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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0068], [0069]: “the base filter portion 120” appears to be a typographical error for “the base filter portion 110.” See [061].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 20 recite “a non-copper separator screen . . . configured to randomize the airflow,” and claim 12 recites a “randomizing screen.” Since separator screens are static structures ([062], [065]: “fabric, plastic, metallic, wires, etc.”), and since no indication is given that such screens are capable of randomizing motion or behavior, a “randomizing” screen will be interpreted as capable of providing turbulent flow ([065]).
Claim 6: The claim recites, “wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium each have a porosity of less than or equal to 3 µm.” Because porosity is known in the art to be given in units of fractions or percentages (e.g., US 2024/0024805 A1 at [0035]; US 9,750,829 B2 at col. 10, lines 38-42 and Table 1), whereas mean pore size is known in the art to be given in distance units such as microns (e.g., US 2024/0024805 A1 at [0035]), the claim will be interpreted as using “porosity” as a synonym for “mean pore diameter.”
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 2 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 2: The claim recites “the air filter.” It is unclear if this term relies upon the antecedent of the air filter system, the base filter, the pathogen deactivation filter, or the particulate filter. For the purposes of examination only, in view of the specification ([069]), “the air filter” will be interpreted as “the air filter system.” The claim recites, “the air stream flowing therethrough does not result in a significant increase in pressure drop.” The term “significant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim recites, “wherein the degree of obstruction that the air filter imparts on the air stream flowing therethrough does not result in a significant increase in pressure drop.” It is unclear what the relative basis of “increase” is.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhate (US 11,707,706 B1) in view of Park (KR200444337Y1).
Regarding claim 1, Bhate discloses a hybrid air filter 1000 that may be used in an air ventilation system to inactivate airborne pathogens (Figs. 10, 11; col. 20, line 48) (i.e., an air filter system configured to filter an air stream and inactivate pathogens within the air stream) comprising:
layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040 (Fig. 11) (i.e., a base filter portion) comprising:
an inner copper screen 1100 and an outer copper screen 1200 (col. 20, lines 66-67) comprised of copper wool (col. 4, lines 49-50; col. 15, lines 27-28) for inactivating airborne pathogens such as viruses (col. 11, lines 6-8) (i.e., a pathogen deactivation filter portion comprising: a first copper wool medium configured to inactivate viruses from the air stream flowing therethrough; a second copper wool medium configured to inactivate viruses from the air stream flowing therethrough); and
a separator screen 1030 that is a metallic, stainless-steel screen, or is made of a fabric, plastic, metallic foam, compressed wires operable to randomize airflow coming out of inner copper screen 1100 (col. 20, line 66 through col. 21, line 6) (i.e., a pathogen deactivation filter portion comprising: a non-copper separator screen disposed between the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium configured to randomize the airflow coming out of the first copper wool medium and into the second copper wool medium rather than filter the airflow); and
a filter frame 1002 (col. 20, line 53) disposed around the hybrid air filter periphery that supports the back side of side of the hybrid air filter, opposite filter 1004 (Fig. 10; col. 20, line 53) (i.e., a frame supporting a peripheral portion of a back side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion; a particulate filter), wherein filter 1004 is a MERV 8 Filter Pad (col. 20, lines 60-62) (i.e., the particulate filter being configured to filter particulates from the air stream flowing therethrough).
Regarding “a non-copper separator screen disposed between the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium configured to randomize the airflow . . . rather than filter the airflow,” since the separator screen is disclosed to be operable to produce a randomized air flow pattern (col. 21, lines10-13) rather than to filter the air flow, the separator screen is interpreted to not be expressly configured for filtration.
However, Bhate does not explicitly disclose a frame comprising channel portions on a front side of the frame that cooperatively form a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion; or a particulate filter positioned within the retention channel and extending over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion, wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions such that the retention channel is open at the first end and the particulate filter is removably slidably received within the retention channel.
