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/Arguments
The Amendment filed 9/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 12-14 and 16-20 remain pending on the application.
Applicant argues:
Applicant hereby cancels claims 1-11, and submits the same arguments submitted in the previous response regarding claims 18-20. Claims 18-20 were properly submitted with amendments on June 3, 2026. The Office Action indicated that claims 18-20 did not appear on the claim set submitted on June 3, 2026, but this is incorrect. Please see the full document filed on June 3, 2026.
Due to a system error, the previous claims 18-20 were not considered in the previous Office Action. However, they are now considered.
Applicant argues that claim 18 is not taught by the prior art and relies on par. 42 of the Specification as support for claim 18. However, Examiner contends that claim 18 contains new matter not previously disclosed in the written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant cites support from par. 42 of the Specification. Par. 42 states “In one embodiment, the different cases can be attachable and detachable from each other, for example by using a set of grooves, clips, or other fasteners”. Par. 43 continues: “According to some embodiments, the chemical filter 10 includes the first buffer layer 100, the first filter layer 200 disposed on the first buffer layers 100, and the second filter layer 300 disposed on first filter layer 200, wherein the first filter layer 200 is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the second filter layer 300. For example, the second case receiving the second filter layer 300 may be stacked on top of the first case receiving the first filter layer 200, so that the first filter layer 200 and the second filter layer 300 may be attached to each other. The attachment and detachment may occur based on cases as discussed above, or based on the materials in the filters forming an adhesive connection at their interface (e.g., due to the carbon structure and nonwoven fabric structure of the materials that form the filter layers)”. These lines do not indicate that the grooves are specifically placed at a surface of the cases such that the surface faces a stacking direction of the filter layers. Instead, these lines recite that the filter cases can be stacked on top of each other in general, and that grooves can be used to attach them to each other, but do not recite what surface those grooves must be attached to and it is nebulous whether or not the cases can be stacked vertically such that the first and second filter layers meet at the edges rather than on their broad surfaces.
Claims 19-20 are rejected as dependent on claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed in view of Hitzke, Takano, Sergi, and Jang (KR 20190087071 A)
Regarding claim 12, Hitzke teaches a chemical filter comprising: a first filter layer having a cylindrical shape (par. 54: In one embodiment, the filter media body is formed as a wound body)
and including a pair of first air-permeable bodies (Fig. 1: textile support layer 20, textile support layer 22) and at least one first adsorption layer between the pair of first air-permeable bodies (Fig. 1: second active layer 14);
but does not teach and
at least one second filter layer surrounding the first filter layer, concentrically formed around the first filter layer, and including a pair of second air-permeable bodies and at least one second adsorption layer between the pair of second air-permeable bodies,
wherein the first filter layer is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the second filter layer.
Takano teaches a low cost filter structure using adsorption (abstract: To provide a thin parallel flow air filter capable of having performances required at a filter setting place in a low cost. SOLUTION: In a filter medium of the parallel flow air filter, the passing direction of air and the direction of cellular through-holes are almost parallel. The medium is composed of a filter functioning part and a spacer part, or a non-filter function part; pg. 1 par. 3: A conventional filter material for a parallel flow type air filter for removing a specific gaseous substance contained in air is a sheet-like material having a filter function for removing a specific gaseous substance by adsorption or decomposition). Takano teaches a multi-filter structure that can incorporate the filter composition of Hitzke into a more complete device for use (Fig. 1), wherein having multiple filters in conjunction would provide multiplied sterilization effect. Furthermore, Takano teaches having a spacer in between each filter in order to provide high filtering capacity in the same amount of space while cutting costs (pg. 2 par. 6: By doing so, it is possible to optimize the design by changing the composition ratio of the filter function filter material and the spacer filter material according to the installation location, and it is possible to reduce the cost). Takano teaches wherein the spacer has a hole (void) (pg. 3 par. 1: The spacer filter medium may be any one as long as it has a through hole and has air permeability).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Hitzke to be duplicated at least two times and stacked, with a spacer having a hole disposed on each filter, as taught by Takano, in order to have multiplied sterilizing effect while reducing costs. Since Takano teaches stacking filters on top of each other, this would result in the wound embodiment of Hitzke having more cylindrical filter layers surrounding the first filter layer.
One of the duplicated filters would read on a second filter layer surrounding the first filter layer and including a pair of second air- permeable bodies facing each other and at least one second adsorption layer between the pair of second air-permeable bodies since the duplicated filter has the same properties as the original filter of Hitze.
Hitzke modified by Takano still does not teach concentrically formed around the first filter layer.
However, Hitzke already teaches wherein the filter can be wound, which may produce a shape wherein the layers are concentric, if one end of the filter is wound to perfectly meet the other end.
Moreover, in the absence of any teaching to the contrary, the shape of the filter does not affect operation since they would still be capable of removing impurities so long as air goes through successive layers. Absent a showing of significance or unexpected results, the shape of the filter is prima facie obviousness and does not modify the operation of the invention and further, does not add patentable significance. MPEP 2144.04.B: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Accordingly, the claimed dimensions and shapes are considered to be not patentably distinct from the disclosed device of Hitzke modified by Takano.
Furthermore, Jang teaches a concentric filter with multiple layers (Title: Cylindrical Type Combination Filter And Filtering Method Using The Same; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Hitzke modified by Takano to be wound such that its ends meet to form a concentric filter, as taught by Jang, with a reasonable expectation that it would be just as capable of removing impurities from air.
Hitzke modified by Takano still does not teach wherein the first filter layer is configured to be attachable to and detachable from the second filter layer,
Hitzke already teaches wherein its filter is to be used in an interior space (par. 2: Filter media, in particular for air filters, in particular for interior air filters, are used to provide a space).
Sergi teaches an air filter for use in a clean room, which is an interior space (abstract: In another embodiment, an apparatus for removing contaminants from a gas in a clean room comprises a filter unit). Sergi provides a complete apparatus for this function rather than just a filter (Fig. 1).
Sergi also teaches stacking multiple filters (Fig. 4B), which would result in multiplied sterilization effect. Sergi teaches wherein the filters are attachable to another structure which allow detachment (pg. 14 par. 4: Filters 18A-C may also be equipped with retaining means 63 for holding filters 18A-C firmly in place. Retaining means 63 may be spring-loaded clasps, quarter-turn fasteners, screws , plastic/nylon friction fit retainers and the like) in order to facilitate easy replacement (pg. 25 par. 1: filter modules 18 are designed to be replaced when their ability to remove airborne contaminants has been diminished below a defined performance threshold.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter of Hitzke modified by Takano and Jang to not only be duplicated and stacked, but also be attached by detachable mechanisms, in order to have a multiplied sterilization effect while making it easy to replace filters. This modification overlaps with the duplication modification of Takano and there is independent motivations for both.
However, Hitzke modified by Takano, Jang, and Sergi still does not teach wherein the second filter layer includes a plurality of segments that together surround the first filter layer when attached to the first filter layer wherein the plurality of segments are configured to be attachable to and detachable from each other at interfaces between the segments.
While there is a prima facie case of obviousness for breaking down one part into discreet parts, it would not be obvious to make this modification in light of the fact that the second filter layer itself only exists because of the duplication of parts modification. In addition, given the duplication of parts modification and the Sergi modification for attachment/detachment of filter layers, this additional limitation presents enough novelty for the instant invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art.
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 are allowed as dependent on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGRU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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 on (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.
/C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights