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
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke (US 20190001253 A1) in view of Goto (KR 20070094513 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hitzke teaches a gas purifying filter (abstract: The invention describes a filter medium (10), in particular for an air filter) comprising:
a first gas permeable body having a gas inlet surface (Fig. 1: first active layer 12); a first adsorption layer disposed on the first gas permeable body (Fig. 1: second active layer 14) and including activated carbon on which a phosphoric acid-based compound satisfying the following Formula 1 is supported, Hn+2PnO3n+1, where n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (par. 34: In a further embodiment, the second active layer comprises phosphoric-acid-impregnated activated carbon particles), a second adsorption layer disposed on the first adsorption layer (Fig. 1: third active layer 16)
and a second gas permeable body disposed on the second adsorption layer and having a gas outlet surface (Fig. 1: textile support layer 22)
but does not teach wherein the second adsorption layer has a hydrophobic zeolite and having a SiO2/Al2O3 value of about 50 or more.
Hitzke mentions prior art that utilizes zeolite (par. 17: DE 10 2005 016 677 A1 discloses a filter element comprising a multilayered filter material, in which an active layer arranged on the inflow side is provided with activated carbon fibers which abut, on the outflow side, an adsorber layer comprising granular adsorbents. A further active layer comprising activated carbon fibers can abut said adsorber layer on the outflow side. The adsorbents used in this case can include activated carbon, zeolites) but does not teach incorporating zeolite as an adsorbent into its third active layer nor the composition and type of the zeolite. Hitzke provides a motivation to have a hydrophobic catalytic layer in order to remove hydrophobic substances (par. 29: The filter medium according to the invention can thus advantageously be adapted to the specific requirements of a specific gas and odorant profile; in particular, a gas and odorant profile composed, for example… organic, in particular hydrophobic gases and odorants; par. 69: for example the second active layer 14, designed for basic and/or organic, in particular hydrophobic gases and odorants, in particular hazardous or reactive gaseous substances, as a result of which the adsorption power is additionally optimized for basic and/or organic, in particular hydrophobic gases and odorants hazardous or reactive gaseous substances).
Goto teaches a specific zeolite composition for the same purpose of purifying a gas (abstract: A hydrocarbon adsorbent, a catalyst for purifying an exhaust gas, and a method for purifying the exhaust gas are provided to improve the adsorbing property of the hydrocarbon adsorbent and improve the durability of the catalyst). Goto teaches incorporating a hydrophobic beta zeolite with a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of greater than 200 as an adsorbent since this increases hydrophobicity, which fulfills the need of Hitzke for a hydrophobic adsorption layer (abstract: the B-type beta-zeolite has a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio (molar ratio) in a range from 200 to 1,000; pg. 4 par. 1: this effect can be reduced by combining a hydrophobic zeolite having a large SAR).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third active layer of Hitzke to comprise a beta zeolite having a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of greater than 200, making it hydrophobic, as taught by Goto, in order to implement an adsorption layer capable of removing hydrophobic substances.
Regarding claim 6, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the hydrophobic zeolite comprises at least one of a beta zeolite or a Y zeolite (see Goto modification in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 7, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein at least one of the first adsorption layer or the second adsorption layer further comprises an adhesive (par. 32: In one embodiment of the filter medium, the catalytic activated carbon particles are bonded, in particular cross-linked, by the addition of adhesive. This bond, in particular cross-linking, is advantageously achieved by the addition of adhesive, the adhesive threads of which adhere to the surface of the activated carbon particles and interconnect different activated carbon particles without, however, impairing the adsorption performance of the activated carbon).
Regarding claim 11, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein gas flowing into the gas inlet surface of the first gas permeable body comprises at least one of trimethylsilanol, toluene, or perfluorotripropylamine (NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, as the gas is not a positively recited element of the apparatus claim, so as long as the apparatus is capable of being used with such a gas, the apparatus would read on this claim limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach comprising a plurality of the first adsorption layer and a plurality of the second adsorption layer disposed between the first gas permeable body and the second gas permeable body, wherein the first adsorption layers and the second adsorption layers are alternately stacked.
