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
Claim amendments filed 21 November 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 are pending with claims 6-7 and 16-17 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ratio of sterilization material to photocatalytic material taught by Ueda is actually 4.4 wt% instead of 0.22 wt% presented by the examiner in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 22 August 2025. Applicant pointed out that in Ueda for every 1 wt% of silver-containing zeolite there is 4.4 wt% of photocatalytic material. While this is true, this equates to a final ratio of ~0.22 wt% of sterilizing material to photocatalytic material which is within the range of 0.1-3 wt% required by claim 1. This is exemplified by the applicant’s other example given on page of 9 of the applicant’s response which shows that 1 wt% for every 880 wt% equates to a ratio of 0.0011 wt%. As further evidence that the ratio should be calculated as 1 wt% divided by 4.4 wt% (or 7.5/33 or 12.5/55 as possibilities given in Ueda) instead of the reciprocal as presented by the applicant, because there is less sterilizing material than photocatalytic material, the ratio of sterilizing material to photocatalytic material cannot be larger than 1. As further evidence that the limitation in claim 1 is a range of ratio values, paragraph [54] of the current specification lists that the ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material may be in the range of 0.1-3 wt%.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the teachings of Ueda cannot be applied to current invention because Ueda teaches fiber material. However, Ueda explicitly teaches coating the fiber material with the sterilizing, photocatalytic, and active carbon composition (paragraph [0049]). Therefore, Ueda’s teaching directly lends itself to limitations of the current invention.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ueda teaches that an addition of silver compensates for the decreases in decomposition effect of photocatalysts that occurs at night or in the dark (paragraph [0047]).
In response to applicant's argument that the composition taught by Ueda does not explicitly teach the synergistic effect between photocatalyst and sterilizing materials under light exposure, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The applicant is additionally reminded that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the compositions of the current invention and those taught in the prior art are the same, they must present the same properties and effects (See MPEP 2112.01 II).
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4,8-9, 11-14, and 18-19 with respect to Dhau in view of Gao and Ueda are maintained. Similarly the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 with respect to Dhau, Gao, and Ueda in view of KR 101198923 B1 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhau (US 20200030731 A1) in view of Gao (CN 211435757 U) and Ueda (JP 2008214830 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dhau teaches a multi-functional air purification filter (filtration system that includes more than one layer, abstract) comprising: a breathable (Figure 6 fluid flowing through support layer “120”) support layer (system includes support layers, paragraph [0020]) comprising at least one of a breathable mesh, a non-woven fabric, a felt, polyethylene terephthalate, and polypropylene (support layer of the sorbent layer can be nonwoven fabric or polymers, paragraph [0096], and support layer can be made of polymers or fabrics, paragraph [0071]); a coating on the surface of a body of a mesh (wire mesh of the reactive layer substrate, and spray, dip, or spin coating methods for applying reactive layer to substrate, paragraph [0136]) and a filter layer provided on the mesh layer (Figure 6 particle trapping layer “138” provided on support layer “120” which includes a wire mesh), wherein at least a portion of the multi-functional air purification filter has plurality of bends (filter media can be pleated, paragraph [0047]), and wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, and adsorption material (photocatalysts and activated carbon, paragraph [0136]), but does not teach a mesh layer provided on the surface of the breathable support layer comprising a body facing the surface of the breathable support layer and having a mesh structure, wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and wherein a ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material is 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%. However, Gao teaches a mesh layer provided on the surface of the breathable support layer comprising a body facing the surface of the breathable support layer and having a mesh structure (Figure 1 metal mesh support layer “130” attached to and facing the breathable support layer “121”), but does not teach wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material and wherein a ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material is 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%.
Dhau and Gao are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of sanitizing multilayered filter media. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filter media taught by Dhau with the additional metallic mesh taught by Gao because Gao teaches the metallic mesh will provide additional support to the active layers and prevent deformation in the direction of filtering (paragraph [0187]). Additionally, while neither Dhau or Gao explicitly disclose the order of the filter media such that the reactive coating will be disposed on the mesh and between the mesh and the breathable support, Dhau teaches that the filter media layers can be placed in any suitable order (paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the presented order of filter media layers to achieve the desired filtration effect (see MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)). Gao further supports the expectation of success of this rearrangement by teaching the photocatalytic layer between the breathable support and the metallic mesh layers (catalyst attached to the breathable support, paragraph [0176], and Figure 1 metal mesh support layer “130” attached to and facing the breathable support layer “121”).
Ueda teaches wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and a sterilizing material (coating surface with photocatalytic material and activated carbon powder, paragraph [0017], and function substance selected from silver compound, paragraph [0047]) and wherein a ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material is 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% (a sterilizing fiber composed of 33 wt% photocatalytic containing fine power material and 7.5% silver containing zeolite (ratio of ~0.22 wt%), paragraph [0083]).
Ueda is considered analogous to the current invention because it described a self-sterilizing mesh material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photocatalytic filter taught by Dhau and Gao with material ratio taught by Ueda because Ueda teaches the addition of functional silver compensates for the decrease in decomposition effect of photocatalysts that occurs at night or in the dark (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the photocatalytic material comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2). tungsten oxide (WO3-), zirconium oxide (ZrO2). zinc oxide (ZnO), cadmium sulfide (CdS), or vanadium oxide (V2O3) (photocatalyst can be titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, paragraph [0063], Dhau).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the adsorption material comprises at least one of zeolite, sepiolite, mesoporous silica (mesoporous SiO2-. silica (SiO2), activated carbon, or clay (sorbent material can be activated carbon, clay, zeolites or silica, paragraph [0093], Dhau).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the sterilizing material comprises at least one of Cu, a Cu compound, Ag, an Ag compound, Zn, or a Zn compound (reactive layer is configured to degrade contaminants, paragraph [0067]), and reactive layer can be made of zinc oxide, paragraph [0063], Dhau).
Regarding claim 8, the combination Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the mesh layer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), stainless use steel (SUS), Ti, Al, or Cu (metallic mesh can be aluminum or steel, paragraph [0142], Dhau).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the filter layer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (particle trapping layer is made of polyethylene blend, paragraph [0084], Dhau).
Regarding claim 11, Dhau teaches a purification device (filtration system, abstract) comprising: a multi-functional air purification filter (filter media that comprises a plurality of layers, paragraph [0020]) comprising a breathable (Figure 6 fluid flowing through support layer “120”) support layer (system includes support layers, paragraph [0020]) comprising at least one of a breathable mesh, a non-woven fabric, a felt, polyethylene terephthalate, and polypropylene (support layer of the sorbent layer can be nonwoven fabric or polymers, paragraph [0096], and support layer can be made of polymers or fabrics, paragraph [0071]); a coating on the surface of a body of a mesh (wire mesh of the reactive layer substrate, and spray, dip, or spin coating methods for applying reactive layer to substrate, paragraph [0136]) and a filter layer provided on the mesh layer (Figure 6 particle trapping layer “138” provided on support layer “120” which includes a wire mesh), wherein at least a portion of the multi-functional air purification filter has plurality of bends (filter media can be pleated, paragraph [0047]), and wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, and adsorption material (photocatalysts and activated carbon, paragraph [0136]), but does not teach a mesh layer provided on the surface of the breathable support layer comprising a body facing the surface of the breathable support layer and having a mesh structure, wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and a sterilizing material and wherein a ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material is 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%. However, Gao teaches a mesh layer provided on the surface of the breathable support layer comprising a body facing the surface of the breathable support layer and having a mesh structure (Figure 1 metal mesh support layer “130” attached to and facing the breathable support layer “121”), but does not teach wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and a sterilizing material and wherein a ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material is 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%.
Dhau and Gao are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filter media taught by Dhau with the additional metallic mesh taught by Gao because Gao teaches the metallic mesh will provide additional support to the active layers and prevent deformation in the direction of filtering (paragraph [0187]). Additionally, while neither Dhau or Gao explicitly disclose the order of the filter media such that the reactive coating will be disposed on the mesh and between the mesh and the breathable support, Dhau teaches that the filter media layers can be placed in any suitable order (paragraph [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the presented order of filter media layers to achieve the desired filtration effect (see MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)). Gao further supports the expectation of success of this rearrangement by teaching the photocatalytic layer between the breathable support and the metallic mesh layers (catalyst attached to the breathable support, paragraph [0176], and Figure 1 metal mesh support layer “130” attached to and facing the breathable support layer “121”).
Ueda teaches wherein the coating layer comprises a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and a sterilizing material (coating surface with photocatalytic material and activated carbon powder, paragraph [0017], and function substance selected from silver compound, paragraph [0047]) and wherein a ratio of the sterilizing material to the photocatalytic material is 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% (a sterilizing fiber composed of 33 wt% photocatalytic containing fine power material and 7.5% silver containing zeolite (ratio of ~0.22 wt%), paragraph [0083]).
