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 response to Applicant’s amendment filed 10/01/2025
Claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-15 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8 are amended.
Claims 3, 10, 16 and 17 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner withdraws objections to the drawings for including reference characters not mentioned in the description due to Applicant’s amendments to the specification filed 10/01/2025.
The Examiner withdraws objections to the claims for informalities due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/01/2025.
The Examiner withdraws the 112 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-15 as being indefinite due to Applicant’s statement in the response to arguments.
On page 10 of the response to arguments the Applicant argues that the specification provides definition for “ecologically friendly” as “whenever possible, biodegradable materials are employed, such as biodegradable PLA polymers”. The Examiner notes that this does not describe definite metes and bounds for the term. Specifically, the term “whenever possible” may be open to reader interpretation such that any material may be used.
However, the Examiner further notes that the Applicant acknowledges that the term has “negligible limiting effect” on the claimed invention. Thus, the term “ecologically friendly” will be interpreted to hold no weight over the structure of the claimed invention, such that any personal air purifier is “ecological friendly”. The 112 rejection is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of cancelled claim 3 to require a composite filter medium comprising a carbon filter preceding a HEPA filter. Upon review, the Examiner maintains that KR ‘368 teaches these limitations, as presented in the previous rejection of claim 3.
On page 10 the Applicant argues that KR ‘368 does not appropriately suggest a carbon filter preceding the HEPA filter, as KR ‘368 teaches that first deodorizing filter 234 is washable, which would preclude the modification to a carbon filter.
The Examiner disagrees.
KR ‘368 does not explicitly state the exact type of filter used, nor that first deodorizing filter cannot be a carbon filter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the first deodorizing filter with another known type of deodorizing filter, such as the second carbon deodorizing filter. Whether or not the modified filter may be washed is not essential to the suitability of a certain type of filter to be used for filtering.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 4 has been amended to require “a tray including a plurality of convergent-divergent nozzles…, the plurality of convergent-divergent nozzles arranged in a 3 X 3 matrix”. Prior art of reference Lebert does not teach a plurality of convergent-divergent nozzles. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hulbert (US 20200060332 A1), Chang et al. (US 20210321668 A1), and Shenkal et al. (US 20190150516 A1).
On page 11 the Applicant further argues that claim 5, amended to include a limitation to “a convergent-divergent nozzle downstream of the mouthpiece”, as previously presented in claim 4, is similarly not taught by Lebert.
The Examiner disagrees.
Lebert, directed to filters for tobacco smoke (col. 1, lines 15-17) comprising a filter material (filter 16; col. 2, line 11), teaches a convergent-divergent nozzle (auxiliary filtration means 20; Figs. 2-5; col. 2, lines 18-34) immediately upstream of the filter (smoke flows through the convergent-divergent nozzle before entering filter 16) to remove harmful substances, such as heavy tars, from smoke.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding the convergent-divergent nozzle as taught by Lebert directly upstream of the filter material, such that it is also downstream of the mouthpiece because both Adamic and Lebert are directed to filter materials for smoking, Lebert teaches the use of a convergent-divergent nozzle for further removing harmful substances, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that Lebert is not used to teach a mouthpiece, but rather a convergent-divergent nozzle filter element. Lebert’s lack of a mouthpiece does not render the reference any less relevant as prior art. Upon modification of Adamic to add the convergent-divergent nozzle, it would be expected that the nozzle would be placed directly upstream of the filter as taught by Lebert. Thus, upon modification, the convergent-divergent nozzle would be expected to be upstream of the filter material and downstream of the mouthpiece.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 6-7 and 12-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11, the Applicant appears to argue that prior art reference Adamic does not appropriately teach the claim limitations.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that, regarding claim 12, plastic may be considered a “soft” material, and Adamic thus reads on the claim limitation. The Examiner notes that, regarding claim 13, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a snap fit comprises a protrusion, such as threading 730, and corresponding aperture receiving said protrusion, such as seen in Fig. 8b. Thus, Adamic does appropriately suggest the claim limitation.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 8-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 8 has been amended to further specify the geometry and alignment of the HEPA filter.
