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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 01/20/2026 in which claims 1-12, 10-15, 17, and 19 have been amended, claim 9 has been canceled. Currently, claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending for examination in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has resolved the objections to the claims, however additional objections have been found.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 5-6, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 20 under 35 USC 102 based upon Haecker have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Haecker and Krause.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 6-7, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4-9 under 35 USC 103 based upon Haecker in view of Krause have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Krause teaches a bio-renewable polymer system, see rejection below.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pg. 7, filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 11, Examiner believes “trypsiniron” should be “trypsin” as supported by Applicant’s Specifications [0007], [0012], and [0026]. As such Kwon teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 7-8, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12, 13, 14-16, and 17-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Conlon et al. (US 20160015098 A1), Kovacech et al. (WO 2022153212 A1) and Mitchell et al. (US 20020150686 A1).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2, insert “,” before “wherein”.
Claim 2 line 13, insert “,” before “wherein”.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, the proteolytic enzyme is selected from a group consisting of trypsiniron which is indefinite as the term “trypsiniron” is not disclosed in the specification and does not seem to be known in the art as a proteolytic enzyme. Applicant’s Specifications [0007], [0012], and [0026] all state the proteolytic enzyme is selected from a group consisting of consisting of subtilisin, trypsin, papain, proteinase K, chymotrypsin, elastase and combinations thereof, and the only mention of “trypsiniron” is in the listing of the claims. This leads Examiner to believe “trypsiniron” should be “trypsin” and Examiner is interpreting the claims as such.
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) 1-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1) and Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haecker discloses an air remediation device ([0015] respiratory air purifier device) for an enclosed space (see [0035]), comprising: at least one hollow fiber membrane module adapted for capturing airborne viral particles (see [0015]), but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane is made from a material selected from a group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene difluoride, poly (methacrylic acid) functionalized polyvinylidene difluoride, poly (methacrylic) functionalized polyamide, poly (methacrylic) functionalized polyimide, poly (methacrylic) functionalized cellulose triacetate, poly (methacrylic acid) functionalized polysulfone, poly (methacrylic acid) functionalized polypropylene, a bio-renewable polymer system and combinations thereof.
Applicant’s Specifications discloses [0006] Biorenewable polymer systems, include, but are not necessarily limited to cellulose, regenerated cellulose, cellulose acetate, cellulose triacetate, lignin sulfonate, and polyester.
Additionally, Krause teaches [0076] The microporous hollow fibre membranes produced according to the present invention are made of a biocompatible polymeric material, e.g. polyethersulfone (PES), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polypropylene (PP), polysulfone (PSU), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyamide (PA), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), cellulose acetate (CA), cellulose nitrate or regenerated cellulose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be made of cellulose acetate or regenerated cellulose, as they are biocompatible, as taught by Krause [0076].
Regarding claim 2, Haecker discloses an air remediation device (respiratory air purifier device 101; figure 1-4), comprising:
a housing including an internal chamber (see [0014-0015], cylindrical housing of hollow-fibre dialysis filter or hollow-fibre dialyser; 120; figure 1-4);
a potting material dividing said internal chamber into a first compartment and a second compartment ([0014] To provide fixing and sealing, a sealing compound is arranged between the fibres at the axial ends of the cylindrical housing, i.e. at the two circular faces that axially delimit the dialyser. The two axial ends of the cylindrical housing could be referred to as the cylinder top and cylinder bottom. The sealing compound may be for instance a casting compound. However, the interiors of the fibres are free. Thus, for the entire bundle of hollow fibres, the interior is separated from the exterior. [0052] At the ends of the hollow fibres, a sealing compound seals off the exterior X of the hollow fibres of the dialyser 120 from ambient air (shown by hatching). First compartment is: interiors I of the hollow fibers; see figure 1-2 and 4. Second compartment is: exterior X of the hollow fibres; see figure 1-2);
at least one hollow fiber membrane (see [0015]) supported by the potting material ([0014] To provide fixing and sealing, a sealing compound is arranged between the fibres at the axial ends of the cylindrical housing, i.e. at the two circular faces that axially delimit the dialyser) and held in the first compartment ([0015] the hollow fibres have a membrane with pores, this means that these fluid paths extend transversely with respect to the hollow-fibre membranes, i.e. extend through the pores of the porous membrane of the hollow fibres), said at least one hollow fiber membrane being adapted for capturing airborne viral particles ([0015] On passage through the pores, nanoparticles such as viruses are retained. Larger particles, for example bacteria or archaea, are also retained. However, air gas molecules will flow through the pores unimpeded. In this way, respiratory air passing through the pores is purified, and pathogens are retained. In addition, spores, pollen, nanoparticles, fine dust and other airborne substances hazardous to health, e.g. asbestos fibres or radioactive dust (“fallout”), are also retained);
an inlet (see figure 2 and [0053], inlet at axial ends of dialyser 120) in communication with the first compartment ([0053] When the wearer inhales through the respiratory air purifier device 101, ambient air will flow through the axial ends (which are open in the illustrative embodiment) of the dialyser 120 into the interiors I of the hollow fibres; figure 2); and
an outlet in communication with the second compartment (outlet port connected to connection piece 130, see figure 3, and communicating with exterior X of the hollow fibers; figure 1-2) whereby untreated air entrained with airborne viral particles is directed (a) through the inlet into the first compartment ([0053] When the wearer inhales through the respiratory air purifier device 101, ambient air will flow through the axial ends (which are open in the illustrative embodiment) of the dialyser 120 into the interiors I of the hollow fibres; figure 2) and then (b) through the at least one hollow fiber membrane, where the airborne viral particles are captured to produce treated air (see [0015]), and then the treated air is directed (c) through the second compartment before being exhausted from the housing through the outlet ([0053] into the interiors I of the hollow fibres, through the pores of the membrane into the exterior X of the hollow fibres, and through the optional hoses, tubes, Y-pieces or nozzles of the connection piece 130, through an optional inlet check valve 135 to the interface 110, and then into a respiratory opening of the wearer; figure 2).
Haecker is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane is made from a material selected from a group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene difluoride, poly (methacrylic acid) functionalized polyvinylidene difluoride, poly (methacrylic) functionalized polyamide, poly (methacrylic) functionalized polyimide, poly (methacrylic) functionalized cellulose triacetate, poly (methacrylic acid) functionalized polysulfone, poly (methacrylic acid) functionalized polypropylene, a bio-renewable polymer system and combinations thereof.
Applicant’s Specifications discloses [0006] Biorenewable polymer systems, include, but are not necessarily limited to cellulose, regenerated cellulose, cellulose acetate, cellulose triacetate, lignin sulfonate, and polyester.
Additionally, Krause teaches [0076] The microporous hollow fibre membranes produced according to the present invention are made of a biocompatible polymeric material, e.g. polyethersulfone (PES), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polypropylene (PP), polysulfone (PSU), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (PC), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyamide (PA), polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), cellulose acetate (CA), cellulose nitrate or regenerated cellulose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be made of cellulose acetate or regenerated cellulose, as they are biocompatible, as taught by Krause [0076].
Regarding claim 3, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 2, Haecker discloses wherein the hollow fiber membrane is a porous membrane ([0015] wherein the hollow fibres have a membrane with pores, this means that these fluid paths extend transversely with respect to the hollow-fibre membranes, i.e. extend through the pores of the porous membrane of the hollow fibres).
Regarding claim 4, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 3, but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane has pores having a diameter of between about 30 nanometers and about 1.4 micrometers.
However, Krause teaches a method for producing a porous hollow fibre membrane ([0013] This object is achieved with a method for continuous production of a porous hollow fibre membrane having regioselective affinity for compounds in blood or other biologically active fluids to be removed during purification of blood or said fluids), wherein the hollow fiber membrane has pores having a diameter of between about 30 nanometers and about 1.4 micrometers ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm, e.g. 200-400 µm; the wall thickness is normally 20-150 µm, e.g. 50-100 µm; the pore diameter is 0.05-5.0 µm, e.g. 0.2 µm, the outer diameter is 110-1000 µm, e.g. 300-800 µm, such as 420 µm; the porosity is 50-90%, e.g. 65%; and the tortuosity is 1-3; e.g. 1.5. [0078] According to the present invention the hollow fibres used for the microporous hollow fibre membrane in one embodiment are made of a mixture of polyethersulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone with an inner diameter of 320 µm, a wall thickness of 50 µm and a pore diameter of 0.2 µm. Examiner notes: 0.2 µm is 200 nanometers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pores of the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to have a diameter of 0.2 micrometers, in order to allow for selective removal of compounds in fluids (i.e. air) during purification of said fluid (i.e. air), as taught by Krause [0013].
Regarding claim 5, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 3, but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane has an overall porosity of between about 20% and 70%.
However, Krause teaches a method for producing a porous hollow fibre membrane ([0013] This object is achieved with a method for continuous production of a porous hollow fibre membrane having regioselective affinity for compounds in blood or other biologically active fluids to be removed during purification of blood or said fluids), wherein the hollow fiber membrane has an overall porosity of between about 20% and 70% ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm, e.g. 200-400 µm…; the porosity is 50-90%, e.g. 65%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the porosity of the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be 65%, in order to allow for selective removal of compounds in fluids (i.e. air) during purification of said fluid (i.e. air), as taught by Krause [0013].
Regarding claim 6, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 3, but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane has a thickness of between about 30 micrometers and about 500 micrometers.
However, Krause teaches a method for producing a porous hollow fibre membrane ([0013] This object is achieved with a method for continuous production of a porous hollow fibre membrane having regioselective affinity for compounds in blood or other biologically active fluids to be removed during purification of blood or said fluids), wherein the hollow fiber membrane has a thickness of between about 30 micrometers and about 500 micrometers ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm, e.g. 200-400 µm; the wall thickness is normally 20-150 µm, e.g. 50-100 µm; the pore diameter is 0.05-5.0 µm, e.g. 0.2 µm, the outer diameter is 110-1000 µm, e.g. 300-800 µm, such as 420 µm; the porosity is 50-90%, e.g. 65%; and the tortuosity is 1-3; e.g. 1.5. [0078] According to the present invention the hollow fibres used for the microporous hollow fibre membrane in one embodiment are made of a mixture of polyethersulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone with an inner diameter of 320 µm, a wall thickness of 50 µm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall thickness of the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be 50 micrometers, in order to allow for selective removal of compounds in fluids (i.e. air) during purification of said fluid (i.e. air), as taught by Krause [0013].
Regarding claim 7, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 3, but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane has a tortuosity of between about 1 and 4.
However, Krause teaches a method for producing a porous hollow fibre membrane ([0013] This object is achieved with a method for continuous production of a porous hollow fibre membrane having regioselective affinity for compounds in blood or other biologically active fluids to be removed during purification of blood or said fluids), wherein the hollow fiber membrane has a tortuosity of between about 1 and 4 ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm…; and the tortuosity is 1-3; e.g. 1.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tortuosity of the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be 1.5, in order to allow for selective removal of compounds in fluids (i.e. air) during purification of said fluid (i.e. air), as taught by Krause [0013].
Regarding claim 8, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 3, but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane has pores having a diameter of between about 30 nanometers and about 1.4 micrometers, an overall porosity of between about 20% and 70%, a thickness of between about 30 micrometers and about 500 micrometers, and a tortuosity of between about 1 and 4.
