DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
Claim 14 recites a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation—“means for thermally supporting, increasing or supporting and increasing the substantially vertical laminar flow.” This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites the generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “for thermally supporting, increasing or supporting and increasing the substantially vertical laminar flow” without reciting structure for performing the function. Because the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation is the structure recited in the specification for performing the function, and equivalents. The disclosure says that the substantially vertical laminar flow can be thermally supported by irradiation of the floor or objects by sun light, laser or infrared radiation, or by radiators. See Spec. [0060]. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “means for thermally supporting, increasing or supporting and increasing the substantially vertical laminar flow” limitation irradiation of the floor or objects by sun light, laser or infrared radiation, or by radiators, and equivalents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites:
9. The system according to claims 7, wherein the perforated member forms a ceiling of the 3D space. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if claim 9 is intended to depend only from claim 7 or from other claims (because it says “claims 7”).
Claim 9 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “a ceiling” refers to the “ceiling” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Duerig teaches an arrangement 1 for a laboratory room 2. See Duerig Figs. 1, 2, [0048]. The arrangement 1 reads on the “system for air decontamination.” The room 2 reads on the “room” and the interior space of the room 2 (bounded by ground floor 3, ceiling 4 and walls 5, 6, 7, 8) reads on the “three-dimensional (3D) space.” The room 2 comprises a ground floor 3, a suspended ceiling 20 and a ceiling 4. Id. The ground floor 3 reads on the “floor” and the “ground.” The suspended ceiling 20 reads on the “ceiling.” The ceiling 4 reads on the “top.”
The arrangement 1 comprises a plenum that is formed between the suspended ceiling 20 and the ceiling 4 (the plenum includes air outlet 15) with the plenum communicating air to an air conditioning device. See Duerig Fig. 1, [0055]. The plenum reads on the “at least one air inlet positioned essentially at the top of the 3D space and configured to draw in air from the 3D space.”
The arrangement 1 also comprises an air inlet 14 positioned above and essentially on the ground floor 3 of the room 2 and configured to administer air from the air conditioner to the room via an initial air flow above and essentially on the ground having a horizontal component, as claimed. See Duerig Fig. 1, [0055]. The inlet 14 reads on the “at least one air outlet.”
The arrangement 1 further comprises an air conditioning device in fluid communication with the plenum (between suspended ceiling 20 and ceiling 4, i.e., the “at least one air inlet”), with the air conditioning device being configured to condition air drawn from the plenum and with the air conditioning device being configured to exhaust conditioned air through the inlet 14. See Duerig Fig. 1, [0053]–[0055].
The arrangement 1 is configured to draw air in a substantially vertical laminar flow 16 from the ground floor 3 of the room 2 and into the plenum between the suspended ceiling 20 and the ceiling 4, as claimed. See Duerig Fig. 1, [0056]. The ground floor 3 is the floor of the room 2, as claimed, because the ground floor 3 is described as the “(ground) floor 3” of the laboratory room 2. Id. at [0048] (emphasis added).
PNG
media_image1.png
1057
1135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Duerig differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the air conditioning device comprising a filter configured to filter ultrafine particles from the air that is drawn from the plenum between suspended ceiling 20 and ceiling 4 (the “at least one air inlet”).
But Worrilow teaches an air purifier 2 that is in line with the ductwork of an HVAC system for providing purified air to a laboratory. See Worrilow Figs. 3, 4, [0021], [0031]. The air purifier comprises particulate filters 12, 14, 16 that are HEPA rated. Id. at Fig. 3, 4, [0040]. A HEPA filter is configured to remove 0.3 micron particles1. Particles of 0.3 micron size are “ultrafine” because the disclosure says that ultrafine particles have a mean diameter size of 10 to 500 nm (0.01 to 0.5 micron). See Spec. [0026]. The air purifier of Worrilow is beneficial because it is able to provide a level of air quality suitable for environments that are sensitive to airborne contaminants. See Worrilow [0002].
PNG
media_image2.png
505
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the air conditioning system of Duerig to have the air purifier 2 of Worrilow in its ductwork to ensure that the air supplied to the laboratory room 2 of During is high enough quality for the laboratory room 2.