However, the Examiner notes that the limitation “comprising a pleated HEPA filter … further including corrugated panels, the corrugated panels having folds” is unclear as to the structure being claimed. Paragraphs [0015] and [0034] of the instant specification describe that the HEPA filter either has pleats that are folded or has corrugated panels. The specification does not further specify how a pleated filter may additionally comprise corrugated panels nor how the corrugated panels may have folds. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that a HEPA filter with either pleats that are folded or corrugated panels will meet the limitation.
Adamic teaches that the HEPA filter comprises a plurality of folded pleats ([0013], [0096]) having folds aligned in a downward direction being a direction of exhalant air flow (Fig. 17b). As interpreted, Adamic still makes obvious the claim limitation.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12 the Applicant argues that prior art reference Watanabe does not appropriately teach that the sleeve is compostable, as required by the claim. The Examiner disagrees. Watanabe teaches that the sleeve may comprise polylactic acid (PLA). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PLA is compostable.
The Applicant further argues that Watanabe does not teach that the sleeve further comprises growth medium for the claimed seeds. The Examiner notes that growth medium is not claimed.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 10/01/2025, with respect to the 103 rejections of claim 14-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 14 has been amended to require a composite filter medium comprising a carbon filter preceding a HEPA filter, as previously recited by cancelled claim 3. Prior art of reference Adamic does not teach a carbon filter preceding a HEPA filter. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of ‘638 (KR 200341638 Y1), as previously used in the rejection of cancelled claim 3.
On page 12 the Applicant further argues that the prior art references do not teach a nozzle downstream of the mouthpiece and upstream of the mouthpiece. The Examiner notes that Lebert is used to teach a convergent-divergent nozzle filter element. Upon modification of Adamic to add the convergent-divergent nozzle, it would be expected that the nozzle would be placed directly upstream of the filter as taught by Lebert. Thus, upon modification, the convergent-divergent nozzle would be expected to be upstream of the filter material and downstream of the mouthpiece.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-9 and 11-15, the claims recite the term “ecologically friendly” in the preamble. The Examiner notes that on page 10 of the arguments dated 10/01/2025 the Applicant acknowledges that the term “ecologically friendly” has “negligible limiting effect” on the claimed invention and is included to remain consistent with the title of the invention. Thus, the term “ecologically friendly” will be interpreted to hold no weight over the structure of the claimed invention, such that any personal air purifier is considered to be “ecological friendly”.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14, "." should read “[[ ]]”.
Claim 5, line 6, “a convergent divergent nozzles” should read “a convergent divergent nozzle[[s]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “comprising a pleated HEPA filter … further including corrugated panels, the corrugated panels having folds”. It is unclear as to the structure being claimed. Paragraphs [0015] and [0034] of the instant specification describe that the HEPA filter either has pleats that are folded or has corrugated panels. The specification does not further specify how a pleated filter may additionally comprise corrugated panels nor how the corrugated panels may have folds. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that a HEPA filter with either pleats that are folded or corrugated panels will meet the limitation.
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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic US 20110240047 A1) in view of Rehder et al. (US 5529078 A) and ‘638 (KR 200341638 Y1).
Regarding claim 1, Adamic teaches an ecological friendly personal air purifier for filtering user's exhale comprising:
a mouthpiece (mouthpiece 710; [0068]);
an outer body (body 705; [0068]);
and an inner cartridge (exhalation filter cartridge 203; [0069]) encased by the outer body and containing a filter medium, the filter medium comprising a HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filer medium ([0013]).
Adamic does not explicitly teach (I) that the filter medium is a composite filter medium comprising a carbon filter and a HEPA filter wherein the carbon filter medium precedes the HEPA filter or (II) that the inner cartridge containing the filter medium is biodegradable and is able to decay naturally without harming the environment in three years or less.