However, Krause teaches a method for producing a porous hollow fibre membrane ([0013] This object is achieved with a method for continuous production of a porous hollow fibre membrane having regioselective affinity for compounds in blood or other biologically active fluids to be removed during purification of blood or said fluids), wherein the hollow fiber membrane has pores having a diameter of between about 30 nanometers and about 1.4 micrometers ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm, e.g. 200-400 µm; the wall thickness is normally 20-150 µm, e.g. 50-100 µm; the pore diameter is 0.05-5.0 µm, e.g. 0.2 µm, the outer diameter is 110-1000 µm, e.g. 300-800 µm, such as 420 µm; the porosity is 50-90%, e.g. 65%; and the tortuosity is 1-3; e.g. 1.5. [0078] According to the present invention the hollow fibres used for the microporous hollow fibre membrane in one embodiment are made of a mixture of polyethersulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone with an inner diameter of 320 µm, a wall thickness of 50 µm and a pore diameter of 0.2 µm. Examiner notes: 0.2 µm is 200 nanometers), an overall porosity of between about 20% and 70% ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm, e.g. 200-400 µm…; the porosity is 50-90%, e.g. 65%), a thickness of between about 30 micrometers and about 500 micrometers ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm, e.g. 200-400 µm; the wall thickness is normally 20-150 µm, e.g. 50-100 µm; the pore diameter is 0.05-5.0 µm, e.g. 0.2 µm, the outer diameter is 110-1000 µm, e.g. 300-800 µm, such as 420 µm; the porosity is 50-90%, e.g. 65%; and the tortuosity is 1-3; e.g. 1.5. [0078] According to the present invention the hollow fibres used for the microporous hollow fibre membrane in one embodiment are made of a mixture of polyethersulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone with an inner diameter of 320 µm, a wall thickness of 50 µm), and a tortuosity of between about 1 and 4 ([0077] The inner diameter of the hollow fibres is normally 70-700 µm…; and the tortuosity is 1-3; e.g. 1.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to have pores having a diameter of 0.2 micrometers, a porosity of 65%, a wall thickness of 50 micrometers and a tortuosity of 1.5, in order to allow for selective removal of compounds in fluids (i.e. air) during purification of said fluid (i.e. air), as taught by Krause [0013].
Regarding claim 20, modified Haecker teaches a method of air remediation, Heacker discloses comprising filtering air through a hollow fiber membrane adapted for catching airborne viral particles as set forth in claim 2 (see claim 2 above and [0015]).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1) and Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kwon (KR 20210156465 A) and Conlon et al. (US 20160015098 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 2, but is silent as to wherein the hollow fiber membrane includes pores functionalized with a proteolytic enzyme, an antibody, a nanoparticle and combinations thereof.
However, Krause teaches wherein the hollow fiber membrane includes pores functionalized with an antibody ([0081] The ligands to be bound to the functional groups introduced on the surface of the membrane substrate filtrate side and on pore surfaces are chosen according to the type of compounds to be removed from the blood or any other biologically active fluid. Examples of ligands are proteins, peptides, amino acids, carboxylic acids, nucleotides, oligonucleotides, antigens or antibodies, and mixtures of two or more thereof, or any other convenient biomolecules).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pores of the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be functionalized with antibodies, in order to allow for selective removal of compounds in fluids (i.e. air) during purification of said fluid (i.e. air), as taught by Krause [0013].
Additionally, Kwon teaches an air filter [0028] including pores functionalized with a proteolytic enzyme ([0069] The air filter according to the present invention purifies the air by the difference in physical pore size through the pores of the thin film of the moving fine dust. Therefore, the thin film manufactured above is treated with a protein-decomposing enzyme to induce pore formation. [0071] Industrially useful enzymes such as trypsin, papain, and bromelain can be used as protein-decomposing enzymes for manufacturing porous films).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hollow fibre membrane of Heacker to implement pores functionalized by a proteolytic enzyme such as trypsin in order to be able to control filtration properties, as taught by Kwon [0028] and [0043].
