Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/557,451

AN AIR TREATMENT ELEMENT, AN AIR TREATMENT UNIT AND A METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE AIR TREATMENT ELEMENT

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
JONES, CHRISTOPHER P
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Munters Europe Aktiebolag
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
1023 granted / 1346 resolved
+11.0% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1385
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1346 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1, 2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keefer USPA 2002/0142208 A1. Regarding claims 1 and 12, Keefer discloses an air treatment unit comprising an air treatment element for an air treatment unit (figure 1; paragraphs 47-50), the air treatment element comprising: a drum shaped rotor element (figure 1: 4; paragraph 44), provided with a rotational axis (figure 1); a first end surface of the rotor element having a first normal, which is parallel to the rotational axis (see figure 1: one end of rotor); a second end surface of the rotor element having a second normal, which is parallel to the rotational axis (see figure 1: 2nd end of rotor); and a plurality of channels, which are disposed parallel to the rotational axis (figure 2: channels between sheets 23), and which channels extend continuous from the first end surface to the second end surface of the rotor element (figures 1 and 2: channels between sheets 23) and the channels are not interrupted by seams in their extension from the first end surface to the second end surface of the rotor element (figure 2; paragraph 47: nothing indicates that there are seams in the channels; in fact, since the channels are formed by sheets, it does not appear that there would be seams; even if there were seams in the sheets, they would not interrupt the channels); and at least one air treatment substance arranged on walls of the continuous channels (paragraph 48), wherein the content of the at least one air treatment substance is arranged to increase or decrease in a direction from the first end surface to the second end surface (paragraph 48). Regarding claim 2, Keefer discloses that the increase or decrease of the content of the at least one air treatment substance is a linearly increase or decrease (paragraph 48: “gradient” implies linear). Regarding claim 4, Keefer discloses that the at least one air treatment substance comprises: a first air treatment substance and a second air treatment substance (paragraph 48). Regarding claim 5, Keefer discloses that the first air treatment substance is a first desiccant material, configured for attracting and retaining water vapor from the air; and the second air treatment substance is a second desiccant material, different from the first desiccant material (paragraphs 48 and 49; claim 77). Regarding claim 6, Keefer discloses that the first air treatment substance is a first desiccant material, configured for attracting and retaining water vapor from the air; and the second air treatment substance is a substance, configured for attracting and retaining carbon dioxide from the air (paragraphs 49 and 50). Regarding claim 7, Keefer discloses that the air treatment substance is either activated carbon or zeolite (paragraph 30). Activated carbons are well-known to be capable of capturing VOCs; therefore, the air treatment substance of Keefer is capable of attracting and retaining VOCs from the air. Keefer discloses that the second air treatment substance is different from the first air treatment substance (paragraphs 48 and 49). Regarding claim 8, Keefer discloses that the first air treatment substance is arranged in a first section of the rotor element, which first section extends from the first end surface to a first plane in the rotor element having a third normal parallel to the rotational axis, and wherein the second air treatment substance is arranged in a second section of the rotor element, which second section extends from the first plane to the second end surface (paragraphs 48 and 49; figure 1). Regarding claim 9, Keefer discloses that a third section of the rotor element extends from the first plane to a second plane in the rotor element having a fourth normal parallel to the rotational axis, wherein the second plane is arranged between the first plane and the second end surface, and wherein the content of the first air treatment substance is arranged to decrease in a direction from the first plane to the second plane, and the content of the second air treatment substance is arranged to increase in a direction from the first plane to the second plane (paragraphs 48 and 49; figure 1). Regarding claim 10, Keefer discloses that the content of the first air treatment substance is arranged to decrease in a direction from the first end surface to the second end surface, and the second air treatment substance is arranged to increase in a direction from the first end surface to the second end surface (paragraph 48). Regarding claim 11, Keefer discloses that the content of the first air treatment substance is arranged to increase in a direction from the first end surface to the second end surface, and the second air treatment substance is arranged to decrease in a direction from the first end surface to the second end surface (paragraph 48). 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keefer USPA 2002/0142208 A1. Keefer is relied upon as above. Regarding claim 3, Keefer discloses a gradient of increase/decrease of the content of the at least one air treatment substance (paragraph 48), but does not disclose that the gradient is non-linear. Nevertheless, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the gradient be non-linear. Absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed gradient is significant, it is deemed to be an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Keefer does not disclose that “the channels are not interrupted by seams in their extension from the first end surface to the second end surface of the rotor element”. Applicant cites the present Specification which states that “[o]ne known approach…causes discontinuities of the channels through the rotor”. The Examiner does not find this persuasive for several reasons. First, there is nothing in Keefer that would demonstrate that this “one known approach” that “causes discontinuities” is being utilized by Keefer. Second, even if it is assumed that Keefer does utilize a method that “causes discontinuities”, such discontinuities are not deemed to be “seams”, as precluded by claim 1. A discontinuity does not imply a seam. Third, even if there were a “seam” it would not mean that the seams “interrupt” the channels, as precluded by claim 1. Since “interrupt” is not defined in the Specification, the Examiner interprets channels being “interrupted” as meaning the channels are being blocked in a significant way. There is nothing in Keefer that would appear to demonstrate that the channels of Keefer, made of sheets, are being “interrupted by seams”; therefore, the limitation is met. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F. 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. /CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 23, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599865
Sealing Interface, Air Dryer Cartridge and Air Treatment Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599869
GAS SEPARATION METHOD AND GAS SEPARATION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594519
METHODS FOR REGENERATING A FILTER MEDIUM AND CLEANING FLUE GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589354
ACIDIC GAS SEPARATION DEVICE, AIR PURIFIER, AIR CONDITIONER, AND ACIDIC GAS CONCENTRATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590284
SYSTEM FOR THE CAPTURE AND PURIFICATION OF CO2 AND PURIFICATION UNIT OF SAID SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1346 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month