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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 February 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 03 February 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 filed 03 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 6-8 of the applicant’s response, the applicant argues that primary reference Hourani does not teach the newly added limitation “wherein the filter layer is directly disposed on the electrically conductive layer”. However, Hourani is not relied upon for teaching this structural limitation. In fact, is has already been acknowledged that this structural formation is not taught by Hourani in a previous Office Action (See Final Rejection page 5 mailed 03 October 2025).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kim provides a motivation for the combination of references by explicitly teaching that combining an applied voltage structure and an absorbent filter layer will allow for the removal of odors from the air while also decomposing VOCs/pathogens in the air (page 3 paragraph).
Applicant points to the teachings of Hourani and Kim where an additional HEPA filter is provided at a distance from the conductive structure. However, the HEPA filter is not the filter layer replied upon in the rejection of claim 1. While Kim does teach an additional HEPA filter, the filter layer cited in the rejection is the activated carbon layer applied directly to the conductive honeycomb structure to form a functional filter (See Final Rejection page 5 mailed 03 October 2025). Therefore, this is not an applicable argument against the currently presented rejection as the structure of the HEPA filter in relation to the rest of the filtration device is not addressed by the current claim set or rejections.
In response to applicant's argument that Hourani or Kim could not be used in applications such as face masks or respirators, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., regeneration by resistive heating when not performing filtration and specific arrangement of voltage source contact to the barrier) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant fails to explain how the amendment to introduce the limitation “wherein the filter layer is directly disposed on the electrically conductive layer” would differentiate the current invention from the combination of Hourani and Kim which was already presented to teach the previously presented limitation “wherein the at least one filter layer and the at least one electrically conductive layer are arranged as layers in contact with each other”.
Finally, the applicant argues that Hourani does not teach the newly added claim limitation “configured to capture pathogens”. While this is true, Kim explicitly teaches capturing pathogens in the activated carbon filter layer (activated carbon or activated carbon fibers with ability to capture various pathogens or viruses in a filter, page 3 paragraph 4). Therefore, a combination of Hourani in view of Kim would render the current invention obvious.
Following the above logic the rejections of claims 1-2, 4-13, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Hourani in the view of Kim are maintained. Similarly, the rejections of claims 14, 16-18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Hourani and Kim in view of Fellows and the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to Hourani and Kim in view of Wang are maintained.
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, 4-13, 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 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) 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 7, the combination of Hourani and Kim teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the filter later is made of a nano-textile. However, Kim further teaches the filter layer is made of a nano-textile (coating nano-copper on air purifier filters, background art).
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 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 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).
Claims 14, 16-18, 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 17, the combination of Hourani, Kim, and Fellows teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the filter insert is fastened to the busbar by rotary clamping (stainless steel wound wefts connected in parallel to copper strands acting as bus-bars, column 4 lines 18-21, Fellows).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hourani, Kim, and Fellows teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the filter is fasted to the busbar by rotary clamping of the electrically conductive layer thereof ( 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]).
Conclusion
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