Additionally, Conlon teaches a facemask having one or more nanofiber layers (title) wherein the nanofiber layer includes pores functionalized with a nanoparticle ([0069] Additionally, the nanofiber layer, while chemically inert, can be modified to incorporate specific functional characteristics. In some embodiments, the nanofiber can be modified with silver, copper, or gold nanoparticles for antimicrobial functionality or application of Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs) that can be functionalized for capture of specific gaseous airborne threat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pores of the hollow fibre membrane of Haecker to be functionalized with silver, copper, or gold nanoparticles for antimicrobial functionality or for capture of specific gaseous airborne threats, as taught by Conlon [0069].
Regarding claim 11, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 10, Kwon teaches wherein the proteolytic enzyme is selected from a group consisting of trypsin (Examiner is interpreting “trypsiniron” to be “trypsin” as supported by Specifications [0007], [0012], and [0026]) (Kwon: [0071] Industrially useful enzymes such as trypsin, papain, and bromelain can be used as protein-decomposing enzymes for manufacturing porous films).
Regarding claim 13, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 10, Conlon teaches wherein the nanoparticle is selected from a group consisting of copper nanoparticles, gold nanoparticles ([0069] copper, or gold nanoparticles).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1), Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1), Kwon (KR 20210156465 A), and Conlon et al. (US 20160015098 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kovacech et al. (WO 2022153212 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 10, but is silent as to wherein the antibody is selected from a group consisting of a RBD (receptor-binding domain)/ACE2 interaction inhibitor.
Krause teaches [0081] The ligands to be bound to the functional groups introduced on the surface of the membrane substrate filtrate side and on pore surfaces are chosen according to the type of compounds to be removed from the blood or any other biologically active fluid. Examples of ligands are proteins, peptides, amino acids, carboxylic acids, nucleotides, oligonucleotides, antigens or antibodies, and mixtures of two or more thereof, or any other convenient biomolecules.
Additionally, Kovacech teaches antibodies neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 (title) wherein the antibody is selected from a group consisting of a RBD (receptor-binding domain)/ACE2 interaction inhibitor ([00164] Figure 3 shows inhibition activity of monoclonal antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 S protein and its RBD in competitive ELISA. Results revealed 13 monoclonal antibodies (MAb 12, 96, 290, 266, 352, 677, 68, 322, 97, 99, 462, 175 and 67) that effectively inhibited interaction of RBD domain with ACE2. [00228] Figure 3 shows inhibition activity of monoclonal antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 S protein and its RBD in competitive ELISA. Results revealed 13 monoclonal antibodies (MAb 12, 96, 290, 266, 352, 677, 68, 322, 97, 99, 462, 175 and 67) that effectively inhibited interaction of RBD domain with ACE2. Inhibition activity of these antibodies was relatively high and ranged from 59 % up to 96 %)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Haecker to select the antibody for functionalizing the pores of the hollow fiber membrane to be one of the antibodies that effectively inhibited interaction of RBD domain with ACE2 in order to effectively neutralize SARS-CoV-2 as taught by Kovacech.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1), Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1), Kwon (KR 20210156465 A), and Conlon et al. (US 20160015098 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 20020150686 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 10, but is silent as to further including a coating of lignin sulfonate on the hollow fiber membrane.
However, Mitchell teaches a filter material including a coating of lignin sulfonate ([0042] At least some of the filter particles forming a filter material are coated with a lignosulfonate to provide the carbon source during the subsequent steps of carbonization and activation of the filter particles. As used herein, the term "coated" means either continuous or discontinuous, i.e., the coating can completely cover the surface of the filter particle or covers only a portion so that it forms areas of coverage (e.g. "islands") and areas of no coverage. While the coatings of the present invention contain lignosulfonate, it is contemplated that the coatings can also comprise other substances. For example, the coatings might contain 90% by weight lignosulfonate and 10% by weight starch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtration material (i.e. the hollow fibre membrane) of Heacker to implement a coating of lignosulfonate, in order to provide more convenient adsorption sites for pathogens including bacteria and viruses, as taught by Mitchell [0015] and [0037].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1), Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1), Kwon (KR 20210156465 A), Conlon et al. (US 20160015098 A1), and Mitchell et al. (US 20020150686 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 20210307428 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 14, but is silent as to further including an antiviral agent in the coating.
