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 .
Note
The office action summary form (PTO-326) has been updated to correspond with the most recent claim filing of 02/06/2026. The remainder of the action is consistent with the non-final rejection mailed 01/20/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species B (claim 21) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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 “interlocking chamber disposed downstream of the plant medium layer within the duct”, “a medium disposed downstream of the stack” 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 21, 25, and 29 (as well as dependent claims 23-24, 26-28, and 30 due to dependency) 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 21 recites the limitation, “commercial filters”, which is vague and indefinite since there is no standard for commercial air filters. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation “commercial” is intended to impart a specific structure to the device or whether the limitation intends for any air-filter type structure. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim to include any air filter.
Claim 21 recites the limitation, “an interlocking chamber disposed downstream of the plant medium layer within the duct”, which is vague and indefinite since the location of the interlocking chamber is never disclosed in the specification or shown in the drawings. The only mention of an interlocking chamber is in [0054]. However, the location is not specified.
Claims 21 and 25 recite a “medium”. However, the specification and drawings fail to define the structure of the medium. Is the medium a filter? Furthermore, the medium is claimed as capturing particles and compounds captured by the plant medium layer and the stack. However, if the stack of commercial filters and plant medium is capturing then how is the medium layer capturing what is already captured?
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a medium is disposed downstream of the plant medium layer and the stack of commercial filters”, which is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether this is an additional medium layer, or the same medium layer from claim 21.
Claim 29 recites the limitation, “commercially available filtration media”, which is vague and indefinite since there is no standard for commercially available filtration media. Therefore, it is unclear whether the limitation “commercially” is intended to impart a specific structure to the device or whether the limitation intends for any media type structure. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim to include any media.
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 and 23-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick; Ezekiel (US 20120052480 A1) in view of Darlington; Alan Blake (US 6727091 B2), in view of PARK HURDSEN (KR 20200004487 A); (see attached translation), in view of Maekipaeae; Vesa Tapani et al. (US 10258918 B2).
Regarding claims 21 and 25 Kruglick discloses a system for air filtration and therapeutic relief comprising:
a base layer (Fig. 2; 112)
an air circulation system (Fig. 2; 148); [0018] having an inlet, an outlet, at least one duct and at least one fan (156); [0018];
a substrate on the base layer (120); a plant medium layer (116); [0014];
a medium disposed downstream of the stack to capture particles and compounds captured by the plant medium layer and the stack; and a controller (170);[0030] configured to operate the fan so that air flows sequentially through the plant medium layer, the stack, and the medium from the inlet to the outlet.
Kruglick discloses a medium (corresponding to filtration elements), but does not explicitly disclose a medium disposed downstream of the stack of commercial filters and plant medium layer to capture particles and compounds captured by the plant medium layer and the stack.
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 portion of the device downstream of the stack and plant medium layer to capture particles and compounds captured by the plant medium layer and the stack to include a medium in order to enhance filtration.
Kruglick does not disclose wherein the plant medium layer is moss. Darlington teaches wherein the plant medium layer is Moss (Col. 7, lines 25-30).
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 plants of Kruglick to be moss, as taught by Darlington, in order to prevent the plants from spreading and becoming too large, thus improving ease of maintenance (Col. 7, lines 22-25).
Kruglick in view of Darlington does not disclose an interlocking chamber, the interlocking chamber configured to removably receive a stack of commercial filters arranged in a sequence including a carbon filter to remove volatile organic compounds and a bacterial filter characterized by a MERV rating.
Park teaches an interlocking chamber (Fig. 9; 313), the interlocking chamber configured to removably receive a stack of commercial filters (303, 304) arranged in a sequence including a carbon filter (304) to remove volatile organic compounds and a bacterial filter (303) characterized by a MERV rating (corresponding to the HEPA/ULPA filter which have a minimum MERV rating of 17).
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 duct of Kruglick and Darlington to have included an interlocking chamber, the interlocking chamber configured to removably receive a stack of commercial filters arranged in a sequence including a carbon filter to remove volatile organic compounds and a bacterial filter characterized by a MERV rating, as taught by Park, in order to improve air quality (abstract), and since Kruglick discloses that the air circulation system may include a variety of elements not expressly shown to improve the comfort of inhabitants [0018]. Note that the duct of Kruglick is disposed downstream of the plant medium layer, and in order to function as intended would be within the duct.
Kruglick in view of Darlington and Park does not disclose biodegradable. Maekipaeae teaches biodegradable (title); (Col. 8, lines 62-65).
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 at least one of the filters of Kruglick, Darlington, and Park to be biodegradable, as taught by Maekipaeae, to make the filters environmentally friendly (Col. 6, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 23 Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae further discloses wherein air is introduced in an inlet and outlet fashion and flows through different layers of filters including the plant medium layer (the claim is met in normal operation of the combined device above).
Regarding claim 24 Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae further discloses wherein the stack of commercial filters is configured to be separated from the plant medium layer or attached as part of the plant medium layer and/or the substrate (the combined device has the structure capable of being separated or attached, in the current configuration, the commercial filters are separated).
Regarding claim 26 Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae further discloses wherein the stack of commercial filters comprises a multi-layered structure having different filter media in a sequence (Fig. 13).
Regarding claims 27 and 28 Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae discloses all of the limitations of claim 21. Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae further discloses wherein the stack of commercial filters includes a carbon filter (Park; 304) configured to filter volatile organic compounds; wherein the stack of commercial filters includes a bacterial filter (303) characterized by a MERV rating and configured to filter bacteria and viruses.
Regarding claims 29 and 30 Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae discloses all of the limitations of claim 26. Kruglick in view of Darlington, Park, and Maekipaeae further discloses wherein the different filter media comprise commercially available filtration media of different materials and different pore sizes to target different compounds (Park; carbon filters, HEPA and ULPA filters are composed of different materials and pore sizes); wherein at least a first one of the different filter media has a first pore size (Park; page 3) and at least a second one of the different filter media has a second pore size different from the first pore size.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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 MST.
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