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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “consisting of a face mark” line 9. It should be “consisting of a face mask.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al (US 4162906; hereinafter Sullivan) in view of Chen et al (US 20190111375; hereinafter Chen).
As regarding claim 1, Sullivan discloses the claimed invention for a filtration apparatus (abstract; figs. 1-7) for improving quality of breathable air, comprising a plurality of vortex ports (10), each vortex port comprising: a) a fixed swirler (26) for imparting a centrifugal force on a moving air stream; and b) a filter matrix (138) for capturing particles contained within said moving air stream, wherein said vortex ports are disposed within said filter matrix (fig. 3).
Sullivan does not disclose said filtration apparatus being selected from the group consisting of a face mark, contained in a ventilator, contained in a HEPA system, and contained in an HVAC system and any combination thereof. Chen teaches said filtration apparatus being selected from the group consisting of a face mark, contained in a ventilator, contained in a HEPA system ([0023] – filter 20 is HEPA), and contained in an HVAC system and any combination thereof. Both Sullivan and Chen are directed to filtration apparatus having cyclonic separator and filter media. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide said filtration apparatus being selected from the group consisting of a face mark, contained in a ventilator, contained in a HEPA system, and contained in an HVAC system and any combination thereof as taught by Chen in order to enhance filtration apparatus performance.
As regarding claim 2, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said plurality of vortex ports comprise a vortex port array (10 of fig. 5).
As regarding claim 3, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said fixed swirler in each vortex forming element is a helical blade (30 of fig. 4).
As regarding claim 4, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said fixed swirler in each vortex forming element is an impeller (30).
As regarding claim 5, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said filter matrix comprises one or more layers (138 of fig. 3).
As regarding claim 6, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein said one or more layers comprise at least one of anti-viral, anti-bacterial, absorbent or adsorbent layers (138 – can absorb particles and fluids).
With respect to the limitations recited in claim 11, which pertain to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article being worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
As regarding claim 17, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said filtration apparatus is a face mask. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said filtration apparatus is a face mask in order to enhance filtration apparatus performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Choi (US 20170157435; 10, 20; [0143]; and figs. 1-2).
As regarding claim 19, Sullivan as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Sullivan as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said filtration apparatus is contained in an HVAC system as a filter medium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said filtration apparatus is contained in an HVAC system as a filter medium in order to enhance filtration apparatus performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Horvath et al (US 20200063997; hereinafter Horvath; [0003]-[0004]; [0036] and [0052]).
Claims 12-16, 18 and 20 are similarly rejected for reason analogous to those set forth for claims 1-6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached on (571) 270-3960. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773