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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plant medium layer, carbon filter layer, and substrate as layers inside an interlocking chamber” (per claim 23), “a base layer having a plurality of compartments housing the inlet fan, the outlet fan, and the carbon filter layer” (per claim 31) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 23 and 32 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein the plant medium layer and the carbon filter layer are stacked as different filtration layers in an interlocking chamber, and wherein the carbon filter layer is removable from and installable in the interlocking chamber.” Which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear what forms the interlocking structure. Is the interlocking chamber interlocking with itself? Does it interlock with the base?
Claim 32 recites the limitation, “wherein the base layer comprises a raised three-dimensional structure forming a wavy pattern and defining a plurality of cavities, and wherein the preserved moss is incorporated into the plurality of cavities.” Which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear how the three-dimensional base would support the carbon filter and substrate. The three-dimensional base structure appears to be a separate embodiment, where only the moss is placed into the cavities (Fig. 18a). It is unclear how the substrate and carbon filter would be incorporated.
In view of the 112b rejections above, claims 23 and 32 will be interpreted as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marquez; Federico T. (US 20130118070 A1) in view of Behrens; Wolfgang (US 20090176295 A1), in view of Robinson; Ruth A. (US 4287222 A).
Regarding claim 21 Marquez discloses A system for air filtration and therapeutic relief (Fig. 3); (title) comprising: a base layer (3); an air circulation system having an inlet [0041], an outlet [0041], at least one duct (corresponding to building duct work); [0056] and an inlet fan (Fig. 4; 17) configured to allow air through the inlet; and an outlet fan (17) configured to discharge air through the outlet [0041]; a flat substrate consisting of felt (Fig. 4; 18); [0053], the flat substrate being water absorbing and water retentive and substantially devoid of metal [0053]; a controller (Fig. 4; 26); [0047] configured to operate the inlet and the outlet fan so that the inlet fan and the outlet fan provide an air current through the at least one duct, polluted air entering the inlet flows through the preserved moss as a filtration medium and through the carbon filter layer, and filtered air is discharged from the outlet [0051].
Marquez does not disclose a carbon filter layer separate from the flat substrate and disposed between the base layer and the flat substrate, the carbon filter layer configured to filter volatile organic compounds.
Giacomantonio teaches a carbon filter layer (504) separate from the substrate (Fig. 5; 506-512) and disposed between the base layer (502) and the flat substrate (Fig. 5), the carbon filter layer configured to filter volatile organic compounds (the structure is capable of performing the intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Marquez to include a carbon filter layer separate from the flat substrate and disposed between the base layer and the flat substrate, the carbon filter layer configured to filter volatile organic compounds, as taught by Giacomantonio, in order to help filter hydrocarbons from the air (Cols. 5-6, lines 62-67 and 1-2).
Marquez in view of Giacomantonio does not disclose a plant medium layer consisting of moss of the genus Dicranum disposed on a flat substrate. Behrens teaches a plant medium layer (Fig. 1; 14) consisting of moss of the genus Dicranum [0051] disposed on a flat substrate (12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the plant module of Marquez with the plant medium layer consisting of moss of the genus Dicranum, as taught by Behrens, in order to improve air quality (abstract) since moss is a natural air filter itself [0031].
Marquez in view of Giacomantonio and Behrens does not disclose preserved moss, wherein the preserved moss is preserved in glycerin and water. Robinson teaches preserved moss (Col. 3, lines4-23), wherein the preserved moss is preserved in glycerin and water (Col. 3, lines 35-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plant medium layer of Marquez in view of Giacomantonio and Behrens to include preserved moss, wherein the preserved moss is preserved in glycerin and water, as taught by Robinson, in order to provide realistic aesthetic appeal (Col. 1, lines 46-59) while reducing maintenance. Furthermore, applicant has not stated that using preserved moss solves any stated problem. The instant disclosure states the moss can be live, preserved, dormant, or a combination thereof [0036].
Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson discloses an adhesive (Marqeuz; [0050]) affixing the plants to the flat substrate without the use of netting, but does not explicitly disclose a silicone-based adhesive.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as an obvious substitution of functional equivalent, to substitute the adhesive of Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson with a silicone-based adhesive, in order to create a waterproof bond and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. Furthermore, applicant discloses, in [0047] a listing of alternative glues that may be used and still function as intended.
Regarding claim 23 Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Marquez further discloses removable panels [0041], which support the plant medium layer; wherein the plant medium layer and the carbon filter layer are stacked as different filtration layers, but does not disclose an interlocking chamber. Park teaches an interlocking chamber (Fig. 9; 313); wherein the carbon filter layer (304) is removable from and installable in the interlocking chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson to have included an interlocking chamber, the interlocking chamber, as taught by Park, in order to easily add and remove layers.
Regarding claim 31 Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson does not disclose wherein the base layer is a three -dimensionally printed structure.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Marquez discloses compartments housing the inlet fan and the outlet fan (Fig. 3), but does not disclose a compartment for the carbon filter layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a compartment for the carbon filter layer in order to give the layer structural support.
Regarding claim 32 Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Marquez in view of Giacomantonio, Behrens, and Robinson does not disclose wherein the base layer comprises a raised three-dimensional structure forming a wavy pattern and defining a plurality of cavities, and wherein the preserved moss is incorporated into the plurality of cavities.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to include wherein the base layer comprises a raised three-dimensional structure forming a wavy pattern and defining a plurality of cavities in order to provide enhanced aesthetics, and since matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Demiczak, 175F.3d 994, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23, and 31-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm PST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