Park discloses a filter frame 100 with a medium filter mounting frame 110 (Figs. 1-3; p. 2/3, “The present”) (i.e., a frame) comprising an insertion mounting groove 121 of a pre-filter mounting frame 120 that is open at an upper side (Figs. 1, 2) (i.e., wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions; a retention channel that is open at a first end) so that pre-filter material 300 can be inserted into the mounting groove 121 from the upper side of the pre-filter mounting frame (Fig. 3; p. 2/3, “The present”), wherein the pre-filter mounting frame 120 is at a front side of a medium filter mounting frame 110 (Figs. 1-3; p. 2/3, “The present”) (i.e., such that the retention channel is open at the first end and [a] filter is removably slidably received within the retention channel; channel portions on a front side of the frame that cooperatively form a retention channel that is open at a first end). Park teaches that this configuration provides a filter frame structure that integrates two filters, a pre-filter and a medium filter that allows individual assembly and disassembly of each filter medium (p. 2/3, lines 4-5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Bhate by providing a frame comprising channel portions on a front side of the frame that cooperatively form a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion; or a particulate filter positioned within the retention channel and extending over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion, wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions such that the retention channel is open at the first end and the particulate filter is removably slidably received within the retention channel as taught by Park because (1) Bhate teaches a frame 1002 that holds filter 1004 together with layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040 (Bhate, Figs. 10, 11); and (2) a filter frame structure with a pre-filter mounting frame 120 in front of medium filter mounting frame 110 can integrate two filters to allow individual assembly and disassembly of each filter medium (Park, Figs. 1-3; p. 2/3, lines 4-5).
Regarding “a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion,” in the embodiment taught by Bhate in view of Park, it would have been obvious for the mounting groove 121 to hold the MERV filter, with the open side being positioned at an end that can arbitrarily be regarded as a “first” end of the layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040.
Regarding “a particulate filter positioned within the retention channel and extending over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion . . . the particulate filter is removably slidably received within the retention channel,” in the embodiment taught by Bhate in view of Park, the pre-filter mounting frame 120 can be interpreted to be positioned at a front side of the layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040, so that the MERV filter of Bhate can be slid into the mounting groove of Park.
Regarding claim 2, Bhate teaches that the air filter device is configured to obstruct an air stream flowing therethrough without a significant change in pressure drop (col. 10, lines 26-28) (i.e., wherein the degree of obstruction that the air filter imparts on the air stream flowing therethrough does not result in a significant increase in pressure drop), so it would have been obvious for the filter of Bhate in view of Park to not cause a significant pressure drop.
Regarding claim 3, Bhate teaches a pressure drop across the filter of 0.30 inches of water (col. 22, lines 16-17) (i.e., wherein the air filter system imparts a pressure drop of the air stream flowing therethrough of less 0.6 inches of water), so it would have been obvious for the filter of Bhate in view of Park to have a pressure drop of less 0.6 inches of water.
Regarding claim 4, Bhate teaches a pressure drop across the filter of 0.30 inches of water (col. 22, lines 16-17) (i.e., wherein the air filter system imparts a pressure drop of the air stream flowing therethrough of less 0.35 inches of water), so it would have been obvious for the filter of Bhate in view of Park to have a pressure drop of less 0.35 inches of water.
Regarding claim 5, Bhate teaches a filter 1004 that is a MERV 8 Filter Pad (col. 20, lines 60-62) (i.e., wherein the air filter system comprises a minimum efficiency reporting value of the air stream flowing therethrough of at least 8 MERV).
Regarding claim 6, Bhate teaches that the copper wool medium includes selecting a porosity that is preferably less than or equal to 3 µm (col. 3, lines 13-15) (i.e., wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium each have a porosity of less than or equal to 3 µm).
Regarding claim 7, Bhate teaches a pressure drop across the filter of 0.30 inches of water (col. 22, lines 16-17), so it would have been obvious for the inner copper screen and the outer copper screen of the filter of Bhate in view of Park to have a pressure drop on the air stream flowing therethrough of less than 0.30 inches of water (i.e., wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium each impart a pressure drop on the air stream flowing therethrough of less than 0.30 inches of water).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Bhate teaches copper screens that are 400 mesh copper screens (col. 21, line 19) (i.e., wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium each comprise a mesh screen of at least 250 mesh; wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium each comprise a mesh screen of at least 400 mesh).
Regarding claim 10, Bhate teaches that the copper wool medium is configured to inactivate viruses from an air stream flowing therethrough (col. 20, lines 48-49; col. 21, lines 41-46) (i.e., wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium are each configured to inactivate coronaviruses from the air stream flowing therethrough).
Regarding claim 11, Bhate teaches that the copper wool medium includes copper or copper alloys that possess antimicrobial properties (col. 21, lines 54-56) (i.e., wherein the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium each comprise one or more copper or copper alloys with antimicrobial properties).
Regarding claim 13, Bhate teaches an outer separator screen 1040 on the downstream side of outer copper screen 1200 (Fig. 11; col. 20, line 66) (i.e., wherein the pathogen deactivation filter portion further comprises a support screen extending over a back side of the second copper wool medium, the second copper wool medium being positioned between the support screen and the non-copper separator screen).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Park teaches that the insertion mounting groove 121 of the pre-filter mounting frame 120 extends away from the front face of the medium filter mounting frame 110 and inwardly toward the interior of the frame to form the L-shaped mounting groove sides, as shown in the figure detail below (i.e., wherein the channel portions extend from front face portions of the frame and inwardly toward an interior of the frame such that the retention channel is formed between the front face portions and the channel portions; wherein the channel portions are L-shaped).
PNG
media_image1.png
100
116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches that the medium filter mounting frame 110 as four sides (i.e., wherein the frame comprises a pair of opposing sides and a pair of opposing ends), and the pre-filter mounting frame 120 is open at its upper side (Figs. 1-3, p. 2/3, “The present”) (i.e., wherein the channel portions extend along the opposing sides and a second end of the opposing ends).
Regarding claim 19, Bhate teaches the use of conventional filter such as a pleated air filter (col. 7, line 65) with a MERV 8 rating (col. 20, lines 60-62) (i.e., wherein the particulate filter is a pleated air filter with a minimum efficiency reporting value of the air stream flowing therethrough of at least 5 MERV).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhate in view of Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Bower et al. (US 2023/0405494 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bhate teaches an inner separator screen 1020 (Fig. 11; col. 20, lines 65-66), that, like the separator screen 1030 (i.e., a first non-copper screen) on the other side of inner copper screen 1100, is may be stainless steel (col. 20, line 65 through col. 21, line 5) (i.e., wherein the pathogen deactivation filter portion further comprises a first non-copper screen extending over a front side of the first copper wool medium, the first copper wool medium being positioned between the first non-copper screen and the non-copper separator screen).
Bhate in view of Park does not explicitly disclose that the inner separator screen is a randomizing screen. However, since Bhate teaches that the separator screens may be made of the same material (col. 21, lines 1-2), and since turbulent (i.e., randomized) flow arises as a result of flow conditions as predicted by the Reynolds number, as evidenced by Bower ([0085]), the inner separator screen 1020 of Bhate is interpreted as capable of mixing or randomizing flow.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhate in view of Park, as applied to claim 16 above, and as evidenced by Niki et al. (US 2019/0224609 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Bhate teaches that the hybrid air filter 1000 may have an overall thickness of about 1 inch (col. 20, lines 54-55), so the layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040 must collectively have a thickness less than 1 inch (i.e., wherein the base filter portion defines a thickness that is about 1 inch or less).
Bhate in view of Park does not explicitly disclose a particulate filter that defines a thickness that is about 1/2 inch or less. However, it was known in the art that filter thickness is a result-effective variable which can be adjusted and which influences pressure drop, as evidenced by Niki ([0055]), so it would have been obvious for the practitioner of Bhate in view of Park to optimize filter 1004/particulate filter thickness to reduce pressure drop, and the teaching of a pressure drop across the filter of 0.30 inches of water indicates that the skilled practitioner would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reducing pressure drop by optimizing filter thickness (Bhate, col. 22, lines 16-17). A result-effective variable is one which the skilled practitioner would desire to optimize, and is considered prima facie obvious and without patentable weight. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 18, Bhate teaches a square frame body (p. 2/3, “The present”; Figs. 1-3) (i.e., wherein the pair of opposing sides and the pair of opposing ends are configured such that the base filter portion is of a rectangular shape, wherein the particulate filter is of a rectangular shape).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhate in view of Park.
