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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatte (US 2003/0077216) in view of Rader (WO 2021/252552) in view of Nichols (US 2008/0124505).
Regarding claim 1, Klatte (US 2003/0077216) discloses –
A filter system for treating air (Abstract, pars. 12-13 disclose the use of chlorine dioxide for the purpose of air filtration), the filter system comprising:
a first filter comprising a media (Fig. 4 shows a filter structure encapsulated by barrier 50 which is permeable to the activating fluid, which is air; Claim 38, pars. 77, 86); wherein
air directed to flow through the filter system contacts the first filter (claims 34, 38, disclose air being passed over a filter); wherein
the media is configured to generate a treatment gas from a precursor (claim 34 discloses chlorine dioxide is produced from the air), such that
the treatment gas is released into the flow path of the air (the chlorine dioxide is released into the fluid which is air, see claim 34); and wherein
the treatment gas comprises chlorine dioxide and the precursor comprises a chlorine dioxide precursor (claim 34),
the treatment gas comprises carbon dioxide (CO2) and the precursor comprises a carbon dioxide precursor, or
a combination thereof (one of these limitations is disclosed and the limitations are presented in an alternative and therefore all the limitations of the claim are met).
Klatte appears to be silent with regards to a second filter, and with regards to the first filter comprising a grid structure with a plurality of wells with media disposed therein.
Rader (WO 2021/252552) discloses a system for decontaminating air with chlorine dioxide (par. 5) where a HEPA filter is used alongside the decontaminate generating part (par. 363; fig. 42 HEPA filter 4224, antimicrobial gas 4220). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Klatte such that it includes a HEPA filter as disclosed by Rader to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so in order to further efficiently clean and remove contaminates from the stream as is known in the art to arrive at an improved air filter system. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including various filter means for the same purpose together as separate according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Nichols (US 2008/0124505) discloses a filter structure 300 (see fig. 3) that is a filter grid or lattice (see par. 25) with media filled within wells formed by the grid (Nichols, Fig. 3 shows a plurality of wells on filter structure 300, Fig. 4 also shows a plurality of wells 110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Klatte such that the filter includes a grid structure comprising a plurality of wells with a media disposed in the wells as disclosed by Nichols to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so as Klatte is silent with regards to the specific structure of the filter and an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the prior art for an appropriate and effective manner of construction to arrive at a successful device. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including known filter materials and known filter structures, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Klatte further teaches the treatment gas comprises chlorine dioxide and the precursor comprises a chlorine dioxide precursor (claim 34 discloses chlorine dioxide being produced by a precursor).
Regarding claim 4, Klatte further teaches the media further comprises a proton generating species (claim 34 specifically discloses a proton generating agent).
Regarding claim 6, Klatte further teaches the media comprises dry particles comprising the precursor and dry particles comprising the proton generating species (par. 37 discloses air drying to a low moisture level of less than 20% moisture, which corresponds to the moisture level disclosed in the specification on page 14); and
wherein the media is disposed within the first filter as a mixture of the dry particles of comprising the precursor and the dry particles comprising the proton generating species (claim 34 discloses a bed of zeolite crystals that is a mixture of the precursor and proton-generating species); or
wherein the media is disposed within the first filter as a layered bed comprising two or more alternating layers of the dry particles comprising the precursor and the dry particles comprising the proton-generating species (the above limitation is met and the limitations are presented in the alternative, and therefore the claim limitations are met).
Regarding claim 9, modified Klatte further teaches a frame defining a perimeter of the first filter (Nichols, Fig. 3 filter cover 100).
Regarding claim 10, modified Klatte further teaches the first filter further comprises a permeable layer defining a surface of the first filter, wherein the frame and the permeable layer together define a volume and the media is at least partially enclosed or contained within the volume (Klatte, Fig. 4 barrier 50 is permeable to the air and it encompasses the media).
Regarding claim 12, Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 9 and further teaches the first filter further comprises a first permeable layer defining a top surface of the first filter and a second permeable layer defining a bottom surface of the first filter (Klatte shows in Fig. 4 the barrier defining a top and bottom surface of the filter), such that the frame, the first permeable layer, and the second permeable layer together define a volume and the media is enclosed within the volume (when incorporated into the frame disclosed by Nichols, the media would be enclosed within the volume formed by the permeable layers and the frame).
Regarding claim 14, Klatte teaches the device is well capable of performing the claimed function that the air exits the filter system and flows into a chamber having a volume and the first filter releases the treatment gas into the flow path of the air such that the concentration of the treatment gas within the volume of the chamber is 1 ppmv or less (see par. 17 disclosing the amount of chlorine dioxide released is controllable). The air is not part of the system nor is the volume, and this limitation is entirely functional. The device disclosed by Klatte is well capable of performing the claimed function and is reasonably expected to do so, and the function does not necessitate a structural difference between the claim and the prior art. Therefore, all the limitations of the claim are met. MPEP 2114, II. Regarding claim 16, Klatte further teaches the air directed through the filter system comprises a first component in a first amount before entering the filter system and wherein the first component comprises a toxin, a contaminant, a warfare agent, an organic molecule, a biological agent, a pathogen, or a combination thereof (par. 7 discloses the Chlorine dioxide produced being used to kill biological contaminants, furthermore the device disclosed by Klatte is well capable of performing the claimed function, MPEP 2114, II).