However, having more than one second active layer and third active layer is merely a duplication of parts for added effect. In addition, Hitzke already teaches wherein the order of the layers can be varied (par. 27: The sequence of the active layers can be freely selected according to the invention) which makes the alternating stacking obvious as well.
Absent a showing of significant or unexpected results, the duplication of the second and third active layers is prima facie obviousness and does not further modify the operation of the invention, and further does not add patentable significance. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures discloses that in In re Harza, 274, F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), a mere duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As such, the duplication of the second and third active layers does not create a patentable distinction over the reference of Hitzke modified by Goto since the expected result is removing more contaminants from the air.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined second and third layers of Hitzke modified by Goto (such that the additional second and third layers would be stacked adjacent to the originals, forming an alternating stack) with a reasonable expectation that the filtering effect would be increased.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke modified by Goto in view of Nakamura (JP 2002248308 A).
Regarding claim 2, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the activated carbon on which the phosphoric acid-based compound is supported comprises from about 5 to about 15 wt% of the phosphoric acid-based compound with respect to 100 wt% of the activated carbon.
Hitzke teaches combining activated carbon with phosphoric acid in order to remove acidic gases (par. 23: Suitable impregnations are, for example, potassium carbonate for targeted removal of acidic gases (pH<7 when measured under standard conditions and in aqueous solution), hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxides, phosphoric acids) but does not teach in what proportion the two components should be combined. Nakamura teaches a filter for removing an acidic or basic gas, which shares a motivation with Hitzke (abstract: To provide a filter medium for a chemical filter and a chemical filter unit, which are used in a clean room or the like for removing an acid or alkaline gas particularly).
Nakamura teaches wherein phosphoric acid is combined with activated carbon and is 10% by weight of the activated carbon (pg. 9 2nd last par.: A filter material for a chemical filter was obtained in the same manner as in Example 1, except that activated carbon impregnated with 10% by weight of phosphoric acid per 1 g of activated carbon was used instead of the activated carbon in Example 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the phosphoric acid mass of Hitzke modified by Goto to be 10% by weight of the activated carbon, as taught by Nakamura, as a suitable weight percentage for an adsorbent of a filter for sterilizing gas and removing acidic substances.
Claims 3-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke modified by Goto in view of Yatsunami (US 20210046410 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS of 1/23/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Yatsunami modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein a particle size of the activated carbon is about 20 to about 60 mesh.
Yatsunami teaches a similar multiplayer filter for deodorization (abstract: The challenge of the present invention is to provide a multilayer filter medium whose deodorizing performance after a long-term storage of the filter medium is suppressed from deteriorating and which is superior in deodorizing performance and exhibits low pressure drop).
20 to 60 mesh is equivalent to a particle size of 250 to 841 microns. Yatsunami teaches a particle diameter range of 150 to 500 microns for the interlayer containing activated carbon, wherein decreasing the particle size increases adsorption but increases the rate of deterioration (par. 34: Next, the average particle diameter of the functional particles B is 150 to 500 μm. If the average particle diameter of the functional particles B is less than 150 μm, the multilayer filter medium has an increased rate of adsorbing gas to be absorbed, and especially, when the functional particles B are those in which a chemical is affixed to silicon dioxide particles or the like, the performance of adsorbing a target gas deteriorates with time as a result of contact with air, so that the duration of the deodorizing performance tends to be shortened. On the other hand, when the average particle diameter of the functional particles B is more than 500 μm, functional particles B sandwiched between filter media when pleating the filter media tend to break through nonwoven fabric layers, and functional particles tend to be crushed during the pleating or the like). This range overlaps with the range of the instant claim.
