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
The amendment filed December 17th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-14 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 1st, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed December 17th, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed December 17th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Patent Publication No. WO 2017/192441 A1 to Knight et al. (hereinafter referred to as Knight) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Knight does not teach the limitation of “an inner sealing surface arranged at the head side and running around a circumference delimiting the intermediate space at the head side.” (emphasis added) The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has provided a definition for the verb “delimiting” as:
“To establish the limits or boundaries of; demarcate.
To fix the limits of; to demarcate; to bound.”
(See Pg. 8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed December 17th, 2025) The Applicant asserts that the U-shaped channel of Knight does not establish the limits or boundaries of the intermediate space, demarcating the intermediate space. However, the Examiner believes that the U-shaped channel does sufficiently establish the limits or boundaries of the intermediate space. As can be seen in the annotated figures below, the U-shaped channel 126 as taught by Knight fully surrounds the intermediate space formed by first filter media 112 and second filter media 114.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
477
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As the entirety of the intermediate space is within the boundaries formed by the U-shaped channel 126, the U-shaped channel can be said to “establish the limits or boundaries of” as required by the term “delimiting.”
Applicant additionally argues that Knight does not “face in an outwardly direction at the head end away from at least two sorption bodies” as required by the amended claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The U-shaped channel 126 as taught by Knight is a three-dimensional object. As is such, the outward side of said channel faces in an outward direction away from the two sorption bodies, as required by claim 1 (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
463
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For the reasons stated above, the rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 1st, 2025 with respect to claims 1-3, 8-11, and 14 has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Patent Application No. WO 2017/192441 A1 to Knight et al. (hereinafter referred to as Knight).
Regarding claim 1, Knight teaches a sorption filter element for a sorption filter device (¶0002 “The present application relates to filter elements for use with filtration systems.”) the sorption filter element comprising: at least two sorption bodies with at least one sorbent (Fig. 2, first filter media 112 and second filter media 114), the at least two sorption bodies being arranged in a V-shape and enclosing an intermediate space that is open at a head side thereof (Fig. 2, first filter media 112 and second filter media 114 are arranged in a V-shape and enclose an intermediate space open towards air inlet 106); an outer sealing element running around an outer circumference of the head side (Fig. 17, seal member 124); and an inner sealing surface arranged at the head side and running around a circumference delimiting the intermediate space at the head side (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image4.png
684
975
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the inner sealing surface being axially set back relative to the outer sealing element (Fig. 17, U-shaped channel 126 is axially set back from seal member 124 and surrounds intermediate space formed by first filter media 112 and second filter media 114), the inner sealing surface facing in an outwardly direction away from the at least two sorption bodies (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image3.png
463
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and being arranged within the intermediate space (Fig. 17, U-shaped channel 126 establishes boundaries of the space between first filter 112 and second filter 114 and is therefore within said intermediate space), wherein the sorption filter element further comprises spaced face walls connecting the at least two sorption bodies to each other (Fig. 17, side walls 120 connect the first filter media 112 and the second filter media 114), wherein the inner sealing surface comprises at least partially a collar section of the spaced face walls, the collar section being drawn into the intermediate space at the head side of the filter element (Fig. 17-18 depict side walls 120 engaging with U-shaped channel 126 ; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
1479
1100
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Knight teaches the sorption filter element as applied to claim 1 above, wherein at least one of the spaced face walls comprises a guidance track configured to engage with a housing-sided guidance track for axially guiding the sorption filter element (¶0036 “In some arrangements, the housing also includes a side-support keyway 132 that supports the side of the filter element 110 within the housing 102 (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4). In such arrangements, the side-support keyway 132 is angled to match the V-shaped contour of the side walls 120 of the filter element 110.”).
Regarding claim 9, Knight teaches the sorption filter as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the outer sealing element and the inner sealing surface are rectangular (Fig. 5, seal member 124 and U-shaped channel 126 are both rectangular in shape).
Regarding claim 10, Knight teaches the sorption filter as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one sorbent is bulk material (¶0029 “The first filter media 112 and the second filter media 114 may be the same type of filter media or different filter media. In some arrangements, the first filter media 112 and the second filter media 114 are pleated filter blocks”).
Regarding claim 11, Knight teaches the sorption filter as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the sorption filter element further comprises a first sorbent and a second sorbent (¶0029 “The first filter media 112 and the second filter media 114 may be the same type of filter media or different filter media.”).
