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 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, 3–12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukopaasi et al., US 2019/0126176 A1 in view of Ida et al., US 2017/0252801 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kaukopaasi teaches a filter arrangement, which reads on the claimed “air filter for preventing transmission of infections.” See Kaukopaasi [0035]. The filter arrangement comprises:
A porous web, which reads on the “air-permeable filter body.” See Kaukopaasi [0049].
Copper particles, which read on the claimed “active ingredient comprising a plurality of particles having a core of metallic copper.” See Kaukopaasi [0049].
A binder for binding the copper particles to the porous web, which reads on the “binder for binding the active ingredient to the air-permeable filter body.” See Kaukopaasi [0049].
The filter arrangement can be used in an HVAC system, which reads on “the air filter is an air filter of a ventilation and/or air conditioning apparatus.” See Kaukopaasi [0021].
The filter arrangement is capable of allowing liquid droplets to permeate the porous web, as claimed, because the porous web is made from hydrophilic materials, such as cellulose or oleophilic materials such as polyester or polyolefin. See Kaukopaasi [0045], [0046].
Also, inner surfaces of the porous web are coated with a fluid comprising both the copper particles and the binder as a mixture, as claimed, because the porous web is impregnated with an ink comprising the copper particles and the binder. See Kaukopaasi [0049].
The porous web is thus provided with an inner coating that is capable of forcing any infection-transmitting micro-organisms passing through the porous web to be subjected to interaction with the copper particles, wherein the inner coating extends in the depth dimension of the porous web and is capable of facilitating extended interaction between the copper particles and any infection transmitting organisms, as claimed, because the porous web is impregnated with the copper particles. See Kaukopaasi [0049]; MPEP 2114 (functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
The copper particles are embedded in the porous web in a manner that leave the porous web air-permeable, as claimed, because the porous web remains porous after it is impregnated with the copper particles. See Kaukopaasi [0049].
With respect to the limitations—“the air filter is a product of controlled atomized fluid deposition” and “the inner coating is a product of controlled robotic deposition”—these limitations fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art because they are product-by-process limitations with there being no evidence that the claimed process of manufacture results in a different structure than the filter of Kaukopaasi. See MPEP 2113 (the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production unless the process steps imply structure).
Kaukopaasi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the copper particles having a core of metallic copper with an electrically conductive coating, as film enclosing the core, comprising silver where the core of metallic copper has a diameter of 5 to 100 micrometers.
But the copper particles are located in the porous web to provided a conductive component. See Kaukopaasi [0049].
With this in mind, Ida teaches metallic copper particles, where each copper particle comprises a large diameter metallic copper particle (the “core of metallic copper”) with the surface coated with silver (the “film enclosing the core, comprising silver”). See Ida [0069], [0070]. The large diameter metallic copper particle has an average diameter of 0.1 to 100 micrometers. Id. at [0072]. The metallic copper particles are electrically conductive and are beneficial because they can be produced relatively easily. See Ida [0010]. It would have been obvious to use the copper particles of Ida as the copper particles of Kaukopaasi to provide particles that can be manufactured relatively easily.
Regarding claim 3, Kaukopaasi teaches that the active ingredient comprises 100 percent by weight of the plurality of particles, which reads on at least 90 percent by weight of the plurality of particles. See Kaukopaasi [0049].
Regarding claim 4, Kaukopaasi teaches that the active ingredient comprises additional particles, which are silver particles, as claimed, because the particles can include silver particles. See Kaukopaasi [0049].
Regarding claim 5, Kaukopaasi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained above.
Kaukopassi as modified differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the weight percentage of the silver particles. But silver is relatively expensive compared to copper, and therefore it would have been obvious for the silver particles to comprise 1 percent by weight of the copper particles to control costs. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 6, Kaukopaasi as modified teaches that the plurality of particles are microparticles because the particles of Ida have an average diameter of 0.1 to 100 micrometers. See Ida [0072].
Regarding claim 7, Kaukopaasi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kaukopaasi as modified differs from claim 7 because Ida is silent as to the thickness of the silver coating on the large diameter metallic copper particles. Therefore, Ida fails to provide enough information to teach the thickness of the coating is less than a micrometer, as claimed. But the silver is described as coating the surface of the metallic copper particles, with the large diameter metallic copper particles having an average diameter of 0.1 to 100 micrometers, and with silver being a relatively expensive material. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the silver coating to be less than a micrometer, as claimed, to control costs and because the large diameter metallic copper particles themselves can be less than a micrometer (meaning the silver coating would also be less than a micrometer). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II (where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 8, Kaukopaasi teaches a pre-charging unit 8 (the “electrical connection”) for directing electric current into the copper particles. See Kaukopaasi Fig. 1, [0035].
Regarding claim 9, Kaukopaasi teaches that the binder can be an epoxide (an epoxy). See Kaukopaasi [0050].
Regarding claim 10, Kaukopaasi teaches a layer 5 (the claimed “first air-permeable post-filter) positioned downstream from the porous web 6 and which is capable of mitigating the escape of infection-transmitting micro-organisms from the filter body (as the layer 3 is a porous piece of material). See Kaukopaasi Fig. 1, [0056].
Regarding claim 11, Kaukopaasi teaches the limitations of claim 10 as explained above.
Kaukopaasi differs from claim 11 because it is silent as to a second air-permeable post-filter positioned against the porous web 6.
But the reference teaches that other layers of the filter (e.g., gas adsorbing layer) can comprise multiple layers of material. See Kaukopaasi [0063]. It would have been obvious to add an additional porous web upstream of the porous web 6 because this would merely represent obvious duplication of parts, with the reference suggesting that multiple layers can be utilized. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, B.
With this modification, the additional porous web reads on the “second air-permeable post-filter positioned against the filter body.” The additional porous web is capable of mitigating the escape of infection-transmitting micro-organisms from the porous web 6, as claimed, because the additional porous web is a piece of material that could trap at least some micro-organisms. Also, the porous web 6 would be sandwiched between layer 5 and the additional porous web.
Regarding claim 12, Kaukopaasi teaches that the copper particles are provided one or more outer surfaces of the porous web as a surface application, as claimed, because the conductive ink with the copper particles is supplied to the sides and interior of the web as the web is impregnated with the ink. See Kaukopaasi [0049].
Regarding claim 14, Kaukopaasi teaches an HVAC system comprising the air filter. See Kaukopaasi [0021]. This reads on a “ventilation and/or air conditioning apparatus comprising the air filter according to claim 1 for filtering air passing through the apparatus.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaukopaasi et al., US 2019/0126176 A1 in view of Ida et al., US 2017/0252801 A1 and in further view of Schmitz et al., US 2011/0005990 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Kaukopaasi as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Kaukopaasi differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the porous web comprising a threaded mesh.
But Kaukopaasi teaches that the porous web can be made from a matrix formed by a fibrous web, for example a non-woven web. See Kaukopaasi [0109].
With this in mind, Schmitz teaches a filter with an electrically conductive substrate where the substrate can be made from a nonwoven sheet or a mesh (interpreted as a threaded mesh). See Schmitz [0034]. It would have been obvious for the porous web of Kaukopaasi to be made from a mesh because this would merely represent the selection of a known material based on the suitability of its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The Examiner withdraws the claim objections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Skiba et al. US 2021/0321696 A1 in view of Ida et al., US 2017/0252801 A1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
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 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