With this modification, the air purifier 2 of Worrilow reads on the claimed “filter device.” The air purifier 2 is in fluid communication with the plenum between the suspended ceiling 20 and the ceiling 3 (the plenum is the “at least one air inlet”) and air inlet 14 of Duerig (the “at least one air outlet”), as claimed because the air purifier 2 is provided in the ductwork of the air conditioning system, which conditions the air removed from the laboratory room 2 and returned via the air inlet 14. The air purifier 2 is configured to filter “ultrafine particles” from the air drawn into the air conditioning device of Duerig because the air purifier 2 of Worrilow comprises HEPA rated filters.
Regarding claim 2, Duerig teaches that the laboratory room 2 (the “room”) is a closed indoor space, as claimed, because it is a laboratory room. See Duerig [0048]. The inlet 14 (the “at least one air outlet”) is positioned in wall 5 (a “wall of the 3D space”) of the room 2, as claimed. Id. at Fig. 1, [0048], [0055].
Regarding claim 7, Duerig teaches that the plenum between the suspended ceiling 20 and the ceiling 4 (the plenum is “at least one air inlet”) comprises the suspended ceiling 20 (as the suspended ceiling 20 forms the lower boundary of the plenum). See Duerig Fig. 1, [0060]. The suspended ceiling reads on the “perforated member which forms an essentially horizontal flat plane,” as claimed because the ceiling 20 is provided with perforations and forms an essentially horizontal flat plane. Id. Note that it is reasonable to interpret the suspended ceiling 20 as reading on both the “ceiling” and the “perforated member” (part of the “at least one air inlet”). This is because the specification says that the perforated member may have a larger surface compared to the cross section of the air inlet, and that the perforated member may for a perforated ceiling of the 3D space (see Spec. [0037]) while claim 9 also indicates that the perforated member forms a ceiling of the 3D space.
Regarding claim 9, Duerig teaches that the suspended ceiling 20 (the “perforated member”) forms the ceiling of the laboratory room 2 (the “3D space”) because it is a ceiling. See Duerig Fig. 1, [0054].
Regarding claim 14, Duerig teaches that the arrangement 1 comprises an air conditioning device which moves air through the arrangement 1. See Duerig [0055]. The air conditioning device reads on the “device for moving gas.”
Regarding claims 17 and 33, Duerig teaches that the room 2 is a space formed around a person and is defined by structural means, because a person could be within the room 2 while the room 2 is defined by, for instance, floor 3, ceiling 4, and walls 5, 6, 7, 8. See Duerig Fig. 1, [0048], [0053]. The floor 3, ceiling 4, and walls 5, 6, 7, 8 are “shields” (claim 33) because they are capable of protecting the interior of the room 2 from the environment outside of the room 2.
Regarding claim 18, Duerig teaches that the room 2 is a space that is capable of being formed around a person standing in the room 2. See Duerig [0053].
Regarding claim 32, Duerig as modified teaches that the air purifier 2 of Worrilow (the “filter device”) is capable of filtering ultrafine particles from fresh air because it comprises particulate filters 12, 14, 16 that are HEPA rated, and a HEPA filter is configured to remove 0.3 micron particles. Particles of 0.3 micron size are “ultrafine” because the disclosure says that ultrafine particles have a mean diameter size of 10 to 500 nm (0.01 to 0.5 micron). See Spec. [0026].
Claims 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1 and optionally in further view of Goppion, US 2014/0336826 A1.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 6, Duerig in view of Worrilow teaches that the arrangement 1 is capable of operating with an average speed of the laminar flow 16 between 0.1 to 0.4 m/s (claim 3), an average air speed of 0.1 to 0.2 m/s at the ceiling 20 (the “at least one air inlet”) (claim 5) and an average air speed of 0.01 to 0.2 m/s at the air inlet 14 (the “at least one air outlet”) (claim 6) because the arrangement 1 has the same structure as the claimed system. See MPEP 2114(IV) (Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
If not, in the alternative, Goppion teaches an enclosure supplied with laminar air flow at a speed of 0.05 to 0.65 m/s. See Goppion [0053]. This speed is suitable for laminar flow. Id.