Regarding claim 17, Klatte further teaches the filter system reduces the amount of the first component in the air, such that the air exiting the filter system has a lower amount of the first component relative to the air entering the filter system; the first component comprises a pathogen and the filter system reduces the activity of the pathogen; the first component comprises an organic molecule and the first filter oxidizes the first component; or a combination thereof (par. 7, furthermore the filter system of Klatte is well capable of treating the air to reduce the component as claimed, see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 20, Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but appears to be silent with regards to a respirator, gas mask, personal protection device, or a combination thereof.
Rader discloses a chlorine dioxide antimicrobial device (par. 300; Figs. 30A-B generator 3000) fabricated in a mask or respirator (par. 299). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Klatte such that the filter system is used in a gas mask or respirator as taught by Rader to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use the filter system for a known application where air treatment is known to be desired set forth by Rader. The combination of familiar prior art elements, including filter systems and respirators and PPE, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 21, modified Klatte further teaches the first component comprises an organic molecule and the first filter oxidizes the first component (par. 7 discloses the Chlorine dioxide produced being used to kill biological contaminants which includes some organic molecule, or at least the capability of treating one, see MPEP 2114 II; par. 22 discloses zeolites impregnated with an oxidizer for oxidizing).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatte (US 2003/0077216) in view of Rader (WO 2021/252552) in view of Nichols (US 2008/0124505) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Mou (US 2021/0245087).
Regarding claim 2, modified Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but appears to be silent with regards to the second filter comprises an activated carbon filter.
Mou (US 2021/0245087) teaches activated carbon filter screens used for air treatment alongside chlorine dioxide as a treatment gas (par. 35, Figs. 2A-B filter screen 2a). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Klatte such that the second filter includes an activated carbon filter as taught by Mou to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to use a known-effective filter type for use with chlorine dioxide to better and more thoroughly treat air as is known in the art to arrive at an improved filter system.
Regarding claim 15, Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but appears to be silent with regards to an electrostatically charged medium.
Mou discloses a chlorine dioxide filter system (par. 35, Figs. 2A-B purification module) where the filter screen 2a is an electrostatic filter that is coated with the cleansing factor for containing chlorine dioxide (par. 35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Klatte such that the filter system further comprises a media with an electrostatic surface as taught by Mou to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to further remove virus and bacteria from the air as is known in the art to arrive at an improved air filtering system. The combination of familiar prior art elements, like known filtering techniques that are disclosed as being used together, according to known means to arrive at results that are nothing more than predictable is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatte (US 2003/0077216) in view of Rader (WO 2021/252552) in view of Nichols (US 2008/0124505) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Young (CA 3138150).
Regarding claim 5, Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 1, but appears to be silent with regards to the thickness of filter.
However, this modification would only be a product of routine optimization, and an ordinary artisan would be motivated to select a thickness for the filter that is appropriate for the application for which the filter is applied for. A filter must have a thickness, and an ordinary artisan would select a thickness considering the flow characteristics and extent to which the fluid must exposed to the treatment medium, and could arrive at the claimed thickness without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Furthermore, Young (CA 3138150) discloses a filter with a thickness of 1 cm (see par. 200), and an ordinary artisan would be motivated to look to the prior art for an appropriate filter thickness for the treatment of air.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatte (US 2003/0077216) in view of Rader (WO 2021/252552) in view of Nichols (US 2008/0124505) as applied to claims 10 and 12 above and further in view of Rader (WO 2021/252552).
Regarding claim 11, modified Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 10, but appears to be silent with regards to an adhesive.
Rader teaches a filter system where a permeable layer is bonded to a frame by an adhesive (Figs. 30A-B, membrane 3010, adhesive 3014, lid 3004; pars. 298-300). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Klatte such that the permeable layer is bonded to the frame by an adhesive as taught by Rader to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to easily and cheaply attach the components as desired to arrive at an improved device.
Regarding claim 13, modified Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 12, but appears to be silent with regards to an adhesive.
Rader teaches a filter system where a permeable layer is bonded to a frame by an adhesive (Figs. 30A-B, membrane 3010, adhesive 3014, lid 3004; pars. 298-300). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by modified Klatte such that the permeable layers are bonded to the frame by an adhesive as taught by Rader to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to easily and cheaply attach the components as desired to arrive at an improved device.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatte (US 2003/0077216) in view of Rader (WO 2021/252552) in view of Nichols (US 2008/0124505) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hoke (US 2002/0018742).
Modified Klatte is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but is silent with regards to carbon dioxide.
Hoke (US 2002/0018742) teaches a filter system where a carbon dioxide precursor is converted into carbon dioxide (pars. 16 and 126 teach a catalyst piece that converts ozone into carbon dioxide in the process of treating air). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Klatte such that the filter includes means to convert the carbon dioxide precursor ozone into carbon dioxide as taught by Hoke to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to do so to better treat the air and remove harmful chemicals therefrom to arrive at an improved device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 102 rejections are moot as the claims are not rejected under 103 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 103 rejections are not persuasive because the arguments do not address the references in the combination relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 and its dependents as set forth above.
Claim 1 and its dependents remain rejected.
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 BRENDAN A HENSEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30 - 7pm;.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/BRENDAN A HENSEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights