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 .
This action is a response to the amendments and remarks filed on 22 January 2026.
Response to Amendment
Claims 3 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9 have been amended. Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are pending.
In response to the amendments to the claims, the objections thereto, as well as the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “bicontinuous” structure should be interpreted as requiring an isotropically porous material with microchannels in the vertical and horizontal direction that is gas or fluid-permeable and maintains its structure when placed in water (Remarks, p. 1, bottom). Applicant cites [0021] to support this argument.
In response, Applicant’s intented interpretation of the term “bicontinuous” is noted.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, Applicant’s argument (Remarks, p. 7, bottom) is persuasive, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Snapp-Leo et al. (US 2023/0201800 A1) does not disclose or suggest the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), a microporous polymeric matrix comprising an isotropic bicontinuous phase channel structure, and does not suggest a bicontinous phase (Remarks, p. 2, middle and throughout).
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. However, because of Applicant’s amendments, after further consideration and search, new ground(s) of rejection are presented herein, based upon Grunzinger (WO2020102259A1) in view of Snapp-Leo. Said new grounds of rejection are presented as a final rejection. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites, “the filtering media contained within the frame, the filtering media further comprising a microporous polymeric matrix,” but claim 9 recites, “wherein the frame further comprises a removable cartridge or a plurality of removable cartridges containing the porous polymeric matrix, wherein each cartridge is detachably connected to the supporting frame.” Referring to the disclosure, an example of a supporting frame 12 is shown containing the porous polymer matrix 24 in a filter article 10 (Fig. 1; [0018]), but discussion of a removable cartridge containing the porous polymeric matrix is not related to this embodiment ([0020]). The cartridge of claim 9 will be interpreted to be a component of the frame of claim 1, so that a frame can be considered to contain the media/matrix if the frame is interpreted as including a cartridge that contains the media/matrix.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunzinger (WO2020102259A1) in view of Snapp-Leo et al. (US 2023/0201800 A1).
Grunzinger discloses a process of removing an undesired compound or material from a fluid stream comprising passing a gas stream with the undesired compound through an article (i.e., a filter article) (claim 24) comprising a porous polymeric matrix and a plurality of a sorption particles (claim 1), so that the gas stream with a first level of undesired material (p. 18, lines 27-28) becomes an altered gas stream with a second level of undesired material, the second level of undesired material being less than the first level of undesired material (p. 18, lines 30-32) (i.e., use of a filter article to remove contaminants from a gas or fluid stream comprising the steps of: directing a contaminated gas or fluid stream a stream containing a first concentration of contaminants into contact with the filter article, contacting the contaminated stream with the filtering article for a period of time to result in a modified stream, wherein the modified stream comprises a second concentration of contaminants, wherein the second concentration of contaminants is less than the first concentration of contaminants; a filter article comprising . . . a filtering media; noting that “passing a gas stream . . . through an article” implicitly teaches contacting the article for a period of time),
wherein the matrix comprises a polyvinylchloride or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride polymer (p. 16, lines 6-7) with a nominal pore size that is 100 microns or less (i.e., the filtering media further comprising a microporous polymeric matrix comprising a polyvinyl chloride or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride polymer) and a nominal channel size that is 100 microns or less (p. 16, lines 26-31) (i.e., wherein the microporous polymeric matrix comprises a pore and a channel nominal size of about 100 microns to about 1 nm, noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)));
wherein the matrix is a bicontinuous phase structure that is isotropic in both the vertical direction and the horizontal directions (p. 5, lines 14-15) (i.e., wherein the microporous polymeric matrix comprises an isotropic bicontinuous phase channel structure).
However, Grunzinger does not explicitly disclose a filter article comprising a supporting frame, the filtering media contained within the frame.
Snapp-Leo discloses a method of removing airborne pathogens ([0009]) comprising flowing air through a cartridge 50 of an air filter mask comprising air filter material 1 (Fig. 5C; [0068]) to retain the airborne pathogens (claim 54) (i.e., use of a filter article to remove contaminants from a fluid), the cartridge 50 comprising a lower portion 51 and an upper portion 52 that can be connected together to form an internal space ([0068]) (i.e., the filter article comprising a supporting frame) holding air filtration material 1 (Fig. 5C) (i.e., the filtering media contained within the frame). Snapp-Leo teaches that filter material can be placed in a cartridge or supporting material to form a filter medium ([0007]).
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 article of Grunzinger by providing a filter article comprising a supporting frame, the filtering media contained within the frame as taught by Snapp-Leo because filter material can be placed in a cartridge or supporting material to form a filter medium (Snapp-Leo, [0007]).
Claims 2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunzinger in view of Snapp-Leo.