According to MPEP 2144.05.I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range or amount overlaps with or is merely close to the claimed range or amount:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Furthermore, a mere change in proportion, even if it leads to better results, holds no patentable significance:
MPEP 2144.05.II.A: Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."
especially if it can be shown that the change in proportions can be done by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization of a known result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05.II.B: the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process).
In this case, the particle size of particles B is a result-effective variable that determines how much the deterioration of the filter can be mitigated while maximizing adsorption (par. 32: On the other hand, since the functional particles B have a smaller surface area per volume and are lower in efficiency of contact with air, which promotes the deterioration with time of the gas adsorption performance of the functional particles, the deterioration of the deodorizing performance of the multilayer filter medium of the present invention containing this kind of functional particles after long-term storage of the filter medium can be suppressed).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the particle diameter of the activated carbon of Hitzke modified by Goto to be 250 to 841 microns, or 20 to 60 mesh, as taught by Yatsunami, with the reasonable expectation that the deterioration of the filter can be minimized while maximizing adsorption.
Regarding claim 4, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein a pore size of the activated carbon is about 5 to about 20 A.
Yatsunami teaches an overlapping range of 5 A or more (par. 46: For the purpose of efficiently removing gas, the pore diameter of the functional particles A to be used in exemplary embodiments of the present invention is preferably 0.5 to 100 nm… The pore diameter of the functional particles B to be used in the present invention is preferably 0.5 nm or more.).
According to MPEP 2144.05.I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range or amount overlaps with or is merely close to the claimed range or amount:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Furthermore, a mere change in proportion, even if it leads to better results, holds no patentable significance:
MPEP 2144.05.II.A: Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."
especially if it can be shown that the change in proportions can be done by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization of a known result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05.II.B: the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process).
In this case, the pore diameter is a result effective variable that controls how efficiently the filter can remove gas.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore diameter of the activated carbon of Hitzke modified by Goto to be 5 to 20 A, as taught by Yatsunami, with the reasonable expectation that the filtration efficiency can be optimized.
Regarding claim 5, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein a pore size of the hydrophobic zeolite is about 5 to about 8 A.
Yatsunami teaches an overlapping range of 5 A or more (par. 46: For the purpose of efficiently removing gas, the pore diameter of the functional particles A to be used in exemplary embodiments of the present invention is preferably 0.5 to 100 nm… The pore diameter of the functional particles B to be used in the present invention is preferably 0.5 nm or more.).
According to MPEP 2144.05.I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the prior art range or amount overlaps with or is merely close to the claimed range or amount:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Furthermore, a mere change in proportion, even if it leads to better results, holds no patentable significance:
MPEP 2144.05.II.A: Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."
especially if it can be shown that the change in proportions can be done by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine optimization of a known result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05.II.B: the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process).
In this case, the pore diameter is a result effective variable that controls how efficiently the filter can remove gas.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore diameter of the second adsorbent layer of Hitzke modified by Goto (which just so happens to be a hydrophobic zeolite owing to the Goto modification) to be 5 to 8 A, as taught by Yatsunami, with the reasonable expectation that the filtration efficiency can be optimized.
Regarding claim 9, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 7, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the adhesive comprises at least one of ethylene vinyl acetate, polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyisopropylene, or sterene-isopropylene.
Hitzke teaches using olefins as adhesives but does not specify a specific olefin (par. 32: A thermoplastic adhesive produced e.g. based on polyolefins is also possible). Yatsunami teaches a specific olefin, polyethylene, to be used as an adhesive (par. 139: phosphoric acid-impregnated… 45 g/m2 of a low melting point polyethylene resin powder were scattered thereon. Furthermore, the above-mentioned electret nonwoven fabric layer was superposed thereon, and the low melting point resin powders located in the two interlayer regions were melted by heating to partially bond the adjacent layers).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive of Hitzke modified by Goto to be polyethylene, as taught by Yatsunami, in order to provide a suitable polyolefin adhesive to for attaching adsorbents within a gas purifying filter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke modified by Goto in view of Zhang (CA 3162631 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 7, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the adhesive has a melting point of about 40 to about 140°C. Hitzke already teaches using a thermoplastic polyolefin as an adhesive (par. 32: A thermoplastic adhesive produced e.g. based on polyolefins is also possible) but does not teach what the melting point of the polyolefin is.
