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. Status of the Claims This Office Action is in responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 2/21/2023 . As directed by the Preliminary amendment, no claims were amended. Thus, claims 1-29 are currently pending in this application. Drawings The drawings are object ed to because: Figs. 1-5 should be labeled with the abbreviation “FIG.” (see MPEP 608.02 (V) ( u )( 1 )) . Figs. 2-5 contain improper shading (see MPEP 608.02( V )( m )) . Figs. 3-5 contain unlabeled text boxes 10, 1 2, 14, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 40 which should be provided with a descriptive text label (e.g. box 38 could have the label -- vacuum pump --) (see MPEP 608.02(d)(a)). Corre cted drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. (1) Field of the Invention. (2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. ( i ) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification lacks section headings. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the coating” in line 4, and is suggested to read --the anti-pathogenic coating-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed. Claim 1 recites “the substrate” in line 4, and is suggested to read --the porous substrate-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed. Claim 2 recites “the coating” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the anti-pathogenic coating-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed. Claim 3 recites “the coating” in line 1, and is suggested to read --the anti-pathogenic coating-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed. Appropriate correction is required. Claim s 4-29 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim s 4-29 have not been further treated on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-3 are 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 1 recites the limitation " the concentration " in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Foss et al. (US 2003/0170453 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Foss in view of Brizuela (US 2021/0368890 A1). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Foss discloses a removable filter ( air filter , which can be provided for a dust mask ; a s the air filter was provided to the dust mask, it could also be removed ) (para. [0264] ; para. [0398] ) comprising: a porous substrate (filter made of fibers through which air passes, and so which must be porous ) (para. [0264]) ; and an anti-pathogenic coating provided on at least part of the porous substrate wherein the concentration of the coating varies across the substrate to provide a coating pattern (anti-microbial synthetic additives/agents are provided to the fibers; the concentration of anti-microbial agents can vary as a gradient on each individual fiber and/or regionally across the material, thereby forming patterns of anti-microbial agent in the filter material ) (para. [0264]) . Alternatively, if Foss is not considered to disclose the filter is removable, Brizuela teaches an antimicrobial and antiviral face mask ( Brizuela ; abstract) wherein the filter is removable (HEPA filter pocket 150 for a replaceable filter, and so the filter is removable from the pocket) ( Brizuela ; Fig. 8; para. [0061]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foss filter to be removable, as taught by Brizuela , for the purpose of enabling the replacement of the filter ( Brizuela ; Fig. 8; para. [0061]). Regarding claim 3, the modified Foss teaches wherein the coating is an antibacterial coating (anti-microbial agents can be antibacterial ) (Foss; para. [0264]) . Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foss in view of Brizuela as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau (US 2019/0217132 A1) . Regarding claim 2, the modified Foss teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the coating is an anti-viral coating. However, Lau teaches a portable respirator (Lau; abstract) wherein the coating is an anti-viral coating (fan-shaped filter 21 is coated with activated carbon impregnated with an antivirus agent) (Lau; para. [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Foss coating to include an anti-viral coating, as taught by Lau, for the purpose of additionally providing protection from viruses (Lau; para. [0025]). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0321695 A1 by Cendales Miguez is considered to be relevant as it discloses an antimicrobial mask with different printed coatings on either side of the mask. US 2012/0082711 A1 by Goranov is considered to be relevant as it discloses a filter wherein the fibers can be made with varying amounts of antimicrobial agents. US 2021/0400979 A1 by Angres et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses filter fabric which is treated via digital printing techniques. US 2004/0265544 A1 by Di Salvo et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses embossing a pattern into a fabric article with an antibacterial coating. US 4,790,307 b y Haber et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a mask including fibrous pads that are saturated with anti-bacterial fluid. US 2004/0217049 A1 by Bayer et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a filter that is pre-cut before coating . US 2007/0199567 A1 by Kanzer is considered to be relevant as it discloses a filtering face mask with ink indicative of tampering or contact with liquid before use . US 5,908,598 A1 by Rousseau et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses making an air filter by using a vacuum beneath it to aid in the passage of spray . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7032 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Justine Yu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-4835 . 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. /JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /RACHEL T SIPPEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785