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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 09/27/2022. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-260 were canceled, no claims were amended, and claims 261-289 were newly added. Thus, claims 261-289 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: specification paragraphs [254], [255], and [256] disclose a “Figure 12A”, “Figure 12B”, and “Figure 12C”. The drawings include Fig. 12 on page 11, but do not include distinctions of Figs. 12A, 12B, and 12C.
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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pathogen removal unit” of claim 261 line 12 and “at least one pathogen removal unit” of claim 271 line 7
“a porous region” of claim 261 line 13 and claim 271 line 8
“a contaminant removal unit” of claim 261 line 14
“an exhalation treatment unit” of claim 267 line 1
“an additional porous region” of claim 275 line 2
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 269-289 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.
Regarding claim 269 line 1, the term “the exhaust plasma reactor section” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 270 line 2-3, the term “an anti-return valve” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than claim 261 line 16. In line 3, the term “the atmosphere” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 271 line 1, the term “the pathogen removal unit” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 286 line 1, the term “the pore size” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 287 line 3, the term “the heating element” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis. In line 4, the term “the thermal unit” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 288 line 2, the term “the thermal unit” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 261, 265, 271-274, 278-279, and 287-289 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (US 2023/0158196; hereinafter “Taylor”).
Regarding claim 261, Taylor discloses a device for treating contaminated air for inhalation by a user (Title “Portable Clean Air Processor”), the device comprising:
an inhalation treatment unit for treating air to be inhaled by the user (air processing deactivation system 1), comprising:
an air intake section configured to receive the contaminated air (Fig. 3 input air 25 drawn in the start of airflow pipe 24);
a thermal treatment section in fluid communication with the air intake section (heater 21 ), the thermal treatment section comprising:
a heating unit configured to thermally treat the contaminated air at a temperature sufficient to deactivate pathogens contained therein and produce a thermally treated stream ([0005] “a heater heats the air to temperatures that can deactivate air-borne particles including pathogens and allergens”), the heating unit comprising:
a heating chamber (interior chamber of heater 21);
a heating element configured to provide heat to the heating chamber (heating element 21a);
a pathogen removal unit received within the heating chamber ([0051] filter 59 at location B in Fig. 3 would be within section of pipe 24 designated to heater 210), the pathogen removal unit being configured to provide a porous region to retain the pathogens therein ([0064] filter 59; “The filter contains a mechanical porous filter that is the equivalent of an N95 or N99 filter”);
a contaminant removal unit configured to receive the thermally treated stream and remove byproducts from the thermal treatment section and produce treated air ([0051] filter 59 at location C in Fig. 3 receives thermally treated air from heater 21);
a feed inlet comprising an anti-return valve for supplying the treated air (connecting hose 2; and [0046] “This backflow one-way valve 18 can be located in at least one of: the connecting hose 2”);
a mask coupled to the feed inlet for receiving the treated air for inhalation by the user (facemask 32).
Regarding claim 265, Taylor discloses the pathogen removal unit is configured to increase a residence time of pathogens within the heating chamber (filter 59 at location B would slow down and/or stop pathogens for at least some time in order to continue applying heat from heating element 21a).
Regarding claim 271, Taylor discloses a device for treating contaminated air for inhalation by a user (Title “Portable Clean Air Processor”), the device comprising:
a thermal treatment section (heater 21) comprising:
a heating unit configured to thermally treat the contaminated air at a temperature sufficient to reduce a pathogen content thereof and produce treated air ([0005] “a heater heats the air to temperatures that can deactivate air-borne particles including pathogens and allergens”), the heating unit comprising:
at least one pathogen removal unit configured to receive the contaminated air and provide a porous region for exposing pathogens to heat (([0051] filter 59 at location B in Fig. 3 would be within section of pipe 24 designated to heater 210 and [0064] “The filter contains a mechanical porous filter that is the equivalent of an N95 or N99 filter”);
a feed inlet for supplying the treated air (connecting hose 2); and
a mask coupled to the feed inlet for receiving the treated air for inhalation by the user (facemask 32).
Regarding claim 272, Taylor discloses the heating unit comprises a heating chamber (interior chamber of heater 21), and the at least one pathogen removal unit is received within the heating chamber ([0051] filter 59 at location B in Fig. 3 would be within section of pipe 24 designated to heater 210).
Regarding claim 273, Taylor discloses the heating unit further comprises a heat exchanger configured to be received within the heating chamber (heat exchanger 70 depicted in Fig. 14-15 as part of the device).
Regarding claim 274, Taylor discloses the heat exchanger is provided upstream of the porous region (see Fig. 15 heat exchanger 70 is upstream of heater section 60, analogous to heater 21).
Regarding claim 278, Taylor discloses the heating unit comprises a heater cartridge (heating element 21a).
Regarding claim 279, Taylor discloses the pathogen removal unit is configured to increase a residence time of the pathogens within the heating chamber (filter 59 at location B would slow down and/or stop pathogens for at least some time in order to continue applying heat from heating element 21a).
Regarding claim 287, Taylor discloses a temperature sensor to monitor the temperature within the heating chamber (Claim 1 “at least one temperature sensor”, such as sensors 45A, 64BS) and a controller operatively connected to the temperature sensor and to the heating element (control circuit 27; [0049] control circuit 27 controls heating element 21a, air heater 21, and “number of sensors not shown”), the controller being configured to adjust the temperature within the thermal unit in response to a measured temperature value provided by the temperature sensor ([0067] Temperature sensor at 49A measures temperature Ta and sends the value to control circuit 27 used to control and monito the system, “as are all temperature sensors”. Additionally, temperature is measured and send to circuit 27 at location of sensors 64A, 64B).
Regarding claim 288, Taylor discloses the controller is configured to adjust the temperature within the thermal unit according to a heating cycle (Fig. 2 heating cycle 40 is achieved by controlling control circuit 27).
Regarding claim 289, Taylor discloses the heating cycle comprises a temperature sequence comprising a low temperature setpoint and a high temperature setpoint (Fig. 2 T_max 46 and T_A 45; [0049] “the air heater 21 portion of the invention where heat is added to raise the temperature of the air from the ambient temperature Ta 45 to the highest predetermined temperature Tmax 46”).
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.
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.
Claim 262 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 261 above, and further in view of Nozaki (US 2015/0343245).
Regarding claim 262, Taylor is silent as to the porous region comprises a metal mesh. However, Nozaki teaches the porous region comprises a metal mesh (see Nozaki cleaning filter 40, wherein at least pre-filter 41 is [0117] a coarse mesh filter configured by forming metal mesh, metal fibers into a non-woven fabric). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous region filter of Taylor with the metal mesh material as taught by Nozaki as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of porous material for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. act as a porous region able to retain pathogens.
Claims 263-264 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 261 above, and further in view of Mazumder et al. (US 2015/0367270; hereinafter “Mazumder”).
Regarding claim 263, Taylor is silent as to the porous region has a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm. However, Mazumder teaches the porous region has a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm (see Mazumder Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with “a pore size of from 1nm to 100 microns”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous region pore size of Taylor with the specific pore size as taught by Mazumder as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of pore sized porous material filter for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. filter pathogens out that cannot pass through the particular pore size.
Regarding claim 264, Taylor is silent as to the porous region has a pore size of less than about 1 nm. However, Mazumder teaches the porous region has a pore size of less than about 1 nm (see Mazumder Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with a pore size of 1nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous region pore size of Taylor with the specific pore size as taught by Mazumder as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of pore sized porous material filter for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. filter pathogens out that cannot pass through the particular pore size.
Claim 266 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 261 above, and further in view of Muellinger et al. (US 2006/0201499; hereinafter “Muellinger”).
Regarding claim 266, Taylor discloses the air intake section comprises a filter configured to separate particles from the contaminated air (see Taylor [0051] filter 59 at location A in Fig. 3 receives input air 25 prior to heater 21), but is silent as to an air pump to pressurize the contaminated air. However, Muellinger teaches an air pump to pressurize the contaminated air (see Muellinger “Inhalation Device” where air intake at inlet 18 passes through air pump 16 to provide pressurized air to the rest of the device starting at airway filter 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air intake section of Taylor with the addition of an air pump to provide pressurized contaminated air as taught by Muellinger so as to have more control over the air within the device.
Claims 267-269 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 261 above, and further in view of Jetter (US 2021/0346564).
Regarding claim 267, Taylor is silent as to an exhalation treatment unit coupled to the mask for treating the exhaled air from the user. However, Jetter teaches an exhalation treatment unit coupled to the mask for treating the exhaled air from the user (see Jetter face mask 110 connecting to waste gas tube 178 leading to outlet microbe killer device 183a2, which kills microbes exhaled as waste gas 179 [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mask of Taylor with the attachment of an exhalation treatment unit as taught by Jetter so as to prevent any virus of harmful microbes the user may exhale from entering the air, causing disease for other individuals.
Regarding claim 268, modified Taylor discloses the exhalation treatment unit comprises:
an outlet line coupled to the mask and configured to receive the exhaled air from the user (see Jetter waste gas tube 178 connected to mask 110 receiving waste gas 179), the outlet line comprising an anti-return valve (see Taylor facemask 32 has one way valve 15 at the point where modified Jetter tube 178 could connect); and
an exhaust plasma reactor section in fluid communication with the outlet line (see Jetter microbe killer device 183a2 can be [0017] “Another example microbe killer device is a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma reactor” such as 200 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 269, modified Taylor discloses the exhaust plasma reactor section comprises:
an exhaust plasma chamber comprising a gas flow path allowing a flow of the exhaled air therethrough (see Jetter Fig. 2 [0021] inner void filled with dielectric beads 225 allows air to pass through and be treated); and
an exhaust plasma generator configured to apply a plasma-generating field across the exhaust plasma chamber intersecting the flow of the exhaled air to generate a plasma therefrom, thereby producing treated exhaled air (see Jetter [0021] power applied between inner electrode 215 and outer electrode 205 generates plasma to clean air passing by dielectric beads 225, helping hold the charge).
Claim 270 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Jetter as applied to claim 269 above, and further in view of Maki (US 2017/0283019).
Regarding claim 270, modified Taylor is silent as to an outlet coupled to the exhaust plasma reactor section for receiving the treated exhaled air (see Jetter outlet of microbe killer device 183a2 leading in the output direction of waste gas 179 arrow), but is silent as to an anti-return valve for expelling the treated exhaled air to the atmosphere. However, Maki teaches an anti-return valve for expelling the treated exhaled air to the atmosphere (see Maki [0029] exhale control member 34 on the end of cavity 33 for expelling air to the atmosphere via exhale control valve 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet of the exhaust plasma reactor section of modified Taylor with the anti-return valve as taught by Maki so as to release the treated air to the atmosphere to provide safer environment to the user and other individuals.
Claims 275-276 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 274 above, and further in view of De Somer (US 2016/0166750).
Regarding claim 275, Taylor is silent as to the heat exchanger is configured to provide an additional porous region. However, De Somer teaches the heat exchanger is configured to provide an additional porous region (see De Somer heat exchanger 5 attached with filter element 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger of Taylor with the addition of an additional porous region as taught by De Somer so as to provide more filtering of pathogens in order to provide the cleanest air for inhalation to the user.
Regarding claim 276, modified Taylor discloses the additional porous region has larger pores than the porous region (see De Somer [0045] “The filter element may have a mean pore size in the range of 20-150 μm” which is larger than the nanometers pore size of the present invention of modified Taylor).
Claim 277 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 273 above, and further in view of Korevaar et al. (US 2008/0245363; hereinafter “Korevaar”).
Regarding claim 277, Taylor is silent as to the heat exchanger comprises a metal wool. However, Korevaar teaches the heat exchanger comprises a metal wool (see Korevaar [0255] heat exchanger 40 comprises metal wool for providing good heat transfer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat exchanger of Taylor with the addition of a metal wool as taught by Korevaar so as to provide better heat transfer.
Claims 280-281 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 271 above, and further in view of Mazumder.
Regarding claim 280, Taylor is silent as to the porous region has a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm. However, Mazumder teaches the porous region has a pore size between about 1 nm and 10 nm (see Mazumder Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with “a pore size of from 1nm to 100 microns”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous region pore size of Taylor with the specific pore size as taught by Mazumder as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of pore sized porous material filter for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. filter pathogens out that cannot pass through the particular pore size.
Regarding claim 281, Taylor is silent as to the porous region has a pore size of less than about 1 nm. However, Mazumder teaches the porous region has a pore size of less than about 1 nm (see Mazumder Title “Anti-microbial air filter” wherein [0056] a wall-flow honeycomb particulate filter is provided as “any filter” with a pore size of 1nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous region pore size of Taylor with the specific pore size as taught by Mazumder as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of pore sized porous material filter for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. filter pathogens out that cannot pass through the particular pore size.
Claims 282-286 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as applied to claim 271 above, and further in view of Nozaki.
Regarding claim 282, Taylor is silent as to the porous region comprises a metal mesh. However, Nozaki teaches the porous region comprises a metal mesh (see Nozaki cleaning filter 40, wherein at least pre-filter 41 is [0117] a coarse mesh filter configured by forming metal mesh, metal fibers into a non-woven fabric). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porous region filter of Taylor with the metal mesh material as taught by Nozaki as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of porous material for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. act as a porous region able to retain pathogens.
Regarding claim 283, modified Taylor discloses the metal mesh comprises sintered metal fibers (see Nozaki [0117] metal fibers into a non-woven fabric).
Regarding claim 284, modified Taylor discloses the metal mesh comprises multiple layers of sintered metal fibers to form a multi-layer metal mesh (see Nozaki filter 40, comprising multiple layers of filter 41-45. The layers that can be made of metal mesh include 41 in [0117], 43 in [0125], and 45 in [0134]).
Regarding claim 285, modified Taylor discloses the sintered metal fibers are configured to lay substantially uniformly to form a three-dimensional non-woven structure (see Nozaki [0117] metal fibers into a non-woven fabric to form filter layer 41, which is shown as a single, uniform layer in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 286, modified Taylor discloses the pore size of at least one layer of the multi-layer metal mesh is different than the pore size of the remaining layers (see Nozaki filter layer 45 in [0134] is formed of metal mesh or metal fibers and is finer than filter layer 43. Additionally, filter layer 43 in [0125] is formed of metal mesh or metal fibers and is finer than filter layer 41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Taylor, Jr. et al. (US 2004/0140194) is cited to show a plasma air treatment system.
Kim et al. (US 2004/0118285) is cited to show an air purifier with various filter mediums.
Liu et al. (US 2021/0268319) is cited to show a portable air filtration and disinfection system for respiration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571) 272-4835. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785