Regarding (I), ‘638, directed to an air purifier comprising an inner cartridge containing a filter medium (filter assembly 230) capable of filtering tobacco product smoke (page 5, ¶ 4), teaches that the filter comprises a pretreatment filter (231), a first deodorizing filter (232), a HEPA filter (233) and a second deodorizing filter (234) (page 4, ¶ 3). ‘638 teaches that the second deodorizing filter comprises a carbon filter medium.
While ‘638 does not explicitly teach the material of the first deodorizing filter, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the first deodorizing filter would be comprised of the same material, such that both comprise carbon, as both are deodorizing filters.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding the additional filter components of ‘638 to the existing filter of Adamic because both Adamic and ‘638 are directed to filtering units to filter tobacco product smoke, ‘638 teaches an alternative filter assembly and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having more filters will increase the filtering capacity of the device, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Thus, the modified device would comprise a carbon filter medium and a HEPA filter medium, wherein the carbon filter medium precedes the HEPA filter medium allowing exhaled air to pass through the carbon filter medium first, and subsequently the HEPA filter medium, providing greater absorption to the carbon filter medium and providing less clogging to the HEPA filter medium.
Regarding (II), Rehder, directed to a personal air purifier for filtering user's exhale comprising a mouthpiece (mouthpiece assembly 54; col. 3, line 44), an outer body (housing portion 12; col. 3, line 1), and an inner cartridge (cartridge 80; col. 4, line 13) encased by the outer body and containing a filter medium, teaches that the cartridge may be biodegradable (col. 4, lines 45-47; col. 5, lines 35-40).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by making the inner cartridge biodegradable as taught by Rehder because both Adamic and Rehder are directed to personal air purifiers containing inner cartridges, Rehder teaches that it is known in the art to make replaceable cartridges biodegradable and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this helps reduce harmful waste, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The examiner notes that the limitation that the cartridge is "able to decay naturally without harming the environment in three years or less" is functional language. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a biodegradable cartridge would be capable of decaying naturally under various different conditions that would enable decay without harming the environment in three years or less.
Regarding claim 2, Adamic teaches an end cap (end cap 715; [0068]) including apertures (vents 720; [0068]) allowing air discharge, the end cap further covering an opening at a distal end of the outer body, the opening providing access for removal and replacement of the inner cartridge (Fig. 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic, Rehder and ‘638 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hulbert (US 20200060332 A1), Chang et al. (US 20210321668 A1), and Shenkal et al. (US 20190150516 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Adamic does not teach (I) a tray including a plurality of nozzles downstream of the mouthpiece, (II) that the nozzles are convergent-divergent nozzles or (III) that the nozzles are arranged in a 3x3 matrix.
Regarding (I), Chang, directed to a mouthpiece (mouthpiece cover 160, 260; Fig. 2B; [0066]; [0068]) for a vaporizer device (vaporizer 100), teaches a tray (saliva transfer inhibitor 270; [0069]) with a plurality of channels (draw holes 275; [0069]) downstream of the mouthpiece outlet 261 that prevent a user’s saliva from a device while allowing the passage of vapor through the holes ([0069-0070]). Chang further teaches that the quantity, size, and shape of the nozzles may change ([0070]).
Hulbert, directed to a personal air purifier (reusable smoke and vapor filter device 1; Fig. 1-2; [0014]) comprising a mouthpiece (3), an outer body (filter base 40; [0023]), and an inner cartridge (filter casing 10; [0017]) containing a composite filter medium ([0018]) comprising a carbon filter medium and a HEPA filter medium ([0019]), teaches that a tray (upper mesh screen 28; [0020]) with a plurality of channels (plurality of orifices 30; [0020]) placed downstream of the mouthpiece is known for use in personal exhalant filters in order to block particulate matter from entering the filtering device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding a tray including a plurality of holes downstream of the mouthpiece as taught by Chang and Hulbert because both Adamic and Hulbert are directed to personal air purifiers, and Chang is directed to a similar smoking device, Chang and Hulbert teach that this tray may prevent saliva and particulate matter from entering the device, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Shenkal, directed to a personal air purifier (electronic smoking device 100; [0077]) comprising a mouthpiece (102), an outer body (mid enclosure 104 and electronics housing 108; [0077]), and an inner cartridge containing a filter medium (filter cartridge assembly 114; [0079]), teaches that a converging-diverging nozzle (venturi core 1708; [0130]) causes condensation from the vapor, and therefore removal of additional particulate matter ([0130-0131]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by making the plurality of holes into a plurality of convergent-divergent nozzles as taught by Shenkal because both Adamic and Shenkal are directed to personal air purifiers, Shenkal teaches that a convergent-divergent shape nozzle may more efficiently remove moisture and remaining particulate matter from the vapor flow, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (III), Chang teaches nine holes/nozzles ([0070]).
