DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT On claim 1, line 1, the phrase "through electrochemical process" should read "through an electrochemical process." On claims 2-10, line s 1 -2 of each, the phrase "through electrochemical process" should read "through the electrochemical process." . Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Zhang et al. (CN 110559853 A, using attached machine translation) in view of Mu et al. (CN 101240079 A, using attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 1 , the prior art Zhang discloses an electrochemical reactor ( para. 0007 ) comprising a power supply, anode, cathode, and proton exchange membrane between the anode and cathode (para. 0033). The anode, proton exchange membrane, and cathode are clamped together (para. 0033). Zhang does not teach a gas -permeable proton exchange membrane . However, Mu teaches a proton exchange membrane for use in membrane separation processes and fuel cells ( para. 0002 ) . The PEM is air-permeable, equivalent to gas-permeable as claimed (para. 0024) . It would have been obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the proton exchange membrane disclosed by Zhang to be gas-permeable . Doing so would allow the polluted air to pass through the cell from the anode to the cathode , expected to improve overall filtration due to the longer average path taken by gases moving through the clamped assembly compared to “over” the electrodes as Zhang teaches. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mu discloses an air-permeable PEM , with an average pore diameter of 1.8 μm , porosity of more than 80%, and thickness of about 15 μm (para. 0024). Mu does not express t he pore density in ppi , but teaches various porosities as percentages ( e.g. paras. 0011 , 0028, 0036 ) . The claimed pore density limitation of 2-10,000 ppi would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II). Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches that the cathode is gas-permeable ( para. 0007, as “porous” ) and includes an oxygen reduction catalyst comprising Fe compounds (paras. 0035, 0038). The porous material of the electrode may be selected from a group including carbon paper (para. 0044). A plurality of electrochemical reactors as described may be in series (para. 0047). Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Mu as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Amendola et al. (US 20120040254 A1) . Regarding claim s 4 and 5 , modified Zhang teaches all inherited limitations on which claim 4 depends. Zhang does not teach a titanium suboxide material coating on the anode with a thickness of 0.1 to 500 micrometers. However, FILLIN "Secondary prior art reference short name" \d "[ 5 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT Amendola teaches FILLIN "What is missing from the primary reference but taught by the secondary?" \d "[ 2 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT a titanium electrode for a metal-air battery comprising a titanium suboxide layer (para s . 0060 , 0084 ) . This outer layer may have a thickness greater than, equal to, or less than the substrate’s thickness (para. 0046). A titanium suboxide layer is known to improve the corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity of an electrode’s current collector compared to conventional TiO 2 coatings (para. 0087). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the FILLIN "Primary reference teaching relevant to the claim(s)" \d "[ 3 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT anode disclosed by FILLIN "Prior art reference short name" \d "[ 2 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT Zhang by FILLIN "What is missing from the primary reference but taught by the secondary?" \d "[ 4 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT adding a titanium suboxide catalytic coating . One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to FILLIN "End result of the obvious modification" \d "[ 6 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT improve the anode's resistance to corrosion as it is exposed to gas containing pollutants . It is also obvious to find the claimed range of titanium suboxide material coating between 0.1 and 500 μm by routine experimentation . Regarding claim FILLIN "Enter claim number(s)" \* MERGEFORMAT 6 , FILLIN "Prior art reference short name" \d "[ 2 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT Zhang as modified by Mu and Amendola teaches FILLIN "Primary reference teaching relevant to the claim(s)" \d "[ 3 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT the limitations of claim 4 on which claim 6 depends . FILLIN "Secondary prior art reference short name" \d "[ 5 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT Amendola further teaches FILLIN "What is missing from the primary reference but taught by the secondary?" \d "[ 2 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT that the titanium component of the electrode may be a porous titanium substrate (para. 0062), such as a foam (para. 0098) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the FILLIN "Primary reference teaching relevant to the claim(s)" \d "[ 3 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT anode disclosed by FILLIN "Prior art reference short name" \d "[ 2 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT Zhang by FILLIN "What is missing from the primary reference but taught by the secondary?" \d "[ 4 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT utilizing a porous titanium substrate . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to FILLIN "End result of the obvious modification" \d "[ 6 ]" \* MERGEFORMAT improve the operation of the cell due to titanium's oxidation resistance under anodic potentials, and the self-passivating nature of the metal to form TiO 2 on surfaces exposed to air (Amendola paras. 0036, 0037) . Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Zhang in view of Mu as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Takagi et al. (WO 2020235111 A1) . Regarding claims 8, 9, and 10, Zhang teaches applying a direct current of between 0.5 V and 36 V between the anode and cathode , wherein the humidity of the gas is between 5% and 95% and the temperature is -20°C to 120°C (para. 0018). Zhang as modified by Mu does not teach passing the gas through the porous proton exchange membrane and cathode, rather that the gas only passes through the anode (Zhang paras. 0032, 0051) . However, Takagi teaches an electrochemical device using an anode, cathode, and permeable membrane/filter to separate gases which are passed through the stack of electrodes and membrane (para. 0081). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical reactor disclosed by modified Zhang by passing the polluted gas through the porous proton exchange membrane . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to better separate pollutants from air (i.e. comprising O 2 and N 2 ) and reduce energy requirements compared to conventional molecular sieves or other methods of gas separation ( Takagi para. 00 81-00 82) . Filtration of the polluted air through a membrane as opposed to across it would also be expected to yield greater filtration effectiveness, as the rate of molecular collisions would be expected to increase. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT Murphy et al. (US 5,770,033) teaches the use of titanium suboxides in the anode of an electrochemical cell. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8873 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Barr can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1414 . 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. /CBF/ Examiner, Art Unit 1711 /MICHAEL E BARR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711