Regarding claim 14, Knight teaches a sorption filter device (Fig. 1) comprising: the sorption filter element as applied to claim 1 above; a housing comprising: a first housing part configured to receive the sorption filter element (Fig. 4, housing 102 receives filter element 110); a second housing part detachably connectable to the first housing part (Fig. 4, cover 104 ; ¶0028 “As shown best in FIGS. 2 through 4, a filter element 110 is removably received within the housing 102 and the cover 104.”), and configured to close the housing in a closed state thereof (¶0028 “The cover 104 is removably coupled to the housing 102.” ; when the cover 104 is coupled to the housing 102 it is in a “closed state”), the sorption filter element being received in the first housing part in such a way that the head side faces the second housing part (Fig. 4, head side of filter element 110, depicted by seal member 124, faces the cover 104); at least one first air inlet/outlet (Fig. 4, air inlet 106); and at least one second air inlet/outlet (Fig. 4, air outlet 108), the sorption filter element being arranged between the first air inlet/outlet and the second air inlet/outlet in a fluidic way (Fig. 3 depicts filter element 110 arranged between air inlet 106 and outlet 108), and at least one of the first air inlet/outlet and the second air inlet/outlet being provided at the second housing part (Fig. 4, air inlet 106 is part of cover 104); and an air guidance element arranged between the sorption filter element and the second housing part (Fig. 4 depicts an air guidance element, frame member 116, between the sorption filters and the housing cover, see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image6.png
589
789
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and configured to protrude into the intermediate space at the head side in a mounted state of the second housing part (Fig. 2, frame member 116 protrudes into the intermediate space between filter media 112 and 114 when mounted in cover 104).
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2015/0224434 A1 to Hedlund (hereinafter referred to as Hedlund).
Regarding claim 4, Knight teaches the sorption filter element as applied to claim 1 above. Knight does not teach wherein the sorption filter element further comprises at least two grid-like side walls, each of which neighbors at least one of the at least two sorption bodies and at least partially encloses the at least one sorbent.
However, Hedlund teaches a filter frame for receiving filter media (Abstract “The present invention relates to a filter frame for receiving a media pack) which comprises two sorption bodies being arranged in a V-shape (Fig. 1a, media pack 104 has individual filter panels arranged in a V-shape), spaced face walls (Fig. 1b, gable plates 112) and at least two grid-like side walls (Fig. 1b, backing nets 108), each of which neighbors at least one of the at least two sorption bodies and at least partially encloses the at least one sorbent (Fig. 1b, backing nets 108 each neighbors a sorption body and encloses said bodies). Hedlund further teaches wherein the grid-like side walls function to contain the filter media and to guide passing air in a preferred direction optimized for a low pressure drop (¶0022 “backing nets 108 containing the pleated sheet of filter media 106. Backing nets 108 are arranged to let air pass through the filter media 106, or even arranged to guide the passing air in a preferred direction and optimized for low pressure drop thereover.”).
Knight and Hedlund are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of V-shaped filtration elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sorption filter element as taught by Knight to further include the spaced face walls as taught by Hedlund to secure the filtration media in place and to guide the passing air in such a way to optimize the pressure drop across said filtration media.
Regarding claim 5, Knight and Hedlund teach the sorption filter element as applied to claim 4 above. Hedlund further teaches wherein the at least two grid-like side walls are covered with an air permeable material facing the at least one sorbent and holding back the at least one sorbent (¶0022 “backing nets 108 containing the pleated sheet of filter media 106. Backing nets 108 are arranged to let air pass through the filter media 106, or even arranged to guide the passing air in a preferred direction and optimized for low pressure drop thereover.”).
Regarding claim 6, Knight and Hedlund teach the sorption filter element as applied to claim 4 above. With the modification of Knight to include the grid-like side walls as taught by Hedlund, the spaced face walls and the at least two grid-like side walls would be formed integrally. This is supported by the integration of the spaced face walls of Hedlund, which are similar to the spaced face walls of Knight, with the grid-like side walls of Hedlund (Fig. 1b depicts this integration).