Ueda is considered analogous to the current invention because it described a self-sterilizing mesh material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photocatalytic filter taught by Dhau and Gao with material ratio taught by Ueda because Ueda teaches the addition of functional silver compensates for the decrease in decomposition effect of photocatalysts that occurs at night or in the dark (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dhau and Gao teaches a housing in which the multi-functional air purification filter is provided (all layers retained within the same housing, paragraph [0053], Dhau); and a blowing fan provided in the housing and configured to introduce external air through the multi-functional air purification filter to an inside of the housing (filter media can be installed within a unit that includes a fan to control the flow of fluid into and out of the housing, paragraph [0153], Dhau).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches a light source configured to irradiate the multi-functional air purification filter with light (excitation source is a light source that be immediately adjacent to the filter media, paragraph [0042], Dhau).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the photocatalytic material comprises at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), tungsten oxide (WO3-), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), cadmium sulfide (CdS), or vanadium oxide (V2O3) (photocatalyst can be titanium dioxide, paragraph [0063], Dhau), wherein the adsorption material comprises at least one of zeolite, sepiolite, mesoporous silica (mesoporous SiO2-. silica (SiO2), activated carbon, or clay (sorbent material can be activated carbon, clay, zeolites or silica, paragraph [0093], Dhau), and wherein the sterilizing material comprises at least one of Cu, a Cu compound, Ag, an Ag compound, Zn, or a Zn compound (reactive layer is configured to degrade contaminants, paragraph [0067]), and reactive layer can be made of zinc oxide, paragraph [0063], Dhau).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the mesh layer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), stainless use steel (SUS), Ti, Al, or Cu (metallic mesh can be aluminum or steel, paragraph [0142], Dhau).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches wherein the filter layer comprises at least one of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (particle trapping layer is made of polyethylene blend, paragraph [0084], Dhau).
Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhau, Gao, and Ueda as applied above in view of KR 101198923 B1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein a ratio of the adsorption material to the photocatalytic material is 1.0 wt% to 80.0 wt%. However, KR 101198923 B1 teaches wherein a ratio of the adsorption material to the photocatalytic material is 1.0 wt% to 80.0 wt% (binder made of silica or clay powder, paragraph [0054], is mixed in an amount of 5 wt% to 30 wt% compared to the nanocomposite material, paragraph [0055]).
Dhau, Gao, Ueda, and KR 101198923 B1 are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of active layer air purification units. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration system taught by Dhau, Gao, and Ueda with the adsorption to photocatalyst ratio taught by KR 101198923 B1 because KR 101198923 B1 teaches that the ratio is essential to effective adsorption and decomposition performance of the filter (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except beads filling empty spaces provided by the plurality of bends of the multi-functional air purification filter, the beads comprising a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and a sterilizing material. However, KR 101198923 B1 teaches filling empty spaces provided by the plurality of bends of the multi-functional air purification filter (filter case is will with nanocomposite beads, paragraph [0058]), the beads comprising a photocatalytic material (beads contain titanium dioxide photocatalyst, paragraph [0038]), an adsorption material (bead is a mixture of zeolite, activated carbon, and clay having adsorption performance, paragraph [0048]), and a sterilizing material (bead contains nanocrystal metal oxide that can be zinc oxide, paragraph [0043]).
Dhau, Gao, Ueda, and KR 101198923 B1 are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration system taught by Dhau, Gao, and Ueda with the beads taught by KR 101198923 B1 because KR 101198923 B1 teaches that spherical shape of the beads minimized air pressure loss and improves performance of the titanium dioxide photocatalyst (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein a ratio of the adsorption material to the photocatalytic material is 1.0 wt% to 80.0 wt%. However, KR 101198923 B1 teaches wherein a ratio of the adsorption material to the photocatalytic material is 1.0 wt% to 80.0 wt% (binder made of silica or clay powder, paragraph [0054], is missed in an amount of 5 wt% to 30 wt% compared to the nanocomposite material, paragraph [0055]).
Dhau, Gao, Ueda, and KR 101198923 B1 are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration system taught by Dhau, Gao, and Ueda with the adsorption to photocatalyst ratio taught by KR 101198923 B1 because KR 101198923 B1 teaches that the ratio is essential to effective adsorption and decomposition performance of the filter (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dhau, Gao, and Ueda teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except beads filling empty spaces provided by the plurality of bends of the multi-functional air purification filter, the beads comprising a photocatalytic material, an adsorption material, and a sterilizing material. However, KR 101198923 B1 teaches filling empty spaces provided by the plurality of bends of the multi-functional air purification filter (filter case is will with nanocomposite beads, paragraph [0058]), the beads comprising a photocatalytic material (beads contain titanium dioxide photocatalyst, paragraph [0038]), an adsorption material (bead is a mixture of zeolite, activated carbon, and clay having adsorption performance, paragraph [0048]), and a sterilizing material (bead contains nanocrystal oxide that can be zinc oxide, paragraph [0043]).
Dhau, Gao, Ueda, and KR 101198923 B1 are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filtration system taught by Dhau, Gao, and Ueda with the beads taught by KR 101198923 B1 because KR 101198923 B1 teaches that spherical shape of the beads minimized air pressure loss and improves performance of the titanium dioxide photocatalyst (paragraph [0050]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799