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 .
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 7–10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cooper et al., US 2005/0263456 A1 (“Cooper”) in view of Nam et al., KR 10–2017–0060468 A (“Nam”).
Regarding claim 1:
Cooper discloses the claimed limitation of that a filter (Cooper’s nanomesh structure as shown in Fig. 6, Cooper Fig. 6, [0093]) which is capable of sequestering an airborne virus (Cooper discloses its device is capable of removing microorganisms including virus, Cooper Fig. 6, [0128]). Cooper discloses its filter comprises a framework (housing, Cooper Fig. 6, [0093]), a self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes (Cooper’s Fig. 8 shows a self-supporting body of carbon nanotubes, Cooper Fig. 8, [0089] and [0200]; Cooper’s nanotubes are nonwoven because Cooper discloses its nanotubes is mixed with at least one solvent to form suspension and then depositing the suspension on a porous substrate, Cooper [0011], such process is a wet laid process and does not involve “woven” process, which means the produced carbon nanotube layer is “nonwoven”, noted here that although Cooper discloses a substrate is “typically” formed on a porous substrate, Cooper [0011], Cooper further discloses that “the porous support substrate used during the differential pressure deposition process may be either sacrificial or used only temporarily during deposition to form the nanomesh in a method analogous to paper manufacturing”, Cooper [0098], it is therefore understood that Cooper’s nanotubes are self-supporting like a paper). Cooper discloses its self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes is mounted on or in the framework (Cooper Fig. 6, [0093]).
Cooper also discloses means for inactivating the virus, wherein the means for inactivating the virus comprises an electric field generator (Cooper’s AC voltage applied to Cooper’s nano-mesh is the claimed “means for inactivating the virus, and it comprises an electric field generator as shown in Fig. 8, Cooper Fig. 8, [0129]) for generating an electric field in the self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes (as shown in Cooper Fig. 8, Cooper [0129]).
Cooper does not explicitly teach that its AC power source is configured to apply an AC current at a microwave frequency that allows dipolar coupling between molecules of the virus.
However, Cooper discloses that its power source could be a high-frequency AC signal with a frequency in the range of 1.0 millihertz to 1.0 tetrahertz. Cooper Fig. 9, claims 40 and 43. Cooper also discloses that the purpose of AC frequency is to disrupt the Debye Atmosphere shielding the ions in solution. Cooper Fig. 10, [0123]. Cooper discloses a AC frequency range that includes a microwave frequency range of 8.3 GHz, as disclosed in the published Spec (hereinafter “Spec.”). Spec. [0026]. Cooper’s device is therefore capable of allowing dipolar coupling between molecules of the virus, because Cooper’s device possess the claimed AC current at the claimed frequency.
Cooper does not explicitly disclose that the electric field generator is to inactivate the virus through resistive heating. However, resistive heating is also known as Jole heating, which is the process where electrical energy is converted into heat as it passing through a material with electrical resistance, and since essentially all materials contains certain amount of resistance, the generation of resistive heat would be inevitable. The question is whether the generated heat is sufficient to kill virus.
Similar to Cooper, Nam discloses a carbon nanotube filter 30a configured to remove hazardous materials including viruses. Nam Fig. 1, p. 3. Similar to Cooper, Nam discloses a pair of electrodes 41 disposed at both ends of the filter nanotube sheet 31, where a current could be applied. Nam Fig. 2, p. 3. Additionally, Nam discloses by applying current through electrode 41, the carbon nanotube filter 30a could be heated to burn collected harmful substances. Nam Fig. 2, p. 3. Nam discloses carbon nanotube has a low resistance, which allows rapid increase of temperature to burn and remove collected toxic substances including viruses. Nam Fig. 2, p. 3.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to use Cooper’s electrodes as a heater to rapidly increase Cooper’s filter temperature to burn and remove toxic viruses because Cooper has the required structure and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to use the readily available structure to have a better virus removal effect as taught by Nam.
Regarding claim 7:
Cooper as modified in claim 1 discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the self-supporting body of nonwoven carbon nanotubes is a monolayer of non-woven carbon nanotubes (Cooper discloses its carbon nanotubes could be single walled, Cooper Fig. 1, [0046]).
Regarding claim 8:
Cooper as modified in claim 1 discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 1 wherein the self-supporting body of nonwoven carbon nanotubes is a laminate (Cooper discloses final nano-mesh is achieved by depositing a layer of functionalized nanotubes/iron hydroxide coated glass fiber mixture onto a carbon block substrate, Cooper [0192], Cooper’s final nano-mesh therefore read on the claimed “laminate”).
Regarding claim 9:
Cooper as discussed in claim 8 discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 8 wherein the laminate is a bilayer (Cooper discloses a bilayer comprising the layer of functionalized nanotubes and the layer of carbon block substrate, Cooper [0192]).
Regarding claim 10:
Cooper as discussed in claim 9 discloses that the filter as claimed in claim 9 wherein the bilayer is a layer of non-woven carbon nanotubes (Cooper discloses its carbon nanotubes is mixed with fibers and at least one solvent to form a suspension of carbon nanotubes and fibers and then the suspension is deposited on the substrate, such process is known as “wet laid” and “wet laid” is a primary method of forming nonwoven fabric, Cooper [0011]) and a layer of a porous insulating material (Cooper discloses as a porous substrate, and Cooper’s example 3 discloses such substrate could be polypropylene fabric, which is an insulating material, Cooper [0192] and [0200]).
Regarding claim 15:
Cooper discloses that a method of using a filter, the method comprising:
using a self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes mounted on or in a framework (the step of using Cooper’s self-supporting non-woven carbon nanotubes as shown in Fig. 8, Cooper’s carbon nanotubes mesh is shown mounted in a housing in Fig. 6, the housing is the claimed “framework,” Cooper Figs. 6 and 8, [0093] and [0119]),
wherein the filter has an electric field generator for generating an electric field in the self- supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes (Cooper’s non-woven carbon nanotubes is connected to an AC source, which generates an electric field in the self-supporting body as shown in Fig. 8, Cooper Fig. 8, [0119]),
Cooper discloses that the electric field generator is configured to apply an AC current (Cooper Fig. 9, [0022]).
Cooper does not explicitly disclose that the AC current is applied at a microwave frequency that allows dipolar coupling between molecules of virus.
However, Cooper discloses that its power source could be a high-frequency AC signal with a frequency in the range of 1.0 millihertz to 1.0 tetrahertz. Cooper Fig. 9, claims 40 and 43. Cooper also discloses that the purpose of AC higher frequency is to disrupt the Debye Atmosphere shielding the ions in solution. Cooper Fig. 10, [0123]. Cooper’s disclosed AC frequency range includes a microwave frequency of 8.3 GHz as disclosed by the instant Spec, Spec. [0026]. While Cooper does not specifically disclose a function of allows dipolar coupling between molecules of the virus, Cooper discloses a structure possesses the claimed AC current at the claimed frequency, and therefore would be capable of allowing dipolar coupling between molecules of the virus.
Cooper does not disclose that the electric-field generator is configured to inactivate a virus through resistive heating.
However, resistive heating is also known as Jole heating, which is the process where electrical energy is converted into heat as it passing through a material with electrical resistance, and since essentially all materials contains certain amount of resistance, the generation of resistive heat would be inevitable. The question is whether the generated heat is sufficient to kill virus.
Similar to Cooper, Nam discloses a carbon nanotube filter 30a configured to remove hazardous materials including viruses. Nam Fig. 1, p. 3. Similar to Cooper, Nam discloses a pair of electrodes 41 disposed at both ends of the filter nanotube sheet 31, where a current could be applied. Nam Fig. 2, p. 3. Additionally, Nam discloses by applying current through electrode 41, the carbon nanotube filter 30a could be heated to burn collected harmful substances. Nam Fig. 2, p. 3. Nam discloses carbon nanotube has a low resistance, which allows rapid increase of temperature to burn and remove collected toxic substances including viruses. Nam Fig. 2, p. 3.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to use Cooper’s electrodes as a heater to rapidly increase Cooper’s filter temperature to burn and remove toxic viruses because Cooper has the required structure and a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to use the readily available structure to have a better virus removal effect as taught by Nam.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Nam, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ratto et al., US 9,095,821 B1 (“Ratto”).
Regarding claim 11:
Cooper as modified in claim 10 does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 10 wherein the porous insulating material is polyester.
In the analogous art of filter membrane comprising carbon nanotube formed on porous substrate, Ratto discloses the support can be made of polyester or polypropylenes, Ratto col. 5, ll. 21–38. Additionally, Cooper discloses its substrate could be a porous polymeric substrate. Cooper [0232]. Cooper gives an example of polypropylene. Cooper [0200]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Cooper’s substrate to be made of polyester, because polypropylene and polyester are listed as alternatives for carbon nanotube substrate and Cooper discloses an example of polypropylene. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2143(I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Nam, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brady et al., WO 2010/126686 A2 (“Brady”).
Regarding claim 12:
Cooper as modified in claim 1 does not disclose that the filter of claim 1, wherein the areal density of the self supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes is in the range 0.1 to 14 gm-2.
Similar to modified Cooper, Brady discloses a carbon nanotube filter. Brady Fig. 1, p. 6, ll. 21–22. Similar to modified Cooper, Brady’s carbon nanotube filter comprises multiple layers of films stacked together. Brady p. 6, ll. 22–27. Brady also discloses a total CNT loading of 0.32 mg/cm2 (which is equivalent to 3.2 g/m2), which falls within the claimed range. Brady p. 6, ll. 28–30. Brady discloses its carbon nanotube filter comprises substantial improvement in surface coverage and viral removal. Brady p. 9, ll. 15–17. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to replace Cooper’s filter with Brady’s carbon nanotube filer for the benefits disclosed. With such modification, modified Cooper would have the claimed areal density.
Claims 13–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper.
Regarding claim 13:
Cooper discloses that an air treatment apparatus (Cooper’s fluid purification device as shown in Fig. 6, and Cooper discloses its fluid could be air, Cooper Fig. 6, [0019] and [0043]) comprising:
a filter (Cooper’s carbon nanomesh article, Cooper Fig. 6, [0040]) comprising:
a framework (Cooper’s housing, Cooper Fig. 6, [0151]); and
a self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes mounted on or in the framework (Cooper’s Fig. 9 shows an example of its carbon nanotube material, which is shown as self-supporting, Cooper’s nanotubes are nonwoven because Cooper discloses its nanotubes are mixed with at least one solvent to form suspension and then depositing the suspension on a porous substrate, Cooper [0011], such process is wet laid process, and since the process does not involve a “woven” process, it produces a nonwoven fabric; Cooper’s Fig. 6 provides an embodiment, where the filter is mounted in the framework, Cooper Figs. 6 and 9, [0122] and [0134]),
wherein an AC current applied to the non-woven carbon nanotubes (Cooper’s Fig. 8 shows its non-woven carbon nanotubes connected to an AC current, Cooper Fig. 8, [0022]).
Cooper does not disclose explicitly disclose its AC current is configured to allow coupling between molecules of a virus trapped between the filter and the AC current.
Cooper discloses AC power source could be an AC power source with a higher frequency for the purpose of disrupting the DeBye Atmosphere shielding the ions in solution. Noted here that while Cooper discloses a specific example in water, Cooper discloses its invention could be applied to both liquid and air, Cooper [0008]. Additionally, Cooper discloses its AC current have a frequency in the range of 1.0 millihertz to 1.0 tetrahertz, Cooper Fig. 9, claim 43. Such range includes the claimed microwave frequency range of 8.3 GHz, as disclosed in the published Spec. [0026]. It is therefore concluded that while Cooper does not specifically disclose a function of allows coupling between molecules of a virus trapped between the filter and the AC current, Cooper possess the claimed AC current at the frequency disclosed in the instant Spec, and therefore would be capable of allowing coupling between molecules of the virus trapped between the filter and the AC current.
Regarding claim 14:
Cooper discloses that the air treatment apparatus as claimed in claim 13 which is an air conditioner, air purifier, air humidifier, respirator, ventilator, respiratory protective device, mask or breathing apparatus (Cooper discloses its device could be an air purification device, Cooper [0135].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Nam as applied on claim 1 above, and in further view of Kong et al., US 2015/0068974 A1 (“Kong”).
Regarding claim 16:
Cooper does not disclose that the filter as claimed in claim 1, wherein the self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes are an aerogel.
In the analogous art of filter comprising carbon nanotubes, Kong discloses that carbon nanotubes can be made into aerogels form, Kong [0002]. And aerogels have high surface area and low density, Kong [0002]. Kong also discloses a single-wall carbon nanotubes may have (i) an electrical conductivity of at least about 300 S/m, (ii) a density of less than or equal to about 2.7 mg/cm.sup.3, or both. Alternatively, when the particulates contain graphene, the aerogel may have (i) an electrical conductivity of at least about 400 S/m, (ii) a density of less than or equal to about 15 mg/cm.sup.3, or both, Kong [0056]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Copper’s carbon nanotubes to be aerogel for the benefits of high surface area, low density and good electrical conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the current claim objects because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the current objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant argues that Cooper and Nam do not teach each and every element of the claims. Specifically, Cooper does not teach “a self-supporting body of non-woven carbon nanotubes mounted on or in the framework” as recited in claim 1, Applicant Rem. dated Feb. 13, 2026 (hereinafter “Applicant Rem.”) p. 4. The applicant argues that Cooper’s carbon nanotube is deposited on a substrate or binder supported, which teaches away from the term “self-supporting.” Id. at ps. 4–5. The applicant argues that there is no teaching that Cooper’s nanomesh would be mechanically stable on its own and operate without the underlying support, and as a result, Cooper describes a fundamentally different material than the present claims, Applicant Rem. p. 5. The applicant further argues that Nam is not asserted for teaching this element, and therefore, Cooper and Nam, alone or in combination, fails to teach each and every element of claim 1 and similarly claim 15 and the corresponding depend claims, Id. at ps. 6–7.
In response, the examiner points out that Cooper discloses that the porous support substrate used during the differential pressure deposition process may be either sacrificial or used only temporarily during deposition to form the nanomesh in a method analogous to paper manufacturing, Cooper [0098]. It is therefore understood that Cooper’s nanotubes are capable of maintain its shape and integrity without a substrate because Cooper discloses substrate is sacrificial or used only temporarily. Additionally, it is also pointed out that the published Spec. (hereinafter “Spec.”) is not against the idea of using support/substrate during the manufacturing of the carbon nanotube filter, Applicant’s Fig. 5 discloses CNT aerosols deposit on polyester-backed CNT mats, Spec. Fig. 5a, [0140]. It is therefore understood that use of substrate/backing material does not teach away from having a self-supporting nanomesh structure. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776