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 amendments filed 1/21/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been considered.
The applicant argues that Sanabria requires a photocatalyst. The examiner disagrees. Anti-biologic filters of Sanabria can be a variety of different anti biologic materials and not just photocatalysts (para [0042]). The use of a photocatalyst in para [0043]-[0045] is an example of an anti-biologic filter for use in the device of Sanabria. Fig 15 shows a generalized embodiment that retains the UV lights 320, prefilter 210, but shows general anti biologic filter 200 as opposed to the specific example of photocatalytic filter 220 (para [0041]-[0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanabria et al. (US 2021/0222897).
With regards to claim 1, Sanabria et al. teaches a device (fig 7 and 8) comprising a pre-filter (210 para [0045] or alternatively inlet 110 which can have vents or filters para [0035]); a fibrous media filter (anti biologic filter 200 which is a fibrous substrate that is coated with anti biologic material; para [0041]-[0043]); and an antimicrobial filter layer (activation mechanism 300 which includes strips of one or more sources that are a set of strips 320 with multiple emitters separated by gaps 330 to allow air flow; para [0057]; fig 6 and 15); and wherein the device is configured to allow an airflow (fluid flow path arrow) to pass from an entrance point (at inlet 110) to an exit point (at outlet 120)(fig 8 and 15); wherein the prefilter is positioned at the entrance point (at or near the inlet and at entrance to the filters); wherein the antimicrobial filter layer is positioned a distance from one or more surfaces of the fibrous media filter between the entrance and exit point (shown in slot spaced apart in fig 7 and 8 and 15); and one or more light emitters are positioned within the antimicrobial filter layer and configured to emit a disinfecting light on one or more surfaces of the fibrous media filter (described function in para [0059] of the emitters of the layer 300).
With regards to claim 2, Sanabria et al. teaches further comprising an adsorbent media filter positioned between the entry and exit points (when the inlet grid/filter 110 is the prefilter then prefilter 210 can be an adsorbent filter; para [0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-9, 11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanabria et al. (US 2021/0222897).
With regards to claim 3, the disinfecting light has an irradiance sufficient to inactivate microorganisms on or within the fibrous media filter (para [0058]). Sanabria further teaches the overlapping wavelengths of 315-400 nm and 400-450 (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used wavelengths including any in the taught ranges motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully carrying out the invention of Sanabria.
With regards to claim 4, Sanabria et al. teaches a device (fig 7 and 8, 15) comprising a fibrous media filter (anti biologic filter 200 which is a fibrous substrate; para [0041]-[0043]); and an antimicrobial filter layer (activation mechanism 300 which includes strips of one or more sources that are a set of strips 320 with multiple emitters separated by gaps 330 to allow air flow; para [0057]; fig 6, 15) positioned adjacent one or more surfaces of the fibrous media filter; and one or more light emitters are positioned within the antimicrobial filter layer and configured to emit a disinfecting light on one or more surfaces of the fibrous media filter (described function in para [0059] of the emitters of the layer 300).
The disinfecting light has an irradiance sufficient to inactivate microorganisms on or within the fibrous media filter (para [0058]). Sanabria further teaches the overlapping wavelengths of 315-400 nm and 400-450 (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used wavelengths including any in the taught ranges motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully carrying out the invention of Sanabria.
With regards to claim 5, Sanabria et al. teaches a pre-filter (210 para [0045] or alternatively inlet 110 which can have vents or filters para [0035]).
With regards to claim 6, Sanabria et al. teaches further comprising an adsorbent media filter positioned between the entry and exit points (when the inlet grid/filter 110 is the prefilter then prefilter 210 can be an adsorbent filter; para [0045]).
With regards to claim 7, the antimicrobial filter layer comprises gaps configured to allow air to pass through (gaps 330 to allow air flow; para [0057]; fig 6, 15).
With regards to claim 8, the fibrous media filter is removably attached to the antimicrobial filter layer (the filters are removable, para [0041], fig 5-8, 15; the filters are attached to each other as components in the system).
With regards to claim 9, the fibrous media filter is shown in the shape of a rectangular prism (it is a three dimensional object with rectangular sides; 200 in fig 15) and the antimicrobial layer is configured to provide the highest intensity disinfecting light perpendicular to one or more sides of the fibrous media (shines generally upwards or downwards onto the side facing the antimicrobial filter layer which extends in the horizontal plane) (fig 15).
With regards to claims 11 and 13, Sanabria et al. teaches that the distance between the light source and the fibrous filter media controls the energy applied (para [0054]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the distance between the antimicrobial filter (light sources) and the fibrous media filter in order to achieve the desired amount of light energy on the filter media.
With regards to claim 14, the system is capable of the intended use of placing within an air purification or HVAC device (it is in an air purifier, fig 15 and could be placed inside an appropriately sized HVAC selected for use). Sanabria et al. also teaches that the system can be connected to and thus in an overall HVAC system (para [0034]).