However, Mitchell [0015] and [0037] teaches the coating is of lignosulfonate is provided for adsorption of viruses.
Additionally, Zhamu teaches an antiviral air filtration element (title) comprising a coating of graphene including an antiviral agent ([0014] the mask body further comprises an anti-microbial compound distributed on surfaces of the graphene sheets. [0015] The anti-microbial compound may comprise an antiviral or anti-bacteria compound selected from acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, citric acid, an acidic polymer, a silver-organic idine antibacterial agent, an iodine resin, a sialic acid (e.g. 9-carbon monosaccharides having a carboxylic acid substituent on the ring), a cationic group (e.g. quaternary ammonium cationic hydrocarbon group bonded to the fabric or graphene sheets), a sulfonamide, a fluoroquinolone, or a combination thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the antiviral coating of Haecker to implement an antiviral compound, in order to further remove and neutralize harmful virus from inhaled air contaminated with such viruses as taught by Zhamu [0001].
Regarding claim 16, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 15, Zhamu teaches wherein the antiviral agent is selected from a group consisting of a quaternary amine ([0015] a cationic group (e.g. quaternary ammonium cationic hydrocarbon group bonded to the fabric or graphene sheets)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1) and Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US 20020150686 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Haecker discloses the air remediation device of claim 2, but is silent as to further including a coating of lignin sulfonate on the hollow fiber membrane.
However, Mitchell teaches a filter material including a coating of lignin sulfonate ([0042] At least some of the filter particles forming a filter material are coated with a lignosulfonate to provide the carbon source during the subsequent steps of carbonization and activation of the filter particles. As used herein, the term "coated" means either continuous or discontinuous, i.e., the coating can completely cover the surface of the filter particle or covers only a portion so that it forms areas of coverage (e.g. "islands") and areas of no coverage. While the coatings of the present invention contain lignosulfonate, it is contemplated that the coatings can also comprise other substances. For example, the coatings might contain 90% by weight lignosulfonate and 10% by weight starch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtration material (i.e. the hollow fibre membrane) of Heacker to implement a coating of lignosulfonate, in order to provide more convenient adsorption sites for pathogens including bacteria and viruses, as taught by Mitchell [0015] and [0037].
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haecker et al. (US 20230122802 A1), Krause et al. (US 20070296105 A1), and Mitchell et al. (US 20020150686 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 20210307428 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 17, but is silent as to further including an antiviral agent in the coating.
However, Mitchell [0015] and [0037] teaches the coating is of lignosulfonate is provided for adsorption of viruses.
Additionally, Zhamu teaches an antiviral air filtration element (title) comprising a coating of graphene including an antiviral agent ([0014] the mask body further comprises an anti-microbial compound distributed on surfaces of the graphene sheets. [0015] The anti-microbial compound may comprise an antiviral or anti-bacteria compound selected from acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, citric acid, an acidic polymer, a silver-organic idine antibacterial agent, an iodine resin, a sialic acid (e.g. 9-carbon monosaccharides having a carboxylic acid substituent on the ring), a cationic group (e.g. quaternary ammonium cationic hydrocarbon group bonded to the fabric or graphene sheets), a sulfonamide, a fluoroquinolone, or a combination thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the antiviral coating of Haecker to implement an antiviral compound, in order to further remove and neutralize harmful virus from inhaled air contaminated with such viruses as taught by Zhamu [0001].
Regarding claim 19, modified Haecker teaches the air remediation device of claim 18, Zhamu teaches wherein the antiviral agent is selected from a group consisting of quaternary amine ([0015] a cationic group (e.g. quaternary ammonium cationic hydrocarbon group bonded to the fabric or graphene sheets)).
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 Mautin I Ashimiu whose telephone number is (571)272-0760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. ET.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/M.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785