DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 10/16/25 is acknowledged. The restriction reasons dated 10/16/25 were under US practice instead of international practice. An updated reasons for restriction are provided. REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claims FILLIN "Enter claim number(s)." 1-12 , drawn to a filtration material . Group II , claims 1 and 13-16 , drawn to a personal protective equipment . The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Group I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a filtration material for liquid or gas purificiation , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Woo et al. US Patent 11,660,555 in view of Groeger et al. US 5,486,410 . Woo teaches a layered filter media for filtering fluids comprising: a) A first coarse layer material comprising on a non-woven material (silica or glass) (Example 1 lines 45-65, column 9 lines 29-35) with particle size of about 10 to 500 µm (column 7 lines 40-45); b) A second fine layer with particles of 0.01 µm to 50 µm in one embodiment (column 7 lines 40-45), wherein the particles decrease from the first layer to the second layer indicating that the first layer is coarser than the second finer layer (column 8 line 64 – column 9 line 3); c) Wherein the first coarse layer material is dispersed onto the non-woven material by mechanical compression (column 9 lines 40-55). Woo does not teach the second fine layer further comprises integrating with a paper filter (composite). However, Groeger teaches a composite filter comprising functional particulate matter (the second fine layer) dispersed into a fibrous web, including cellulose (i.e. paper) (column 5 lines 29-32 and column 7 lines 1-25). The composite has been found to be beneficial in providing structural integrity for the fine filter particles and the use of cellulose has been known in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a known material as the support or matrix for the fine particles of the second layer because it has been shown to be beneficial in allowing sorption of finer particles. Both references are directed to a multilayer filtration system and thus would expect a reasonable level of success when using a cellulose matrix for the finer particle layer. The modification merely unites known elements with no change in their respective functions. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the extensive length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. The abstract should be a single paragraph and about 150 words. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: The unit “ mkm ” used in the claims is not a conventional US unit of measure. However, it is reasonably understood to those in the art to be micrometer (µm). Applicant is advised to amend mkm to µm. In claim 1, line 8 the passage “particles with e size of” appears to be a typo and should be corrected to “particles with a size of.” The commas in the numericals should be replaced with periods: Claim 1 line 8: 0,05 should be corrected to 0.05 Claim 1 line 9: 0,2 should be corrected to 0.2 Claim 6 line 3: 0,001 should be 0.001 and 0,004 should be 0.004 The dependent claims should precede with a “The.” Now reading “The filtration material…” Claim 5 and Claim 12 needs a period at the end. 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 1-12 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 1: The phrase “consisting of at least two layers” is contradictory because ‘consisting of is closed-ended’ while ‘at least two layers’ is open and invites more layers . It is unclear whether extra layers are permitted. The term “predominantly” in “ predominantly from 5 to 200 mk m ” and “ predominantly from 0.0 5 to 20 mkm ” is relative term and indefinite in the claims because there are no quantitative boundaries known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear what percentage of overlap in the ranges may be acceptable. The phrase “liquid or gas flows one by one” is unclear and appears contradictory. The limitation is presented as an alternative for either liquid or gas but the “flows one by one” implies that both are required and flow sequentially. Thus, it is ambiguous whether each layer is arranged sequentially in the flow direction, ‘one by one’ refers to layers or fluid portions, or another entity. The Examiner will interpret this limitation as ‘liquid or gas flow through a layered filter by first through the coarse layer then the fine layer.’ The term “type” in “type of sorbent” is a relative term and is unclear what variations of sorbent are acceptable. The phrases “coarse filtration layer” and “fine filtration layer” are not explicitly defined. However, based on the abstract, coarse filtration layers at least comprise a particle size of 2 to 500 mkm and fine filtration layers comprise at least a particle size of 0.05 to 20 mkm . In lines 4-5 of the claim, the phrase “characterized in that is configured to sorption filtration of liquid or gas” is unclear. “Sorption filtration” is not a standard precise term and it is unclear if this is an adsorption/absorption combination. The unit “ mkm ” used in the claims is not a conventional US unit of measure. However, it is reasonably understood to those in the art to be micrometer (µm). Applicant is advised to amend mkm to µm. The phrase “predominately due to adhesive forces” is vague and unclear without define metes and bounds in the specification. It is unclear if the forces include glue or van der waals interactions or another type of chemical or physical bond. Claim 2 : The phrase “but not limited to” and “can be used” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations that follow the phrase (activated carbons, activated carbon fibers…) are part of the claimed invention. Similarly, the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase (the base of polyacrylonitrile…) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase “indicated sorbents” is unclear which sorbents this refers to. Claim 3 : The phrase “but not limited to” and “can be used” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations that follow the phrase (activated carbons, activated carbon fibers…) are part of the claimed invention. The phrase “indicated sorbents” is unclear which sorbents this refers to. Claim 4 : The phrase “predominately up to 50% of fibers” is unclear. The term “predominately” is unnecessary and does not add any weight to claim limitation that indicates “the second fine filtration layer contains up to 50% fibers” Claim 5 : The phrase “predominately up to 50% of fibers” is unclear. The term “predominately” is unnecessary and does not add any weight to claim limitation that indicates “the second fine filtration layer contains up to 50% fibers” The term “selective fibrous ion exchange material” is vague and unclear of what is meant by selective. The phrase “may additionally contain” enders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 6 : The phrase “may additionally contain” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “predominantly” in “predominantly from 0.004 to 0.01%” is written as a preferred range but it is unclear if this range is part of the claimed invention. The claim should read either “contain from 0.001 to 2%” or “contain from 0.004 to 0.1%” Claim 7 : The phrases “may be,” “for example,” and “but not limited to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase “partly partially hydrolized polyacrylamide” is unclear and a relative term without explicitly metes and bounds of the hydrolyzation. Claim 8 : The phrase “has an increased sorption ability” renders the claim indefinite because there is no point of reference given to the increase. It is further unclear of the degree of increase is acceptable in the claim. Claim 9 : The phrase “the first coarse filtration layer is rougher” is unclear. However, it is interpreted to mean that the first coarse particles are larger than the second fine layer’s particles. The phrase “t he liquid predominantly evenly spreads ” is unclear as to the metes and bounds of the degree of spread. The term predominately is further unclear in this context and introduces subjectivity. Claim 10 : The phrases “may be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 1 : The phrases “may be,” “for example,” and “but not limited to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 2 : The phrases “may be,” “for example,” and “but not limited to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase “masks of different configurations” is unclear as to what degree of variation may be considered as different. 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. 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. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. US Patent 11,660,555 in view of Groeger et al. US 5,486,410 . Regarding claim 1 , Woo teaches a layered filter media for filtering fluids comprising: a) A first coarse layer material comprising on a non-woven material (silica or glass) (Example 1 lines 45-65, column 9 lines 29-35) with particle size of about 10 to 500 µm (column 7 lines 40-45) ; b) A second fine layer with particles of 0.01 µm to 50 µm in one embodiment (column 7 lines 40-45), wherein the particles decrease from the first layer to the second layer indicating that the first layer is coarser than the second finer layer (column 8 line 64 – column 9 line 3); c) Wherein the first coarse layer material is dispersed onto the non-woven material by mechanical compression (column 9 lines 40-55). Woo does not teach the second fine layer further comprises integrating with a paper filter (composite). However, Groeger teaches a composite filter comprising functional particulate matter (the second fine layer) dispersed into a fibrous web, including cellulose (i.e. paper) (column 5 lines 29-32 and column 7 lines 1-25). The composite has been found to be beneficial in providing structural integrity for the fine filter particles and the use of cellulose has been known in the art. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a known material as the support or matrix for the fine particles of the second layer because it has been shown to be beneficial in allowing sorption of finer particles. Both references are directed to a multilayer filtration system and thus would expect a reasonable level of success when using a cellulose matrix for the finer particle layer. The modification merely unites known elements with no change in their respective functions. Regarding claim 2 , the first coarse layer can comprise polyacrilonitrile , carbon, polymers on silica particles, diatomaceous earth (Table 1) or polyacrilonitrile fibers (column 2 line 66 – column 3 line 5). Regarding claim 3 , the second fine layer may be made of the same materials as the first and can comprise polyacrilonitrile , carbon, polymers on silica particles, diatomaceous earth (Table 1) or polyacrilonitrile fibers (column 2 line 66 – column 3 line 5 and column 9 line 30). Regarding claim 4 , Woo and Groeger teach the combination above. Groeger further teaches that the matrix comprises cellulose (i.e. paper) (column 5 lines 29-31). The sheath (or cellulose matrix) can comprise about 40-60% (column 9 line 54). Regarding claim 5 , Woo and Groeger teach the combination above. Groeger further teaches that ion exchange resin may also be incorporated (column 6 line 1). It is however unclear if the ion exchange material comprises up to 30%. One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that incorporating an ion exchange material is a result effective variable and the optimized range would be found by routine experimentation. Regarding claim s 6 and 7 , Woo teaches that the second layer can comprise polyamide material that acts as a flocculant (Example 1, Table 1). The amount is not explicitly given however the amount is a result effective variable and one having ordinary skill in the art can find an optimized amount by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 8 , Woo teaches the second layer captures finer particles than the first layer (column 1 lines 25-30), thus is considered to have increased sorption capability for finer particles compared to the first coarse layer. Regarding claim 9 , Woo in view of Groeger teach the similar filter as claimed, where the first layer is rougher than the second layer (Woo, column 1 lines 25-30). Thus, it is considered implicit and obvious that the liquid will spread evenly from the first layer to the second layer. Regarding claim 10 , Groeger teaches the layer may have a corrugated or patterned web-like matrix (Figure 6). Regarding claim 11 , Groeger additionally teaches the filter can comprise a polymeric immobilizing matrix or support (column 2 lines 15-20). Regarding claim 12 , Woo and Groeger teach that the filter is used for biological purposes to absorb particles and even viruses. Though Woo and Groeger do no explicitly teach the use for personal mask, it would have ben obvious to use this filter material for mask to protect from viruses and particles. Further, the intended use for the claimed material is not given explicit patentable weight. See MPEP 2114. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5051 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT In Suk Bullock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5954 . 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. /SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772