With regards to claim 15, Sanabria et al. teaches a method comprising: providing a fibrous filter media (anti biologic filter 200 which is a fibrous substrate; para [0041]- [0043]) in an air purification device (the device in fig 7 or 8 or 15 is an air purifier; can also be connected to an HVAC system and thus is an HVAC device, para [0034]); positioning an antimicrobial filter layer (activation mechanism 300 which includes strips of one or more sources that are a set of strips 320 with multiple emitters separated by gaps 330 to allow air flow; para [0057]; fig 6, 15) adjacent to one or more surfaces of the fibrous media filter(fig 7 and 8; 15); embedding one or more light emitters within the antimicrobial filter layer (emitters included int eh antimicrobial filter layer; para [0057]); and illuminating the one or more surfaces of the fibrous media filter with the disinfecting light from the emitters (para [0058]); and inactivating microorganisms on or within the media filter (microorganisms are in the air (para [0021] and thus on the filter and inactivating them is the result of shining UV light or visible light in the taught wavelengths; para [0041]- [0043] and [0058]).
The disinfecting light has an irradiance sufficient to inactivate microorganisms on or within the fibrous media filter (para [0058]). Sanabria further teaches the overlapping wavelengths of 315-400 nm and 400-450 (para [0058]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used wavelengths including any in the taught ranges motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully carrying out the invention of Sanabria.
With regards to claim 16, the method further comprises an airflow (fluid path arrows in fig 7 and 8; 15) from an entrance point (at inlet 110) to an exit point (at outlet 120)(fig 8, 15).
With regards to claim 17, the method further comprising providing a prefilter (inlet grid/filter 110) at the entrance point and adjacent (near) or coupled to the antimicrobial filter layer (as part of the whole device)(para [0035]; fig 7, 15).
With regards to claim 18, the method further comprising providing an adsorbent media filter positioned between the entry and exit points (when the inlet grid/filter 110 is the prefilter then prefilter 210 can be an adsorbent filter; para [0045]).
With regards to claims 19 and 20, Sanabria et al. teaches that the distance between the light source and the fibrous filter media controls the energy applied (para [0054]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the distance between the antimicrobial filter (light sources) and the fibrous media filter in order to achieve the desired amount of light energy on the filter media.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanabria et al. (US 2021/0222897) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2020/0061231).
With regards to claim 12, Joeng teaches an air purifier (abstract and fig 14) that shines UV light on a filter (abstract and para [0143]-[0151]). In placing the light sources (1142) to illuminate the filter (third filter 330), Jeong teaches a formula that includes the distance from the light source to the filter and the angle of the light beam to determine position/spacing (para [0148], [0149]). Joeng teaches the goal is uniform irradiation of the filter (para [0148]-[0150]). Number of light sources also plays a role as there needs to be enough to cover the third filter efficiently, but not too much to add extra expense (para [0149]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have based the number and position of the light sources based on beam angle and distance to the filter in order to achieve optimal uniform coverage without extra light sources being needed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the beam angle in order to achieve the desired light coverage with the desired number of light sources.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanabria et al. (US 2021/0222897) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Goswami et al. (US 2019/0120508).
With regards to claim 10, Sanabria et al. does not teach that the filters are cylindrical as claimed. Goswami et al. teaches an air purifier where the light/support (130s, like the claimed antimicrobial filter layer) and the photocatalyst filter (120) are rectangular and in line like the arrangement in Sanabria (fig 16; abstract). Goswami also teaches other arrangements where the light support and filter are concentric cylinder like shapes with the lights on the outside or inside (fig 6a, 6b, 7a, 9-11; para [0057]). Goswami further teaches that any other suitable geometry can be used (para [0057]). Thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have made the fiber filter cylindrical with the antimicrobial filter layer (light support) concentrically inside or outside the fiber filter motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired shaped air purifier with a UV light shining on the desired filter.
The combination results in the antimicrobial layer providing the highest intensity light perpendicular to a plane tangent to the interior surface of the cylinder (when shining light directly from the inside) or the exterior surface (when the light shines directly at the cylinder from the outside).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanabria et al. (US 2021/0222897) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shalvi (US 2022/0125986).
With regards to claim 21, Sanabria shows the LEDs on strip sand not the intersections of a square lattice pattern. Shalvi teaches that LEDs can be arranged in a variety of patterns in an air purifier including strips, panels or lattice grids (para [0026]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted a lattice grid for the strips motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the desired LED lights. Grids are not necessarily square (though often are). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected the grid shape as desired motivated by an expectation of successfully providing the LED light sources.
The combination results in wherein the antimicrobial filter layer further comprises a rectangular frame (outer strips which form a square/rectangle) having a plurality of square tessellations (square lattice pattern grid), and wherein the one or more light emitters are positioned at (near) intersections of tessellation lines formed by the plurality of square tessellations.
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 DONALD R SPAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9-5.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571)272-1374. 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.
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799