Zhang teaches a similar structure featuring two nonwoven fabric layers with adsorbent layers in between (abstract: An air filter medium comprise a first nonwoven fabric, a second nonwoven fabric, and at least one active bead layer residing between the first and second nonwoven fabrics). Zhang teaches using an adhesive to coat an activated carbon layer to attach it to the fabric layer (pg. 1 lines 2-5: High efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters comprising activated carbon as a filter medium are widely used as filter media for air purifiers. Fabrication of these HEPA filters typically include the steps of providing a nonwoven fabric, applying activated carbon on the fabric, spraying hot-melt adhesive materials to coat activated carbon, and further laminating with another nonwoven fabric so that activated carbon resides between the two fabrics). Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the adhesive may be formed of polyethylene (pg. 12 lines 8-11: Suitable adhesive materials may include polyethylene copolymers such as polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate (EVA), polyurethane (PU), polyamide (PA), polyester (PET), polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene, polystyrene copolymers) and has a melting point of 60 C or higher (pg. 12 lines 14-15: The hot-melt adhesive typically melts at an elevated temperature, for example, 60'C or higher).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyolefin adhesive of Hitzke modified by Goto to be a polyethylene copolymer having a melting point of 60 C or higher, as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a suitable adhesive to adhere an adsorbent layer to a nonwoven fabric layer to form an air purification filter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke modified by Goto in view of Taylor (US 20130125748 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the second gas permeable body comprise a non-woven fabric (par. 73: The filter medium 10 can additionally comprise a support layer 22, in particular a textile support layer 22, in particular a support layer 22 formed as a non-woven fabric) but does not teach wherein the first gas permeable body comprises a non-woven fabric.
The first active layer 12, composed of activated carbon, is interpreted to be the first gas permeable body. Hitzke is silent as to the form that the activated carbon takes.
Taylor teaches an air filter for vehicles (abstract: Filters including activated carbon cloth are described herein. Embodiments include a filter medium including at least one activated carbon cloth layer, at least one fibrous material layer, and at least one support layer, and filter cartridges including these filter mediums as well as methods for using these filter mediums to filter exhaust from diesel automobiles and diesel trucks). Since Hitzke also teaches using its filter for fuel cells and fuel cells are used in vehicles, Taylor would be analogous art (abstract: The invention describes a filter medium (10), in particular for an air filter, in particular an interior air filter or for a fuel cell). For this purpose, Taylor teaches an activated carbon layer comprised of nonwoven fabric (par. 21: For example, in various embodiments, the activated carbon cloth 10 may be a woven, non-woven).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first active layer 12 of Hitzke modified by Goto to be formed as a nonwoven fabric, as taught by Taylor, in order to provide a suitable adsorbent material for an air filter for vehicles.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke modified by Goto in view of Lee (WO 2021010559 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hitzke modified by Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 1, as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the activated carbon on which the phosphoric acid-based compound is supported comprises about 80 to about 95 wt%, based on a total weight of the activated carbon on which the phosphoric acid-based compound is supported and the hydrophobic zeolite, and the hydrophobic zeolite comprises about 5 to about 20 wt%, based on the total weight of the activated carbon on which the phosphoric acid-based compound is supported and the hydrophobic zeolite.
Hitzke teaches wherein the filter material can be adapted for filtering various substances (par. 29: The filter medium according to the invention can thus advantageously be adapted to the specific requirements of a specific gas and odorant profile).
