece 2 (and providing support ribs, a standard consideration in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, see e.g. the references cited in Fiet para [0005], if desired to maintain spacing for airflow between the piece 2 and the inner bottom surface of adapter 4 for maximum utilization of the piece 2 while still providing structural support for the piece 2) to provide the predictable result of filter canister that is configured to sit more closely to the respiratory mask (Fiet para [0005]), thus providing a reduced profile for aesthetics and/or to render the canister less likely to catch on objects and/or to provide a lower momentum of inertia for the mask for comfort/ease of use, and/or to provide additional structural support across the outlet-side surface of the filter to prevent damage to the filter.
Regarding claim 2, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein modified Becker is taught to include wherein the jacket is configured to have a spring effect such that the jacket expands after a force is applied to the jacket and then removed from the jacket, by virtue of including the impact-resistant elastic material taught by Rieger as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.II.A, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (particularly given the general sizing of mask-mountable canister filters) to arrive at the jacket of modified Becker having a thickness of at least 0.1 cm and at most 1.5 cm through routine experimentation, in order to balance impact resistance with material costs.
Regarding claim 7, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein Fiet further educates modified Becker to include wherein the cover is connected to the jacket at that end of the jacket that points towards the outflow side, see discussion regarding claim 1 above, because a positive connection between the cover and jacket would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to provide a single-use canister for sanitary and/or simple exchange purposes, and/or securely fastening the filter within the canister would minimize shifting/potential damage and/or to avoid spaces where air could bypass the filter.
Regarding claim 11, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, but modified Becker is silent regarding a film enclosing an outer surface of the adapter 4 and thus an outer surface of the jacket. However, Fiet demonstrates that it was known in the respirator filter canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing of a filter canister (and thus the outer side of any elements within said housing) (Fig. 1; shrink-wrapped film may be provided around the outside of the filter assembly 12, para [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Becker to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the adapter 4 and thus an outer surface of the jacket as further taught Fiet, in order to provide the predictable result of an additional layer for leak protection and/or to provide a well-known means for decorating and/or branding the filter unit.
Regarding claim 12, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein Fiet further educates modified Becker to include a grip protection (cap comprising convex inlet wall 34 and openings 56) in front of the inflow-side opening, wherein the grip protection is (indirectly) connected to the jacket (Fiet Figs. 1 and 3; where the cap comprising wall 34 comprehends a grip protection because it allows user to grip the upper end in Fig. 3 without contacting/touching the filter materials within the canister), in order to provide the predictable result of an additional coarse filter (the perforated cap itself) for enhanced filtration and/or a means for holding an additional pre-filter within the adapter 4 of Becker and/or to further protect the filter/molded piece 2 of Becker from external contact, e.g. damaging blows.
Regarding claim 14, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches a respirator comprising:
a respirator component (respirator) (Becker paras [0004], [0007], [0012]); and
a filter unit as claimed (see claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 15, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the respirator in accordance with claim 14, wherein Becker further discloses/teaches wherein the respirator component comprises a gas mask (paras [0004], [0007], [0012]) and the filter unit is configured to filter at least one gas and/or particles out of breathing air flowing through the gas mask (paras [0002-7] and [0012-014]).
Regarding claim 20, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein Becker further discloses wherein a material of the filter and a material of the jacket are integrally connected to form the substance-to-substance bond, wherein the filter is integrally connected to the jacket to form a one-piece filter jacket structure (Becker Fig. 1 and claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 22, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein modified Becker further discloses wherein the filter unit is configured for the gas mixture to flow from the inflow side through the inflow-side opening in a direction parallel to [the] central axis of the filter (up and down in Becker Fig. 1), the jacket comprising an inner jacket surface forming to the substance-to-substance bond, the inner jacket surface and the shell surface extending parallel to the central axis (Becker Fig. 1 and claim 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 5,817,263; hereinafter “Taylor”).
Regarding claim 6, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, but modified Becker is silent regarding wherein a portion of the jacket covering an area of the inflow-side end face of the filter is located at a spaced location from the filter. However, Taylor teaches that it was known in the air filter art (col. 5, lines 56-60) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a co-molded filter/support ring similar to that of Becker (see Taylor Fig. 1) to include multiple filters (e.g. a coarse filter layer, col. 3, line 61-col. 4 line 6, i.e. in addition to a fine filter layer), such that including in modified Becker a stack of multiple filters as taught by Taylor, thus resulting in a portion of the jacket covering an area of the inflow-side end face of the filter that is in contact with the cover being located at a spaced location from that filter due to the presence of the other filter(s) in the stack, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to provide different degrees of filtering for broad application and/or a filtering gradient for efficiency (Taylor col. 3, line 61-col. 4 line 6) while ensuring the corner/edge protection discussed above regarding claim 1 (Rieger second full para on page 3).
Regarding claim 21, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the respirator in accordance with claim 14, wherein Becker further discloses wherein a material of the filter and a material of the jacket are integrally connected to form the substance-to-substance bond, wherein the filter is integrally connected to the jacket to form a one-piece filter jacket structure (Becker Fig. 1 and claim 1 discussion above), but modified Becker is silent regarding a particle filter arranged between the filter and an inner surface of the jacket. However, Taylor teaches that it was known in the air filter art (col. 5, lines 56-60) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a co-molded filter/support ring similar to that of Becker (see Taylor Fig. 1) to further include a particle filter (e.g. a coarse filter layer, col. 3, line 61-col. 4 line 6, i.e. in addition to a fine filter layer) and Rieger teaches a laterally-overlapping positioning of an inner surface of the jacket on either side of filter material (see claim 1 discussion above, Rieger Fig. 2 and Rieger second full para on page 3), such that including in modified Becker a stack of multiple particle-and-gas filters as taught by Taylor arranged between inner surfaces of the jacket that project over the end faces of the filter stack as taught by Rieger such that a particle filter is arranged between the filter and an inner surface of the jacket, would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to provide different degrees of filtering for broad application and/or a filtering gradient for efficiency (Taylor col. 3, line 61-col. 4 line 6) as well as to ensure the corner/edge protection discussed above regarding claim 1 on both ends of the filter stack for maximum impact protection (Rieger second full para on page 3).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kern et al. (US 6,248,280 B1; hereinafter “Kern”).
Regarding claim 8, Becker in view of Rieger and Fiet teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, but modified Becker is silent regarding a two-piece adapter, particularly one comprising a housing, wherein:
the jacket is located between the shell surface of the filter and the housing;
the housing comprises a housing portion in contact with a portion of the jacket covering the area of the inflow-side end face of the filter, and
the cover is mechanically connected to the housing at an end of the housing, which end points towards the outflow side. However, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C, and Kern demonstrates that it was well known in the respiratory filter art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a filter canister adapter to comprise two pieces (Fig. 5), and for the filter unit to comprise a housing (cylindrically walled lower portion 14), wherein:
the jacket (adhesive seal 322) is located between the shell surface of the filter and the housing (Fig. 5);
the housing comprises a housing portion (bottom-side perimeter of portion 14, i.e. at the label 14 in Fig. 5) in contact with a portion of the jacket covering the area of the inflow-side end face of the filter (Fig. 5), and
the cover (cap 12) is mechanically connected to the housing at an end of the housing, which end points towards the outflow side (facing up in Fig. 5; col. 3, lines 62-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Becker to include a two-piece adapter, particularly one comprising a housing, wherein: the jacket is located between the shell surface of the filter and the housing; the housing comprises a housing portion in contact with a portion of the jacket covering the area of the inflow-side end face of the filter; and the cover is mechanically connected to the housing at an end of the housing, which end points towards the outflow side as taught by Kern, in order to provide a modular construction that allows for covers with different connection means that are suitable for different respirators to be easily substituted in the manufacturing process, and which provides a protective covering over the inflow-side end edge for extra protection thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Becker in view of Rieger, Fiet and Kern teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 8, wherein modified Becker is silent regarding a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing. However, Fiet demonstrates that it was known in the respirator filter canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing of a filter canister (Fig. 1; shrink-wrapped film may be provided around the outside of the filter assembly 12, para [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Becker to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing as taught Fiet, in order to provide the predictable result of an additional layer for leak protection and/or to provide a well-known means for decorating and/or branding the filter unit.