It would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that by applying the tray of nozzles to Adamic, the nozzles would likely be arranged in a square shape, such as a 3 x 3 grid for nine holes. Changes in shape are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant.
Claims 5, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic US 20110240047 A1), Chapman et al. (US 20150128968 A1), ‘638 (KR 200341638 Y1) and Lebert (US 2954778 A).
Regarding claim 5, Adamic teaches an ecological friendly personal air purifier for filtering user's exhale comprising:
an outer body (body 705; [0068]);
a mouthpiece (mouthpiece 710; [0068]);
and a filter medium at an interior to the outer body (exhalation filter cartridge 203; [0069]);
and an endcap (end cap 715; [0068]) having exit vent holes (vents 720; [0068]) removably coupled to an end of the outer body opposite the mouthpiece (Fig. 7).
Adamic does not explicitly teach (I) that the mouthpiece is overmolded to and overlapping the outer body wherein the mouthpiece is injection molded to the outer body, (II) a convergent-divergent nozzle downstream of the mouthpiece or (III) a carbon filter medium.
Regarding (I), Chapman, directed to a personal smoking article comprising a mouthpiece ([0005]), teaches injection overmolding to connect or integrate components of a personal vapor device ([0067]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by using injection overmolding as taught by Chapman to connect the mouthpiece and the outer body because both Adamic and Chapman are directed to personal vapor devices, Chapman teaches that injection overmolding is a known connection type in the art, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, making integral components of a device is prima facie obvious when merely a matter of engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Regarding (II), Lebert, directed to filters for tobacco smoke (col. 1, lines 15-17) comprising a filter material (filter 16; col. 2, line 11), teaches a convergent-divergent nozzle (auxiliary filtration means 20; Figs. 2-5; col. 2, lines 18-34) immediately upstream of the filter to remove harmful substances, such as heavy tars, from smoke.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding the convergent-divergent nozzle as taught by Lebert directly upstream of the filter material, such that it is also downstream of the mouthpiece because both Adamic and Lebert are directed to filter materials for smoking, Lebert teaches the use of a convergent-divergent nozzle for further removing harmful substances, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding (III), ‘638, directed to an air purifier comprising an inner cartridge containing a filter medium (filter assembly 230) capable of filtering tobacco product smoke (page 5, ¶ 4), teaches that the filter comprises a pretreatment filter (231), a first deodorizing filter (232), a HEPA filter (233) and a second deodorizing filter (234) (page 5, ¶ 3). ‘638 teaches that the second deodorizing filter comprises a carbon filter medium (page 5, ¶ 4).
While ‘638 does not explicitly teach the material of the first deodorizing filter, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the first deodorizing filter would be comprised of the same material, such that both comprise carbon, as both are deodorizing filters.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding the additional filter components of ‘638 to the existing filter of Adamic because both Adamic and ‘638 are directed to filtering units to filter tobacco product smoke, ‘638 teaches an alternative filter assembly and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having more filters will increase the filtering capacity of the device, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Thus, the modified device would comprise a HEPA filter downstream of the carbon filter medium.