Lee teaches a device containing a deodorizer that utilizes activated carbon and zeolite (abstract: deodorizing device mounted on the outside of the main body so as to adsorb odor particles from the air discharged to the outside through the circulation pipe, thereby enabling the air to be deodorized, wherein the deodorizing device includes a deodorant comprising activated carbon and zeolite). Lee teaches wherein the zeolite comprises 5 to 15 wt% of the total weight of the activated carbon (pg. 3 2nd last par.: Here, the deodorant preferably contains 5 to 15 parts by weight of zeolite based on 100 parts by weight of activated carbon). This overlaps with the claimed range, as this is equivalent to . The advantage of using zeolites as absorbents is that they have high heat resistance (pg. 10 par. 3: The advantage of zeolites is that they are stable at high temperatures).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third layer of Hitzke modified by Goto to have a zeolite to activated carbon and zeolite mass ratio to be 5 to 15 wt%, as taught by Lee, in order to provide a high heat resistance composition for an adsorbent layer within a deodorizer.
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitzke in view of Sergi (WO 2006083290 A2) Goto.
Regarding claim 14, Hitzke teaches a substrate treatment apparatus comprising: a first filter (abstract: The invention describes a filter medium (10), in particular for an air filter) comprising:
a first gas permeable body having a gas inlet surface (Fig. 1: first active layer 12); a first adsorption layer disposed on the first gas permeable body (Fig. 1: second active layer 14) and including activated carbon on which a phosphoric acid-based compound satisfying the following Formula 1 is supported, Hn+2PnO3n+1, where n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (par. 34: In a further embodiment, the second active layer comprises phosphoric-acid-impregnated activated carbon particles), a second adsorption layer disposed on the first adsorption layer (Fig. 1: third active layer 16)
and a second gas permeable body disposed on the second adsorption layer and having a gas outlet surface (Fig. 1: textile support layer 22)
but does not teach
a working region accommodating a spinner and a scanner; a lower plenum chamber disposed below the working region and accommodating exhaust gas discharged from the spinner; and an air control cabinet disposed in the lower plenum chamber below the scanner, wherein the first filter is located in the air control cabinet.
Hitzke already teaches wherein its filter is to be used in an interior space (par. 2: Filter media, in particular for air filters, in particular for interior air filters, are used to provide a space).
Sergi teaches an air filter for use in a clean room, which is an interior space (abstract: In another embodiment, an apparatus for removing contaminants from a gas in a clean room comprises a filter unit). Sergi provides a complete apparatus for this function rather than just a filter (Fig. 1).
Sergi teaches a working region accommodating a spinner and a scanner (Fig. 1: blower 10, diffuser plate 16, and the region formed by these two components; pg. 23 par. 1: If desired, diffuser plate 16 can be outfitted with sensors for monitoring the velocity and pressure of input air volume 12 and/or diffused input air volume 13; NOTE: a sensor is interpreted to read on a scanner);
a lower plenum chamber disposed below the working region and accommodating exhaust gas discharged from the spinner (Fig. 1: region formed by the filters is interpreted to be a bottom side while the blower 10 and diffuser plate 16 are interpreted to be a top side); and an air control cabinet disposed in the lower plenum chamber below the scanner, wherein the first filter is located in the air control cabinet (Fig. 1: any one of filters 18 or 20). Sergi also teaches an air inlet for allowing air to pass through the filters (Fig. 2: air inlets 46).
Furthermore, Sergi teaches wherein the filters can be used for removing acids and can use activated carbon (pg. 28 last par.-pg. 29 par. 1: In still other embodiments, a synthetic carbon material, such as that described in U.S. Patent No. 5,834 ,114, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety, can be coated with the acidic materials of the present invention to provide a porous acidic filter element in accordance with the invention. And, in yet another embodiment, the activated nutshell carbon media described in U.S. Patent No. 6,033, 573, the contents of which are incorporated by reference in their entirely, can be used alone or in combination with any of the chemisorptive or physisorptive media described herein to remove contaminants from the air flowing through the conduit in the same manner as is taught in this specification), which makes the filter of Hitzke analogous art.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Hitzke to be incorporated within a chamber downstream of a region featuring a fan and a sensor, forming one or more of the filters in the chamber, in fluid communication with an air inlet, as taught by Sergi, in order to be used to sterilize the air in a clean room.