Bhate discloses a method for inactivating viruses (claim 27) using a hybrid air filter 1000 that may be used in an air ventilation system to inactivate airborne pathogens (Figs. 10, 11; col. 20, line 48) (i.e., method for removing and deactivating airborne pathogens from an air flow; obtaining or providing a pathogen deactivation filter configured to deactivate pathogens contained with an air stream flowing therethrough), the hybrid air filter comprising:
an inner copper screen 1100 and an outer copper screen 1200 (col. 20, lines 66-67) comprised of copper wool (col. 4, lines 49-50; col. 15, lines 27-28) for inactivating airborne pathogens such as viruses (col. 11, lines 6-8) (i.e., a first copper wool medium configured to inactivate viruses from the air stream flowing therethrough; a second copper wool medium configured to inactivate viruses from the air stream flowing therethrough;); and
a separator screen 1030 that is a metallic, stainless-steel screen, or is made of a fabric, plastic, metallic foam, compressed wires operable to randomize airflow coming out of inner copper screen 1100 (col. 20, line 66 through col. 21, line 6) (i.e., a pathogen deactivation filter portion comprising: a non-copper separator screen disposed between the first copper wool medium and the second copper wool medium configured to randomize the airflow coming out of the first copper wool medium and into the second copper wool medium rather than filter the airflow);
a filter frame 1002 (col. 20, line 53) disposed around the hybrid air filter periphery that supports the back side of side of the hybrid air filter, opposite filter 1004 (Fig. 10; col. 20, line 53) (i.e., a frame supporting a peripheral portion of a back side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion; obtaining or providing a particulate filter), wherein filter 1004 is a MERV 8 Filter Pad (col. 20, lines 60-62) (i.e., a particulate filter configured to filter particulates from an air stream flowing therethrough with minimum efficiency reporting value of at least 5 MERV); and
flowing an air stream through the filtration device (col. 4, lines 54-55) (i.e., directing an air stream through the assembled particulate filter and the pathogen deactivation filter).
However, Bhate does not explicitly disclose a frame comprising channel portions on a front side of the frame that cooperatively form a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion, wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions such that the retention channel is open at the first end; or removably assembling the particulate filter and the pathogen deactivation filter by slidably receiving the particulate filter within the retention channel from the first end such that the particulate filter extends over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion.
Park discloses a filter frame 100 with a medium filter mounting frame 110 (Figs. 1-3; p. 2/3, “The present”) (i.e., a frame) comprising an insertion mounting groove 121 of a pre-filter mounting frame 120 that is open at an upper side (Figs. 1, 2) (i.e., wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions; a retention channel that is open at a first end) so that pre-filter material 300 can be inserted into the mounting groove 121 from the upper side of the pre-filter mounting frame (Fig. 3; p. 2/3, “The present”), wherein the pre-filter mounting frame 120 is at a front side of a medium filter mounting frame 110 (Figs. 1-3; p. 2/3, “The present”) (i.e., a frame comprising channel portions on a front side of the frame that cooperatively form a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion, wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions such that the retention channel is open at the first end; removably assembling the particulate filter and the pathogen deactivation filter by slidably receiving the particulate filter within the retention channel from the first end such that the particulate filter extends over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion). Park teaches that this configuration provides a filter frame structure that integrates two filters, a pre-filter and a medium filter that allows individual assembly and disassembly of each filter medium (p. 2/3, lines 4-5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Bhate by a frame comprising channel portions on a front side of the frame that cooperatively form a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion, wherein a first end of the frame is void of the channel portions such that the retention channel is open at the first end; and removably assembling the particulate filter and the pathogen deactivation filter by slidably receiving the particulate filter within the retention channel from the first end such that the particulate filter extends over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion as taught by Park because (1) Bhate teaches a frame 1002 that holds filter 1004 together with layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040 (Bhate, Figs. 10, 11); and (2) a filter frame structure with a pre-filter mounting frame 120 in front of medium filter mounting frame 110 can integrate two filters to allow individual assembly and disassembly of each filter medium (Park, Figs. 1-3; p. 2/3, lines 4-5).
Regarding “a retention channel that is open at a first end of the pathogen deactivation filter portion,” in the embodiment taught by Bhate in view of Park, it would have been obvious for the mounting groove 121 to hold the MERV filter, with the open side being positioned at an end that can arbitrarily be regarded as a “first” end of the layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040.
Further regarding “removably assembling the particulate filter and the pathogen deactivation filter by slidably receiving the particulate filter within the retention channel from the first end such that the particulate filter extends over a front side of the pathogen deactivation filter portion,” in the embodiment taught by Bhate in view of Park, the pre-filter mounting frame 120 can be interpreted to be positioned at a front side of the layers 1020, 1100, 1030, 1200, 1040, so that it would have been obvious for the MERV filter of Bhate to be slid into the mounting groove of Park.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772