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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 08 June 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-19, and 21-22 are pending with claims 3 and 20 being cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 19, and 22 filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 5-6 of the applicant’s response, the applicant argues that primary reference Hourani does not teach “an electrically conductive textile”. Applicant argues that the metallic mesh taught by Hourani would not qualify as a textile citing the Wikipedia article defining “textile” for support. However, in the same article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile , accessed 11 June 2026) the use of metal fibers or wires to create a mesh is explicitly stated as an example of a textile. Therefore, the metal mesh disclosed by Hourani would satisfy the limitation of “an electrically conductive textile” as required by claim 1.
In pages 6-7 of the applicant’s response, the applicant argues that the non-woven fabric layers “104” and “106” should not be regarded as “filter layer configured to capture pathogens”. However, as presented in the Non-Final Rejection, mailed 06 March 2026, the examiner maps said limitation to the activated carbon fibers with the ability to capture pathogens (page 3 paragraph 4 of Kim). The non-woven fabric is only cited in conjunction with said carbon fibers to show the construction of the filter layer directly disposed on the electrically conductive layer. The applicant again asserts that the metallic mesh taught by Kim cannot qualify as an electrically conductive textile. As discussed above, a mesh made of metallic material is a valid example of an electrically conductive textile. Additionally, Kim explicitly teaches a filter layer made of a nano-textile, textile, or ceramic (activated carbon fiber with coating of platinum nanoparticle, page 3 paragraph 3). Because no further definition has been provided by the specification of the current application, a “nano-textile” is interpreted to mean any textile utilizing nanotechnology including by not limited to nanofibers or coating fabrics with nanoscale materials.
In response to applicant's argument that a combination of Hourani and Kim would result in non-working embodiment due to the electrostatic mechanism of Kim, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, the applicant asserts that the activated carbon taught by Kim would only be capable of capturing pathogens if electrically charged. However, Kim teaches that the adsorption capacity of active carbon fiber is excellent for VOCs and pathogens and separately the pathogens are decomposed by a combination of the voltage and catalyst (page 3 paragraph 3).
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Hourani in view of Kim.
The applicant’s argument against the rejection of claim 21 with respect to Hourani and Kim in view of Fellows is not persuasive. The applicant argues that Fellows hinged that lid of the Fellows carrying case does not qualify has a pressure frame rotatably mounted. However, the limitation of the pressure frame is mapped to Hourani as covered in the rejection of claim 19. Additionally, Fellows teaches the closing of the hinged lid presses the sheet against the insulation pillow and allows for the electric current to be supplied (column 6 lines 39-42). Therefore, a combination of Hourani, Kim, and Fellows would render the current invention obvious.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11 of the applicant’s response, filed 08 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Hourani and Kim in view of Lee (KR 20190019861 A).
The combination of Hourani and Kim fails to teach the new limitation of “the filter layer is made of polyvinylidene fluoride. However, Lee teaches the use of polyvinylidene fluoride as the nanofiber forming a nanofiber web (paragraph [0083]). Therefore, a combination of Hourani, Kim, and Lee would render the current invention obvious.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12 of the applicant’s response, filed 08 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 17 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims17 and 18 have been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourani (US 20210339184 A1) in view of Kim (KR 20090061228 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hourani teaches a filter insert for the filtration of liquids and/or gases (mobile purification device having one or more purification cartridges, paragraph [0038]), comprising at least one filter layer (includes one or more filters, paragraph [0038]), wherein the filter insert contains at least one electrically conductive layer permeable to the filters liquid and/or gas (barrier heater is electrically conductive and highly porous, paragraph [0107]), which is formed by an electrically conductive textile for resistance heating of the filter insert for its sterilization and/or disinfection (barrier heater is heated by applying a voltage potential across the metal mesh, paragraph [0057]), but does not teach wherein the at least one filter layer is configured to capture pathogens, wherein the filter layer is made of nano-textile, textile, or ceramic, and wherein the filter layer is directly disposed on the electrically conductive layer. However, Kim teaches wherein the at least one filter layer is configured to capture pathogens (activated carbon or activated carbon fibers with ability to capture various pathogens or viruses in a filter, page 3 paragraph 4), wherein the filter layer is made of nano-textile, textile, or ceramic (functional filter using activated carbon fiber, page 4 paragraph 4) and wherein the filter layer is directly disposed on the electrically conductive layer (Figure 1 functional filter “100” formed from nonwoven fabric “104” and activated carbon “103” in contact with conductive honeycomb structure “105” and insert the activated carbon to the aluminum honeycomb, page 3 paragraph 9).
Hourani and Kim are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of sterilizing filters using an electrically conductive textile. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filter insert taught by Hourani with the various layers constructed in contact with each other as taught by Kim because Kim teaches that the combined functions of the applied voltage and absorbent filter will both remove odors from the air and decompose VOCs/pathogens (page 3 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein at least part of the electrically conductive layer is ready for contact with the electrodes (heater circuitry is connected to the barrier heater, paragraph [0071], Hourani).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention expect wherein the electrically conductive textile is a copper-plated textile. However, Kim further teaches the electrically conductive textile is a copper-plated textile (coating nano-copper on air purifier filters, background art).
Hourani and Kim are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electrically conductive filter taught by Hourani and Kim with the nano-copper coating taught by Kim because Kim teaches such elements are known in the art to remove odors and VOCs and improve the antibacterial effects of an air filter (background art). Therefore, a combination of Hourani and Kim would yield a predictable result in light of the current state of the art (See MPEP 2143 I (A)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the electrically conductive textile is a carbon fabric. However, Kim further teaches wherein the electrically conductive textile is a carbon fabric (fixing activated carbon fibers to form a filter, technical solution second paragraph).
Hourani and Kim 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 further modify the electrically conductive filter taught by Hourani and Kim with the carbon fabric taught by Kim because Kim teaches that carbon fibers have excellent adsorption capacity, are easy to apply coatings, and electrically conductive (technical solution fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the electrically conductive layer contains a component with virucidal effects (heated barrier shows 100-fold decrease in active viruses, paragraph [0106], and barrier heater can have anti-microbial coating, paragraph [0069], Hourani).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the filter insert further comprises at least one protective layer (Figure 4C filter “120” placed at the inlet “112” to prevent dust and particulates from being drawn into the housing “60”, Hourani).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the protective layer is made of a non-woven textile. However, Kim further teaches wherein the protective layer is made of a non-woven textile (nonwoven fabric attached on either side of the filter, technical solution first paragraph).
Hourani and Kim 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 further modify the protective layer taught by Hourani and Kim with the non-woven textile taught by Kim because Kim teaches the non-woven fabric advantageously prevents the carbon of the filter from being separated from frame (technical solution first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the at least one filter later and the at least one electrically conductive layer are both resistant to a temperature of at least 80°C (target temperature can be over 93°C, paragraph [0087], and the heated filter can be used safely at high temperatures between 200°C-250°C, Hourani).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the electrically conductive layer is simultaneously used as a filter layer of the filter (barrier heater acts as a good filter in HVAC system, paragraph [0107], Hourani).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches a device for the sterilization of the filter insert according to claim 1 (mobile purification device having one or more purification cartridges, paragraph [0038], Hourani) comprising at least one filter layer (includes one or more filters, paragraph [0038], Hourani), wherein the device comprises an electric power supply (apparatus includes own power supply, paragraph [0048], Hourani) connected by at least two conductive contacts (Figure 4C mesh heater circuitry connected to barrier “142” with two contacts, Hourani) to an electrically conductive layer of the filter insert to resist heating of it (barrier heater is heated by supplying a voltage potential across it, paragraph [0049], Hourani).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the electric power supply is a low-voltage power supply (structure with lower voltage, paragraph [0107], Hourani) of up to 50V ( Figure 11A voltage of 1 V results in current of 8 A, Figure 11B current of 8A results in temperature of ~106°C, Hourani).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the conductive contacts are arranged in a sterilization means, wherein the sterilization means comprises a pressure frame to press the electrically conductive layer of the filter insert onto the conductive contacts (plurality of electric elements including barrier heater disposed in a planum of a frame and connected to a power source, paragraph [0089], Hourani).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches wherein the pressure frame is held to press the electrically conductive layer of the filter insert onto the conductive contacts with at least one locking element (fasteners can affix the rim of the frame to surrounding structures, paragraph [0052], Hourani).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourani and Kim in view of Lee (KR 20190019861 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the filter layer is made of polyvinylidene fluoride. However, Lee teaches wherein the filter layer is made of polyvinylidene fluoride (polyvinylidene fluoride as the nanofiber forming a nanofiber web (paragraph [0083]).
Hourani and Lee are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Lee is considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of nanofiber filters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the filter insert taught by Hourani and Kim with the polyvinylidene fluoride filter material taught by Lee because Lee teaches the fluorine-based compound exhibits excellent chemical and heat resistance (paragraph [0083]).
Claims 14, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourani and Kim in view of Fellows (US 5140136 A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the conductive contacts are conductively connected to busbars wherein the filter insert is conductively placed. However, Fellows teaches the conductive contacts are conductively connected to busbars where the filter insert is conductively placed (fabric may be connected via bus-bars in the apparatus, column 2 lines 51-53).
Hourani, Kim, and Fellows are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of sterilizing filters using an electrically conductive textile. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the purification unit taught by Hourani and Kim with the bus-bars taught by Fellows because Fellows teaches the tension means advantageously maintains the heating element in a dimensionally stable condition (column 1 lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hourani, Kim, and Fellows teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the busbars are simultaneously placed within a body of a filtration element (stainless steel wound wefts connected in parallel to copper strands acting as bus-bars, column 4 lines 18-21, Fellows).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the pressure frame is, by a joint, rotatably mounted in the sterilization means. However, Fellows teaches wherein the pressure frame is, by a joint, rotatably mounted in the sterilization means (box having a lid capable of being opened and closed by means of a hinge (column 4 lines 9-11).
Hourani, Kim, and Fellows 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 purification unit taught by Hourani and Kim with the hinged frame taught by Fellows because Fellows teaches the hinged lid advantageously allows for access to the heating element (column 1 lines 57-58).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hourani, Kim, and Fellows in view of Wang (US 20170153040 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hourani and Fellows teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the conductive contacts are conductively connected to the busbars via magnetic contacts arranged on a supply connector connected to the electric power supply. However, Wang teaches that all components of an air handling device can be connected to each other by means of magnetic attraction (paragraph [0004]).
Hourani, Kim, and Fellows are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Wang is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of air filtration devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the purification device of Hourani, Kim and Fellows with the magnetic connections taught by Wang because Wang teaches connection with magnetic means allows for easy assembly and disassembly of the device (paragraph [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 17-18, the closest prior art is Hourani and Kim in view of Fellows as discussed above. However, the applicant’s arguments filed 08 June 2026 are sufficient to overcome the presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. A combination of Hourani, Kim, and Fellows fails to teach the rotary clamping required by claims 17 and 18.
The prior art as a whole does not teach the claimed invention within the claim environment.
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
Prosecution Insights