As such, it would have been obvious to operate the arrangement of Duerig such that the laminar air flow 16 has an average speed of 0.05 to 0.65 m/s, including at the ceiling 20 and the air inlet 14 because this is a suitable speed for laminar air flow in an enclosure. The prior art range of 0.05 to 0.65 m/s overlaps with the claimed ranges of 0.1 to 0.4 m/s (claim 3), 0.1 to 0.2 m/s (claim 5) and 0.01 to 0.2 m/s (claim 6), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1 and optionally in further view of Kinnis, US 2009/0076658 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Duerig in view of Worrilow teaches that the arrangement 1 is capable of operating such that the arrangement exchanges the volume in the room 2 between 2 to 6 times per hour because the arrangement 1 has the same structure as the claimed system. See MPEP 2114(IV) (Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
If not, in the alternative, Kinnis teaches that a typical building has 5 to 7 air changes per hour. See Kinnis [0064]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the for the arrangement 1 of Duerig to operate such that the air conditioning system exchanges air in the room 2 between 5 to 7 times per hour because this is typical in a building. The prior art range of 5 to 7 times per hour overlaps with the claimed range of 2 to 6 times per hour, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1 and in further view of Johnson, US 6,171,354 B1.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 13, Duerig as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Duerig as modified differs from claims 10, 11 and 13 because it is silent as to the air inlet 14 (the “at least one air outlet”) comprising a porous membrane through which the conditioned air 18 (the “filtered air”) is administered to the room 2 (the “3D space”).
But Johnson teaches a filtering device 10 that can be attached to the air supply register of a forced air climate control system to filter particulates and allergens from the forced air flow. See Johnson Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 15–23. The filter device 10 comprises a substrate 12 of a porous material of woven or non-woven fibers (a fabric or cloth, claim 13). Id. at col. 3, ll. 43–54. The porous material is a “porous membrane.” The filter device 10 is beneficial because it retains particulate matter in the airflow before it enters the space where air is directed. Id. at col. 1, ll. 11–20. It would have been obvious to attach the filter device 10 of Johnson to the air inlet 14 of Duerig to provide an additional filtration mechanism for purifying air before it is supplied to the room 2. With this modification, the filter device 10 reads on the “porous membrane through which the filtered air is administered to the 3D space.” The filter device 10 is presumed capable of reducing the velocity of the filtered air on administration to the room 2 by a factor of 50 to 200 (claim 11), because it has the same structure as the claimed “porous membrane.” See MPEP 2112.01(I) (when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1 in view of Johnson, US 6,171,354 B1 and in further view of Williams et al., US 2016/0317963 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Duerig as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as explained above.
Duerig as modified differs from claim 12 because Johnson is silent as to the parameters of the substrate 12 (the “porous membrane”). But, as noted, the substrate 12 of Johnson is used as a filter material for an HVAC system. With this in mind, Williams teaches an HVAC filter medium having a basis weight of 101.7 g/m2. See Williams [0030]. It would have been obvious for the substrate 12 of Johnson to have a basis weight of 101.7 g/m2 because this is a suitable value for a filter used in HVAC applications. The prior art value of 101.7 g/m2 is within the claimed range of 100 to 200 g/m2.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1 in view of Wellman, US 2008/0216497 A1.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Duerig as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as explained above.
Duerig as modified differs from claims 15 and 16 because, while it teaches that the air 18 entering the room 2 through air inlet 14 has been conditioned and filtered, it is silent as to the system comprising a heat exchanger to warm the air 18 prior to, during or after administration to the room 2.
But Wellman teaches an HVAC system comprising a heat exchanger system comprising parallel heat exchangers that heats air before it is supplied to an indoor space. See Wellman [0025]. The heat exchanger system is able to warm the air to 40 to 60°F (4.44 to 15.5°C) above the temperature of the air in the indoor space. Id. The heat exchanger system is beneficial because it is able to increase the air in the indoor space more than would normally occur with a single heat exchanger. Id. It would have been obvious to use the heat exchanger system of Wellman as the mechanism for heating the air in the air conditioning system of Duerig as modified to provide this benefit. With this modification, the heat exchanger system of Wellman reads on the “heat exchanger” of claims 15 and 16. The prior art range of 4.44 to 15.5°C overlaps with the claimed range of 5 to 15.5°C (claim 16), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duerig et al., US 2012/0295531 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2018/0236121 A1 in view of Matsumoto, US 4,205,969 and in further view of Gahan et al., US 2002/0174869 A1.