Regarding claim 2, Grunzinger discloses an article (claim 24) comprising a porous polymeric matrix and a plurality of a sorption particles (claim 1) (i.e., a filter article comprising a filtering media)
wherein the matrix comprises a polyvinylchloride or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride polymer (p. 16, lines 6-7) with a nominal pore size that is 100 microns or less (p. 16, lines 26-27) (i.e., the filtering media further comprising a microporous polymeric matrix wherein the microporous polymeric matrix comprising a polyvinyl chloride or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride polymer),
wherein the matrix is a bicontinuous phase structure that is isotropic in both the vertical direction and the horizontal directions (p. 5, lines 14-15) (i.e., wherein the microporous polymeric matrix comprises an isotropic bicontinuous phase channel structure) with a nominal channel size that is 100 microns or less, along with the nominal pore size that is 100 microns or less (p. 16, lines 26-31) (i.e., with a pore and a channel nominal size of about 100 microns to about 1 nm, noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I))).
However, Grunzinger does not explicitly disclose a filter article comprising a supporting frame, the filtering media contained within the frame.
Snapp-Leo discloses a method of removing airborne pathogens ([0009]) comprising flowing air through a cartridge 50 of an air filter mask comprising air filter material 1 (Fig. 5C; [0068]) to retain the airborne pathogens (claim 54) (i.e., use of a filter article to remove contaminants from a fluid), the cartridge 50 comprising a lower portion 51 and an upper portion 52 that can be connected together to form an internal space ([0068]) (i.e., the filter article comprising a supporting frame) holding air filtration material 1 (Fig. 5C) (i.e., the filtering media contained within the frame). Snapp-Leo teaches that filter material can be placed in a cartridge or supporting material to form a filter medium ([0007]).
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 article of Grunzinger by providing a filter article comprising a supporting frame, the filtering media contained within the frame as taught by Snapp-Leo because filter material can be placed in a cartridge or supporting material to form a filter medium (Snapp-Leo, [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Grunzinger teaches that the article includes a sorption particle present in an amount of 100 PHR or less with respect to the PVC polymer (p. 8, lines 35-36), or between 10 and 40 PHR of the polyvinyl chloride or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride polymer (p. 2, lines 28-31) (i.e., wherein the microporous polymeric matrix further comprises a sorption particle in an amount of 100 PHR or less with respect to the polyvinyl chloride or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride polymer; noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I))).
Regarding claim 6, Grunzinger teaches that the average particle size of the sorption particle is between about 100 microns to about 10 nanometers (p. 8, lines 22-23) (i.e., wherein the average particle size of the sorption particle is between about 100 microns to about 10 nanometers).
Regarding claim 7, Grunzinger teaches an example (p. 10, line 36) that can be provided in pellet form (p. 19, lines 13-15) (i.e., wherein the filtering media comprises a pellet).
Grunzinger in view of Snapp-Leo does not explicitly disclose a plurality of pellets, or that the plurality of pellets forms a pellet bed comprising a height.
Snapp-Leo discloses an embodiment (Fig. 5C) in which filter material can be in particulate form), and the cartridge containing the filter material is shown as having a height (Fig. 5C; [0069]).
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 article of Grunzinger in view of Snapp-Leo by providing filtering media comprising a plurality of pellets, the plurality of pellets forming a pellet bed comprising a height as taught by Snapp-Leo because (1) the filter article can be in pellet form (Grunzinger, p. 19, lines 13-15), and (2) a filter in particulate form can be placed in a cartridge to form a filter medium (Snapp-Leo, [0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Snapp-Leo discloses a cartridge with a volume and a face area (Fig. 5A), such that the face area is in close proximity to the particulate filter material (Snapp-Leo, Figs. 5A,C; [0069]) (i.e., wherein the frame comprises a volume and a face area, the face area is in proximity to the pellet bed).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunzinger in view of Snapp-Leo, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mulchi (US 4,064,876).
Snapp-Leo teaches that the cartridge 50 can be one of multiple cartridges that are combined with an adapter 68 for use in a face mask 60 (Fig. 6; [0070]) (i.e., wherein the frame further comprises a cartridge or a plurality of cartridges containing the porous polymeric matrix, wherein each cartridge is connected to the supporting frame).
However, Grunzinger in view of Snapp-Leo does not explicitly disclose removable cartridges, wherein each cartridge is detachably connected to the supporting frame.
Mulchi discloses a filter cartridge 2 and a receptacle 4 (i.e., a supporting frame) for its insertion and withdrawal (Figs. 1, 2; col. 4, lines 13-20).
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 article of Grunzinger in view of Snapp-Leo by providing removable cartridges, wherein each cartridge is detachably connected to the supporting frame as taught by Mulchi because a configuration in which a filter cartridge is inserted into and later withdrawn from a receptacle/supporting frame (Mulchi, Figs. 1, 2; col. 4, lines 13-20) allows for the replacement and disposal of filter cartridges (Mulchi, col. 1, lines 37-39).
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 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