Regarding claim 8, Adamic teaches that the HEPA filter comprises a plurality of folded pleats ([0013], [0096]) having folds aligned in a downward direction being a direction of exhalant air flow (Fig. 17b). ‘638 teaches that the HEPA filter is downstream of the carbon filter medium (page 5, ¶ 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Adamic teaches that the outer body further comprising soft material (such as plastic) covering an outer surface thereof, the soft material for providing and improving a look and feel to the personal air filter ([0070]).
Regarding claim 13, Adamic teaches that the end cap is a threaded fit to the outer body ([0068]) the end cap comprising a protrusion (threading 730; Fig. 7) and the outer body comprising a corresponding aperture receiving said protrusion (Fig. 8b; [0068]).
Adamic does not teach that the fit is a snap fit.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the threaded fit for a snap fit as one of ordinary skill would recognize that both are equivalent means for connecting two pieces and this involves simple substitution of one known connection method for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic, Chapman, ‘638 and Lebert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 20150343418 A).
Regarding claim 6, Adamic does not teach that the carbon filter medium comprises extruded carbon baked to a specific shape and having vertical apertures therethrough for a passage of exhale.
Johnson, directed to an air filter composition, teaches the use of extruded carbon filter material having vertical apertures therethrough for the passage of air ([0083]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by using the extruded carbon filter material as taught by Johnson because both Adamic and Johnson are directed to air filter compositions, Johnson teaches that an extruded carbon medium is an alternative carbon filter configuration, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic, Chapman, ‘638 and Lebert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tirone et al. (US 20190015774 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Adamic teaches an inner cartridge containing the filter medium (exhalation filter cartridge 203; [0069]).
Adamic does not specify that the inner cartridge comprises biodegradable bioplastic.
Tirone, directed to an air purifier cartridge containing a filter medium ([0015]), teaches that the inner cartridge may comprise a biodegradable bioplastic ([0078], [0117]). Tirone teaches that bioplastics may help reduce production energy ([0080]) and device weight ([0081]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by making the cartridge from biodegradable bioplastic as taught by Tirone because both Adamic and Tirone are directed to filter cartridges, Tirone teaches that forming a cartridge of biodegradable bioplastic may help reduce production energy and device weight, and this involves applying a known material to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic, Chapman, ‘638 and Lebert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Carredo (US 20210154610 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Adamic does not teach that the filter medium further comprises a copper mesh filter medium or a nylon hydrophobic mesh material.
Carredo (US 20210154610 A1), directed to an air filter that may be used for smoke ([0003], [0064]), teaches that a pretreatment filter (prefilter 300) upstream of a carbon filter material may comprise a copper mesh ([0064-0065]) and a nylon mesh ([0056]). Carredo teaches that this layer is antimicrobial and prevents clogging of the carbon filter material ([0061]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by making the pretreatment filter of a copper mesh and a nylon mesh as taught by Carredo because both Adamic and Carredo are directed to filter materials, Adamic and ‘638 are silent as to the material of the pretreatment filter and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable pretreatment filter material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that nylon inherently comprises hydrophobic properties.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic, Chapman, ‘638, Carredo (US 20210154610 A1) and Lebert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 20220295882 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Adamic does not teach a compostable sleeve surrounding the personal air filter, the compostable sleeve further comprising seeds embedded therein.
Watanabe (US 20220295882 A1) teaches a compostable sleeve for surrounding and protecting a cartridge ([0051]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding a compostable sleeve surrounding the device as taught by Wanatabe because both Adamic and Wanatabe are directed smoking-related devices, Wanatabe teaches that it is known in the art to use compostable sleeves to protect devices, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that the limitation directed to “comprising seeds therein” is merely an aesthetic design choice with no additional mechanical function, and are therefore prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic US 20110240047 A1) in view of ‘638 (KR 200341638 Y1), Carredo (US 20210154610 A1), Chen et al. (CN 106914074 A; hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) and Lebert (US 2954778 A).
Regarding claim 14, Adamic teaches an ecological friendly personal air purifier for filtering user's exhale comprising:
a mouthpiece (mouthpiece 710; [0068]);
an outer body (body 705; [0068]);
and a filter medium for filtering user’s exhale (exhalation filter cartridge 203; [0069]) comprising a pleated HEPA filter ([0013], [0096]).