Hitzke modified by Sergi still does not teach wherein the second adsorption layer has a hydrophobic zeolite and having a SiO2/Al2O3 value of about 50 or more.
Hitzke mentions prior art that utilizes zeolite (par. 17: DE 10 2005 016 677 A1 discloses a filter element comprising a multilayered filter material, in which an active layer arranged on the inflow side is provided with activated carbon fibers which abut, on the outflow side, an adsorber layer comprising granular adsorbents. A further active layer comprising activated carbon fibers can abut said adsorber layer on the outflow side. The adsorbents used in this case can include activated carbon, zeolites) but does not teach incorporating zeolite as an adsorbent into its third active layer nor the composition and type of the zeolite. Hitzke provides a motivation to have a hydrophobic catalytic layer in order to remove hydrophobic substances (par. 29: The filter medium according to the invention can thus advantageously be adapted to the specific requirements of a specific gas and odorant profile; in particular, a gas and odorant profile composed, for example… organic, in particular hydrophobic gases and odorants; par. 69: for example the second active layer 14, designed for basic and/or organic, in particular hydrophobic gases and odorants, in particular hazardous or reactive gaseous substances, as a result of which the adsorption power is additionally optimized for basic and/or organic, in particular hydrophobic gases and odorants hazardous or reactive gaseous substances).
Goto teaches a specific zeolite composition for the same purpose of purifying a gas (abstract: A hydrocarbon adsorbent, a catalyst for purifying an exhaust gas, and a method for purifying the exhaust gas are provided to improve the adsorbing property of the hydrocarbon adsorbent and improve the durability of the catalyst). Goto teaches incorporating a hydrophobic beta zeolite with a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of greater than 200 as an adsorbent since this increases hydrophobicity, which fulfills the need of Hitzke for a hydrophobic adsorption layer (abstract: the B-type beta-zeolite has a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio (molar ratio) in a range from 200 to 1,000; pg. 4 par. 1: this effect can be reduced by combining a hydrophobic zeolite having a large SAR).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third active layer of Hitzke modified by Sergi to comprise a beta zeolite having a SiO2/Al2O3 ratio of greater than 200, making it hydrophobic, as taught by Goto, in order to implement an adsorption layer capable of removing hydrophobic substances.
Regarding claim 15, Hitzke modified by Sergi and Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 14, as set forth above, and teaches wherein at least a portion of air accommodated in the lower plenum chamber passes through the air control cabinet and flows into the scanner (NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use, as so long as the air that is discharged from the filters is still within an enclosed environment, it would then cycle back into the device and pass by the scanner).
Regarding claim 16, Hitzke modified by Sergi and Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 14, as set forth above, and teaches wherein the air control cabinet further comprises a second filter disposed on the first filter, wherein the second filter comprises at least one of activated carbon (see Sergi modification in claim 14 rejection, wherein the filter of Hitzke is incorporated as one or more of the filters in the structure taught by Sergi) or an ion exchange resin.
Regarding claim 20, Hitzke modified by Sergi and Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 14, as set forth above, and teaches further comprising an air inlet introducing fresh air into the lower plenum chamber from an outside of the lower plenum chamber (see Sergi modification in claim 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 17, Hitzke modified by Sergi and Goto teaches the gas purifying filter of claim 14, as set forth above, but does not teach further comprising: an upper plenum chamber disposed on the working region and connected to the working region; a circulation passage disposed on at least one side of the working region and connecting the lower plenum chamber and the upper plenum chamber; and a dry coil disposed between the lower plenum chamber and the circulation passage.
Claims 18-19 would be allowed as dependent on claim 17, if claim 17 was rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, Elizabeth A. Robinson can be reached on (571) 272-7129. 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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796