Regarding claim 10, Becker in view of Rieger, Fiet and Kern teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 8, wherein Kern further educates modified Becker to include a grip protection (grid work 16) in front of the inflow-side opening, wherein the grip protection is connected to the housing (Kern Fig. 5; where grid work 16 comprehends a grip protection because it allows user to grip the lower end in Kern Fig. 5 without contacting/touching the filter material therein), in order to provide the predictable result of an additional coarse filter for enhanced filtration and/or to further protect the filter/molded piece 2 from external contact, e.g. damaging blows.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 4,790,306; hereinafter “Braun”) in view of Tennison et al. (US 2017/0333736 A1; hereinafter “Tennison”), Haeuser (DE 10304216 B3; hereinafter “Haeuser”) and Sundstrӧm (US 5,158,077; hereinafter “Sundstrӧm”).
Regarding claim 1, Braun discloses a filter unit (Fig. 5) comprising:
a filter (filtration element 14c) in a form of a monolith, the monolith being formed of [comprising] activated carbon (filtration elements were prepared…by blending 80 parts of activated carbon…with 20 parts of thermoplastic polyurethane…heating…followed by compressing, col. 7, lines 27-34), the filter extending along a central axis (up and down in Fig. 5) and having a shell surface (peripheral surface 30c) surrounding the central axis (Fig. 5 in view of e.g. Fig. 2, i.e. the peripheral surface extends around the entire edge of the generally-puck-shaped filter), an inflow-side end face (e.g. facing down in Fig. 5), and an outflow-side end face (facing up in Fig. 5), and configured to filter at least one gas and/or particles out of a gas mixture, which flows through the filter (col. 1, lines 8-13 and col. 2, lines 26-34);
a jacket (resin mount 35c) comprised of an elastically deformable material (the resin mount…thermoplastic rubbers, col. 4, lines 45-49; “Elastalloy,” Table C) wherein the jacket encloses the shell surface and an area of the inflow-side end face of the filter and is configured to absorb kinetic energy, which acts on the shell surface (Fig. 5, wherein a rubber material/elastalloy is inherently configured to function as claimed by virtue of rubberization/elasticization), the jacket being connected at the shell surface of the filter to the filter via a substance-to-substance bond (thermoplastic resin has been injected to form a resin mount 35c, col. 6, lines 44-48; 30 second cool-town time [i.e. curing] was used, col. 7, lines 37-50), the substance-to-substance bond being established over an entirety of the shell surface or at least over an area of the shell surface (Fig. 5 in view of e.g. Fig. 2 as discussed above, where the resin is injected and molded/cured over the entirety of the surface 30c); and
wherein the filter unit has an outflow side (facing up in Fig. 5) and an inflow side (facing down in Fig. 5) with an inflow-side opening (the opening to the right of 41c in Fig. 5), the jacket surrounding the inflow-side opening (Fig. 5 in view of e.g. Fig. 2 as discussed above, where the u-shaped resin encompasses the entire perimeter of the filter puck), wherein the filter unit is configured for a gas mixture to flow from the inflow side through the inflow-side opening, through the filter and through the outflow-side opening to the outflow side (Fig. 5; col. 1, lines 8-13; col. 2, lines 26-34; col. 3, lines 17-27).
Braun is silent regarding the monolith being formed of [consisting of] activated carbon; however, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Tennison teaches that it was known in the respiratory filter art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the monolith being formed of [consisting of] activated carbon ([b]y “monolithic” is meant that the porous carbon is in a single piece i.e. not granular or not composed of granular carbons bound together by a binder etc., para [0090]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Braun to include the monolith being formed of [consisting of] activated carbon as taught by Tennison, in order to provide the predictable results of a pre-formable filter material that avoids the dust associated with handling of granular materials and/or the cost and/or interference of binders and/or provides a very low pressure drop (Tennison paras [0045-46] and [0091-92]).
While Braun further teaches that the filter of Braun Fig. 5 can be used with respiratory devices that utilize removable filters (Braun col. 3, lines 17-27 and col. 6, lines 37-40), modified Braun is silent regarding a cover, the cover being in contact with the filter, with an outflow-side opening formed in the cover, and wherein the cover adjoins the jacket at an end of the jacket, which end points towards the outflow side. However, Haeuser teaches that it was known in the respiratory filter art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a removable filter (filter body 3+wrapping 5) to be provided to a respiratory device (respirator) by being placed within a housing including a cover (at the air outlet side 4/facing down) (Figure), with an outflow-side opening formed in the cover (the bottom opening in the Figure), and wherein the cover adjoins a jacket (wrapping 5) at an end of the jacket, which end points towards the outflow side the cover being in contact with the filter (the Figure), and Sundstrӧm teaches that it was known in the respiratory filter art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a mask-mountable filter housing to include a cover (cover 4) (Fig. 10), the cover being in contact with the filter (via ribs 16; see also the contacting of filter 7 by ribs 15) (Fig. 10; col. 2, lines 23-42), with an outflow-side opening (air outtake 5) formed in the cover (Fig. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Braun to include a cover, the cover being in contact with the filter, with an outflow-side opening formed in the cover, and wherein the cover adjoins the jacket at an end of the jacket, which end points towards the outflow side as taught by Haeuser and Sundstrӧm, in order to provide the predictable results of utilizing a known housing arrangement (i.e. standard screw-in cartridge housing similar to that of Haeuser or Sundstrӧm) to associate the replaceable filter of Braun with a standard cartridge-mounting respiratory mask, wherein the filter material is securely supported within the housing/by the cover, i.e. with ribs that contact the filter.
Regarding claim 2, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein modified Braun further discloses wherein the jacket is configured to have a spring effect such that the jacket expands after a force is applied to the jacket and then removed from the jacket (a rubber material/elastalloy as discussed by Braun is inherently configured to function as claimed by virtue of rubberization/elasticization).
Regarding claim 4, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, finding the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05.II.A, such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (particularly given the general sizing of mask-mountable canister filters) to arrive at the jacket of modified Braun having a thickness of at least 0.1 cm and at most 1.5 cm through routine experimentation, in order to balance sealing/resiliency with material costs.
Regarding claim 6, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein modified Braun further teaches wherein a portion of the jacket, which portion covers covering an area of the inflow-side end face of the filter, is located at a spaced location from the filter (Braun Fig. 5 in view of an inflow/pre-filter being positioned under the portion of the resin 35c that covers an area of the inflow-side end of the filter as taught by e.g. Braun Figs. 6/7 and col. 6, lines 54-55/col. 7, lines 16-17), which would have been obvious to include the embodiment of Braun Fig. 5 in order to provide the predictable result of a prefilter for removing particulate matter (Braun col .5, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 7, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein Braun in view of Sundstrӧm further educates modified Braun to include wherein the cover is connected to the jacket at that end of the jacket that points towards the outflow side, because Braun teaches sealing ridges 41c for coupling to a filter-receiving socket and Sundstrӧm teaches rim region 21 (Fig.10), where it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the cover of modified Braun to include a rim region as taught by Sundstrӧm that connects to (e.g. inserts between ridges 41c) the jacket of Braun, in order to ensure a tight seal between the filter and a removable cover (see discussion regarding claim 8 below).
Regarding claim 8, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein Haeuser and Sundstrӧm further educates modified Braun to include further comprising a housing (e.g. a housing such as the sides of housing 2+screw ring 7 of Haeuser/casing 1 of Sundstrӧm Fig. 10), wherein:
the jacket is located between the shell surface of the filter and the housing (when the filter of modified Braun Fig. 5 is inserted into a housing such as housing 2 of Haeuser);
the housing comprises a housing portion in contact with a portion of the jacket covering the area of the inflow-side end face of the filter (when the filter of modified Braun Fig. 5 is inserted into a housing such as housing 2 of Haeuser/casing of Sundstrӧm Fig. 10), because it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for press ring 8 of Haeuser/ribs 15 of Sundstrӧm to contact the portion of the jacket covering the area of the inflow-side of the end face of the filter of modified Braun, see Braun Fig. 5 in view of Haeuser Figure/Sundstrӧm Fig. 10, in order to form a seal therewith/press thereagainst to ensure that the filter is securely held and/or that airflow is directed through the filter and not along the sides thereof; and
the cover is mechanically connected (e.g. via a rim 21) to the housing at an end of the housing, which end points towards the outflow side (Sundstrӧm Fig. 10), because it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.V.C, and it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Braun to utilize a modular construction that allows for covers with different connection means that are suitable for different respirators to be easily substituted in the manufacturing process, while providing a protective covering over the inflow-side end edge (e.g. a screw ring as taught by Haesuer or bottom 2 of Sundstrӧm Fig. 10) for extra protection thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 8, wherein Haeuser and Sundstrӧm further educates modified Braun to include a grip protection in front of the inflow-side opening (e.g. the cantilevered portion of screw ring 7 in Haesuer Figure or the lower rim region 18 and/or the gridded air intake 3 of Sundstrӧm Figs. 2/10), wherein the grip protection is connected to the housing (Haeuser Figure/Sundstrӧm Fig. 10), in order to provide the predictable result of an additional coarse filter for enhanced filtration and/or to further protect the filter from external contact, e.g. damaging blows.
Regarding claim 12, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein Haeuser and Sundstrӧm further educates modified Braun to include a grip protection in front of the inflow-side opening (e.g. the cantilevered portion of screw ring 7 in Haesuer Figure or the lower rim region 18 and/or the gridded air intake 3 of Sundstrӧm Figs. 2/10), wherein the grip protection is connected (indirectly) to the jacket (Haeuser Figure/Sundstrӧm Fig. 10 in view of Braun Fig. 5 and the discussion above regarding claim 8), in order to provide the predictable result of an additional coarse filter for enhanced filtration and/or to further protect the filter from external contact, e.g. damaging blows.
Regarding claim 14, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches a respirator comprising:
a respirator component (respirator/protective mask) (Braun col. 1/Haeuser/Sundstrӧm abstract); and
a filter unit as claimed (see claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 15, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the respirator in accordance with claim 14, wherein modified Braun teaches wherein the respirator component comprises a gas mask and the filter unit is configured to filter at least one gas and/or particles out of breathing air flowing through the gas mask (respirator/protective mask) (Braun col. 1/Haeuser/Sundstrӧm abstract), see claim 1 discussion above.
Regarding claim 20, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein modified Braun teaches wherein a material of the filter and a material of the jacket are integrally connected to form the substance- to-substance bond, wherein the filter is integrally connected to the jacket to form a one-piece filter jacket structure (Braun Fig. 5; thermoplastic resin has been injected to form a resin mount 35c, Braun col. 6, lines 44-48; 30 second cool-town time [i.e. curing] was used, Braun col. 7, lines 37-50; ([b]y “monolithic” is meant that the porous carbon is in a single piece, Tennison para [0090]; claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 21, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the respirator in accordance with claim 14, wherein modified Braun teaches a particle filter arranged between the filter and an inner surface of the jacket (see claim 6 discussion above), wherein a material of the filter and a material of the jacket are integrally connected to form the substance-to-substance bond, wherein the filter is integrally connected to the jacket to form a one-piece filter jacket structure (Braun Fig. 5; thermoplastic resin has been injected to form a resin mount 35c, Braun col. 6, lines 44-48; 30 second cool-town time [i.e. curing] was used, Braun col. 7, lines 37-50; ([b]y “monolithic” is meant that the porous carbon is in a single piece, Tennison para [0090]; claim 1 discussion above).
Regarding claim 22, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, wherein the filter unit is configured for the gas mixture to flow from the inflow side through the inflow-side opening in a direction parallel to [the] central axis of the filter, the jacket comprising an inner jacket surface forming the substance-to-substance bond, the inner jacket surface and the shell surface extending parallel to the central axis (Braun Fig. 5 and see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Fiet.
Regarding claim 9, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 8, but modified Braun is silent regarding a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing. However, Fiet demonstrates that it was known in the respirator filter canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing of a filter canister (Fig. 1; shrink-wrapped film may be provided around the outside of the filter assembly 12, para [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Braun to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing as taught Fiet, in order to provide the predictable result of an additional layer for leak protection and/or to provide a well-known means for decorating and/or branding the filter unit.
Regarding claim 11, Braun in view of Tennison, Haeuser and Sundstrӧm teaches the filter unit in accordance with claim 1, but modified Braun is silent regarding a film enclosing an outer surface of the jacket. However, Fiet demonstrates that it was known in the respirator filter canister art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing of a filter canister (and thus the outer side of any elements within said housing) (Fig. 1; shrink-wrapped film may be provided around the outside of the filter assembly 12, para [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Braun to include a film enclosing an outer surface of the housing taught by Haeuser and Sundstrӧm and thus an outer side of the jacket as further taught Fiet, in order to provide the predictable result of an additional layer for leak protection and/or to provide a well-known means for decorating and/or branding the filter unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785