Adamic does not teach that the filter medium comprises (I) a carbon filter, (II) a passive ion element copper mesh or (III) a nylon hydrophobic mesh. Adamic additionally does not teach (IV) a convergent-divergent nozzle downstream of the mouthpiece and upstream of the filter.
Regarding (I), ‘638, directed to an air purifier comprising an inner cartridge containing a filter medium (filter assembly 230) capable of filtering tobacco product smoke (page 5, ¶ 4), teaches that the filter comprises a pretreatment filter (231), a first deodorizing filter (232), a HEPA filter (233) and a second deodorizing filter (234) (page 5, ¶ 3). ‘638 teaches that the second deodorizing filter comprises a carbon filter medium (page 5, ¶ 4).
While ‘638 does not explicitly teach the material of the first deodorizing filter, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the first deodorizing filter would be comprised of the same material, such that both comprise carbon, as both are deodorizing filters.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding the additional filter components of ‘638 to the existing filter of Adamic because both Adamic and ‘638 are directed to filtering units to filter tobacco product smoke, ‘638 teaches an alternative filter assembly and one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having more filters will increase the filtering capacity of the device, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Thus, the modified device would comprise a HEPA filter downstream of the carbon filter medium.
Regarding (II), Carredo, directed to an air filter that may be used for smoke ([0003], [0064]), teaches that a pretreatment filter (prefilter 300) upstream of a carbon filter material may comprise a copper mesh ([0064-0065]). Carredo teaches that this layer is antimicrobial and prevents clogging of the carbon filter material ([0061]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by making the pretreatment filter of a copper mesh as taught by Carredo because both Adamic and Carredo are directed to filter materials, Adamic and ‘638 are silent as to the material of the pretreatment filter and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable pretreatment filter material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding (III), Chen, directed to an air purifier (Fig. 1; page 3) comprising an outer body (shell 1; page 3) and an inner cartridge (fixing cylinder 14) containing a filter medium comprising a HEPA filter (5; pages 3-4), teaches that the filter medium may further comprise a nylon mesh filter (nylon net 7) subsequent to the HEPA filter (pages 3-4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding a nylon mesh filter subsequent to the HEPA filter as taught by Chen because both Adamic and Chen are directed to air purifiers comprising HEPA filters, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the nylon mesh would further filter the vapor, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that nylon inherently comprises hydrophobic properties.
Regarding (IV), Lebert, directed to filters for tobacco smoke (col. 1, lines 15-17) comprising a filter material (filter 16; col. 2, line 11), teaches a convergent-divergent nozzle (auxiliary filtration means 20; Figs. 2-5; col. 2, lines 18-34) immediately upstream of the filter to remove harmful substances, such as heavy tars, from smoke.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by adding the convergent-divergent nozzle as taught by Lebert directly upstream of the filter material, such that it is also downstream of the mouthpiece because both Adamic and Lebert are directed to filter materials for smoking, Lebert teaches the use of a convergent-divergent nozzle for further removing harmful substances, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adamic, ‘368, Carredo, Chen and Lebert as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Tirone et al. (US 20190015774 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Adamic teaches an inner cartridge containing the filter medium (exhalation filter cartridge 203; [0069]).
Adamic does not specify that the inner cartridge comprises biodegradable bioplastic.
Tirone, directed to an air purifier cartridge containing a filter medium ([0015]), teaches that the inner cartridge may comprise a biodegradable bioplastic ([0078], [0117]). Tirone teaches that bioplastics may help reduce production energy ([0080]) and device weight ([0081]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Adamic by making the cartridge from biodegradable bioplastic as taught by Tirone because both Adamic and Tirone are directed to filter cartridges, Tirone teaches that forming a cartridge of biodegradable bioplastic may help reduce production energy and device weight, and this involves applying a known material to a similar product to yield predictable results.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755