Regarding claim 28, Duerig in view of Worrilow teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Duerig in view of Worrilow differs from claim 28 because it is silent as to the air purifier of Worrilow (the “filter device”) comprising a cell-type filter medium for absorbing ultrafine particles, with the claimed structure.
But Worrilow teaches that its air purifier can comprise multiple filter stages to remove contaminants from air. See Worrilow [0051].
With this in mind, Matsumoto teaches an electrostatic air filter 2 comprising a honeycomb filter element 16. See Matsumoto Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 22–53. The honeycomb filter element 16 has an upstream side (a “gas entry”) and a downstream side (an “exit side”), as seen by the fluid arrow 14 in Fig. 1. Also, while Matsumoto is silent as to the upstream side of the honeycomb filter element 16 being coated with a hydrophobic material, the reference teaches that the filter element 16 is made from a dielectric material, such as polyethylene, that is able to electrostatically capture particulates from air. Id. at col. 3, ll. 46–60. With this in mind, Gahan teaches a method of coating a filter media, made from a polymer such as polyethylene, with a hydrophobic material and then charged so that it is electrostatically charged. See Gahan [0009], [0022], [0024]. The process of Gahan is beneficial because it provides a substantially permanent charge onto the filter media. Id. at [0024]. It would have been obvious to coat the material of the filter 16 of Matsumoto with the hydrophobic material and then charge the material in view of Gahan to provide a substantially permanent charge to the material to improve its ability to electrostatically collect particles. With this modification, the upstream side of the filter 16 would be coated with a hydrophobic material. The air filter 2 of Matsumoto is beneficial because it is less likely to clog than a conventional filter. Id. at col. 1, ll. 32–50.
It would have been obvious to include the filter 2 of Matsumoto as one of the stages in the air purifier of Worrilow in order to provide a filter that is less likely to clog. With this modification, the air purifier would comprise the honeycomb filter 16 of Matsumoto, which is a cell-type filter which is capable of absorbing ultrafine particles (due to the electrostatic collection properties).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
With respect to claim 1, The Applicant argues that the air inlet 14 of Duerig (the “at least one air outlet”) cannot administer air above and essentially on the ground of the laboratory room 2 with an initial horizontal component. See Applicant Rem. filed January 12, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 10. Instead, it is argued that the air from inlet 14 is below the intermediate floor 13 thereby having the air flow through the floor 13 of the 3D space. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The interior space of the laboratory room 2 reads on the claimed “3D space.” The interior space of the room 2 comprises a ground floor 3, which reads on the “ground of the 3D space.” As noted, the air inlet 14 reads on the “at least one air inlet.” The air inlet 14 is positioned above and essentially on the ground floor 3, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 1 where the air inlet 14 is above but relatively close to the ground floor 3. Also, the air inlet 14 is configured to administer air (which is filtered in view of Worrilow) with an initial flow above and essentially on the ground having a horizontal component, as seen by the flow arrow 18 which shows conditioned air 18 being above and essentially on the ground floor 3 and having a horizontal component.
With respect to claims 3, 5 and 6, the Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Duerig in view of Goppion, asserting that in Goppion air flows exclusive from top to bottom, and not from bottom to top. See Applicant Rem. 11–12.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Goppion reference is optional in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 3, 5 and 6, because the structure of Duerig in view of Worrilow is presumed capable of performing the claimed functions. The Applicant has not addressed this feature of the rejection, and therefore the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Also, the modification of Duerig in view of Worrilow and Goppion relies on Goppion on teaching the ideal speed of laminar airflow, instead of rearranging the orientation of the room 2 of Duerig. Goppion teaches that a laminar air flow speed of 0.05 to 0.65 m/s is suitable for laminar flow (see Goppion [0053]), and therefore, it would have been obvious for the laminar flow 16 of Duerig to have a speed of 0.05 to 0.65 m/s because this is suitable for laminar flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 See Amey et al., US 2018/0236393 A1, [0004] (“HEPA filters are defined by the United States Department of Energy as filter which remove at least 99.97% of particles at 0.3 µm in diameter from air”).