DETAILED ACTION
Election Acknowledged
Applicant’s previous election of Group I encompassing claims 1-15 and 20 in the response filed 7/28/2025 is noted.
Applicant’s present election of a solid nanometric layer with a spiked surface as a biocide encompassing claims 1-7, 11-15 and 20 in the reply filed 9/29/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 8-10 and 16-19 are withdrawn as being directed to nonelected subject matter and claims 1-7, 11-15 and 20 are presented for examination on the merits.
The following rejections are made.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: a space is missing between “claim” and “1” (currently “claim1”). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthe et al. (US 2021/0341370) in view of Bontchev et al. (US 2017/0210677) and Juodkazis et al. (US 2016/0212989).
Luthe provides a breathing mask (see [0112] and Figure 8) having an integrated filter (3.3) of following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
197
325
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Figure 8 and [0570]) (see instant claim 12). The integrated filter is fixed in the mask such that air may flow through it (inner volume of the filter) and into the mask by a breathing individual so as to remove environmentally harmful, unhealthy and/or toxic suspended matter (see [0005, 0041]) (see instant claims 13-15).
Exemplified filter materials include biochar and activated carbon (see [0509]) with biochar being found to be the most effective with regard to the removal of noxious substances and dust particles (see instant claim 1). The filter material is taught to be capable of filtering bacteria, viruses, mites eggs, dusts, aerosols, smoke particles and fine dust from the air (see [0005, 0071, 0112, 0571] and claim 27).
Luthe fails to teach their filter composition as comprising a solid nanometric layer comprising on its surface spike which are configured to destroy pathogenic microorganisms when the spikes come into contact with the pathogenic microorganisms.
Juodkazis provides a synthetic biocidal surface comprising an array of nanospikes wherein the nanospikes are provided onto the surface of a particle, such as nanosphere (see [0040, 0041]). The synthetic nanospike materials are preferred over chemical biocides as they exhibit high antimicrobial efficiencies, improved health outcomes, reduced diseases transmission and improved cost savings (see [0007]). The surface nanospikes exhibit antibacterial activity via the array of nanospikes’ ability to pierce the cellular membranes of target microorganism (i.e. mechanically active; see instant claims 2 and 6) (see [0012]).
The nanosphere which provides support to the surface nanospikes is considered ‘a solid nanometric layer’ (see instant claim 4). The nanospikes attached to the surface are to have a height (i.e. thickness) of between 100-600 nm and a diameter of 20-300 nm (see [0034]) (see instant claim 5). See MPEP 2144.50(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges.
Regarding instant claim 7, this claim appears to limit the width of the spike at half height to a maximum of 25 nm. Juodkazis teaches that their the nanospike may have a diameter that is greater at or towards the base such that the spike narrows towards the free end down to a tip as fine as around 4 nm in diameter. Thus, given that Juodkazis teaches the spike has a diameter between 20-300nm and b) the spike may be narrowed as it approaches the free end, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily identify a maximum dimension at half height of less than 25 nm. Afterall, 20 nm as a base diameter is already within that claimed. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of manipulating the surface spikes dimensions so as to identify diameters that worked best to inhibit microorganisms.
The biocidal nanospiked nanosphere may be provided to a variety of products including face masks so as to impart biocidal/disinfecting character to the product (see [0040]).
Bontchev is directed to additive infused biochar wherein a biochar is infused/impregnated/soaked with a solution containing an additive such as biocides, antifouling agents, antimicrobials, disinfectants, sanitizers, etc. (see [0190]) (see instant claim 3). The additive infused biochar may be used in a variety of applications including that of a filter (see [0340]). Bontchev teaches that biochar is hydrophilic (see [0162, 0262]) (see instant claim 11).
Thus, in all, it would have been obvious to provide the spiked synthetic biocide of Juodkazis together with the biochar filter of Luthe by means of combining via infusing/soaking the biochar with the spiked biocide as described by Bontchev. Such a modification would result in a filter capable of both capturing unwanted microorganisms and subsequently killing them, both properties being desirable for a filter mask. The application of a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is supportive of a finding of obviousness. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding instant claim 20, as the air comes into contact with the mask comprising the biochar and spiked nanosphere particles, any microorganisms in said air would be filtered and/or destroyed thereby reducing the quantity of microorganisms present in the air flow.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luthe et al. (US 2021/0341370) in view of Bontchev et al. (US 2017/0210677) and Juodkazis et al. (US 2016/0212989) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11-15 and 20 above, and further in view of Xu (US 2018/0213772).
Luthe, Bontchev and Juodkazis fail to teach the solid nanometric layer (the nanosphere) as having a thickness of between 10-300 nm.
Xu, like Juodkazis, is directed to mechano-antimicrobial substrate surfaces wherein the surface comprises a plurality of nanopillars (see abstract). The mechanism of action is to induce mechanical rupturing of the cell wall upon contact of a microorganism to the nanopillared surface (see [0080]). The nanopillars may be provided on to a surface of a nanosphere wherein the nanoparticle support has a diameter (width) of 20 nm, 50 nm, 60 nm, 80 nm, and/or 100 nm (see [0171, 0211]). Thus, as nanospheres having a diameter of, for example, 20 nm, were known to be useful for supporting nanostructures capable of inducing microorganism cell death were known, it would have been obvious to use such particle dimensions in the nanospikes nanospheres of Juodkazis with a reasonable expectation for success. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is supportive of obviousness. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611