Regarding claim 7, Knight and Hedlund teach the sorption filter element as applied to claim 4 above. Knight further teaches wherein the sorption filter element further comprises a base body comprising at least the spaced face walls and the at least two grid-like side walls (Fig. 4, housing 102 receives filter element 110 which, in the combination of Knight and Hedlund, would comprise both the spaced face walls and the grid-like side walls), and each of the at least two sorption bodies is replaceably held at the base body (¶0028 “As shown best in FIGS. 2 through 4, a filter element 110 is removably received within the housing 102”), between the spaced face walls and neighboring at least one of the at least two grid-like side walls (Fig. 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2022/0008859 A1 to Gusek et al. (hereinafter referred to as Gusek).
Regarding claim 12, Knight teaches the sorption filter element as applied to claim 11 above. Knight further teaches wherein the sorption filter element further comprises a first sorbent and a second sorbent (¶0029 “The first filter media 112 and the second filter media 114 may be the same type of filter media or different filter media.”). Knight does not teach wherein the first sorbent is mixed with the second sorbent.
However, Gusek teaches an ambient air purifying device with a filter element (Fig. 1), wherein the filter element may comprise an antimicrobial and/or anti-allergenic layer atop the filter medium (¶0044 “According to yet another embodiment, the filter medium can comprise at least one further layer which is embodied as an antimicrobial and/or anti-allergenic layer that comprises at least one antimicrobial and/or anti-allergenic substance. By this measure, the ambient air quality can be improved in accordance with a further important aspect.”). An additional anti-allergenic substance may provide protection against allergens that may not be typically trapped by the filter medium (¶0046 “The anti-allergenic substance can render innocuous for the human body or its immune system, for example, finest pollen particles and other allergens that cannot always be retained completely by the filter medium.”).
Knight and Gusek are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter elements for use in filtration devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sorption filter element as taught by Knight to further include an antimicrobial or anti-allergenic substance as taught by Gusek to ensure even fine pollen particles and allergens are trapped within the filtration device. The filter element as taught by Knight may be combined with the anti-allergenic substance as taught by Gusek to comprise a single sorption body.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gusek and U.S. Patent Application No. US 2014/0331626 A1 to Nagy et al. (hereinafter referred to as Nagy).
Regarding claim 13, Knight teaches the sorption filter element as applied to claim 11 above, wherein the sorption filter element further comprises a first sorbent and a second sorbent (¶0029 “The first filter media 112 and the second filter media 114 may be the same type of filter media or different filter media.”). Knight does not teach wherein the sorption filter element further comprises an air permeable separating material configured to separate the first sorbent and the second sorbent into layers.
Gusek teaches an ambient air purifying device with a filter element (Fig. 1), wherein the filter element may comprise an antimicrobial and/or anti-allergenic layer atop the filter medium (¶0044 “According to yet another embodiment, the filter medium can comprise at least one further layer which is embodied as an antimicrobial and/or anti-allergenic layer that comprises at least one antimicrobial and/or anti-allergenic substance. By this measure, the ambient air quality can be improved in accordance with a further important aspect.”). An additional anti-allergenic substance may provide protection against allergens that may not be typically trapped by the filter medium (¶0046 “The anti-allergenic substance can render innocuous for the human body or its immune system, for example, finest pollen particles and other allergens that cannot always be retained completely by the filter medium.”).
Knight and Gusek are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter elements for use in filtration devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sorption filter element as taught by Knight to further include an antimicrobial or anti-allergenic substance as taught by Gusek to ensure even fine pollen particles and allergens are trapped within the filtration device. The filter element as taught by Knight may be combined with the anti-allergenic substance as taught by Gusek to comprise a single sorption body. Knight and Gusek do not teach wherein the sorption filter element further comprises an air permeable separating material configured to separate the first sorbent and the second sorbent into layers.
However, Nagy teaches a multi-layered filtration media (Fig. 1) that contains a spacer layer positioned between the main filtration layers that reduces shear forces and promotes better flow properties between layers (¶0036 “In some embodiments, the fourth layer may be a spacer layer. … A spacer layer may reduce shear forces, e.g., during a pleating process, and/or may promote better flow properties.”).
Knight, Gusek, and Nagy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filtration media. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the layers of sorbent as taught by Knight and Gusek may be modified to further include the spacer layer as taught by Nagy in order to reduce shear forces between layers and promote better flow properties throughout the filter layers, allowing for the addition of an antimicrobial or anti-allergenic layer as taught by Gusek without compromising the flow qualities of the filtration media.
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights