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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 23 and 26 are 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “inert gas”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein said inert gas is N2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. C laim 26 recites the broad recitation “compressible structure is air permeable”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the compressible structure is an air permeable filter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 16-26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodwin (US20080118734A1) . Claim 1 : Goodwin teaches a method for plasma coating a compressible structure (Abstract teaches forming a coating with plasma on a substrate. [0054]-[0058] teaches that the substrate can be a multitude of different things, including air filtration means. Air filters are considered to be a compressible structure and [0056] teaches that the substrate can be different fibers, which are also compressible.) , comprising the steps of: compressing the compressible structure, thereby removing air from the compressible structure (Figure 1 shows the substrate being sent through the rollers 70-72. This would read upon the limitation of compressing the structure as the rollers would impart some compression as the substrate needs to be moved through the system.) ; coating the compressed structure according to the following steps: i) ionizing a plasma gas at a temperature of 150°C or lower, and at about atmospheric pressure, thereby creating a plasma ([0028]-[0030] teaches the plasma used is at atmospheric pressure and operates at a temperature between room temp 20C and 300C. This would read upon the limitations. [0051] teaches that the method can use PECVD process as well.) ; ii) introducing a precursor into said plasma, thereby obtaining a precursor- comprising plasma ([0026] teaches it uses one or more active material with the plasma to form the coating. [0063] teaches that the active material is used with the precursor so that it does not react with the plasma environment in order to incorporate active materials into the coating. [0101] teaches that the precursor solution is plasma treated when passing through the plasma region 60.) ; iii) exposing the compressed structure to said precursor-comprising plasma, thereby forming a coating onto surfaces of the structure (Figure 1 shows that the substrate is being exposed to the coating and [0101] teaches that the substate is coated with the plasma treated precursor solution.) . Claim 17 : Goodwin teaches the compressible structure is mechanically compressed (The rollers read upon this limitation.). Claim 18 : Goodwin teaches the compressed structure decompresses during exposure of the compressed structure to the precursor-comprising plasma (The substrate would be off of the roller and therefore the mechanical pressure of the roller would not apply at this point until the next roller.). Claim 19 : Goodwin teaches the precursor comprises a biological pathogen transfer inhibiting compound ([0063] teaches that the precursor includes active materials. [0033] teaches that it can be antibacterial material.) . Claim 20 : Goodwin teaches the biological pathogen transfer inhibiting compound is a biological pathogen inactivation compound, a biological pathogen immobilization compound and/or a biological pathogen proliferation decreasing compound ([0033] teaches antibiotic, antibacterial, antimicrobial etc.) . Claim 21 : Goodwin teaches the biological pathogen transfer inhibiting compound is a virucidal compound ([0031] teaches the active material can have anti microbial or quaternary ammonium compounds.) . Claim 22 : Goodwin teaches the precursor is or comprises citric acid or alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride ([0037] teaches that the active material can include benzalkonium chloride, which is alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride .). Claim 23 : Goodwin teaches said plasma gas comprises inert gas for at least 99 % by volume, and/or wherein said plasma gas comprises 02 for at most 1% by volume ([0079] teaches that the process gas used to generate plasma can be an inert gas with 99% noble gas and 1% oxidizing or reducing gas.). Claim 24 : Goodwin teaches the precursor is introduced in a plasma gas afterglow of said plasma (Figure 1 shows that the precursor is introduced in 74, which is a distance away from the gas inlet of 75. This is considered to read upon afterglow of the plasma.) . Claim 25 : Goodwin teaches the precursor is administered in the plasma as an aerosol ([0063] teaches precursor is introduced as an aerosol into plasma discharge. Figure 1 also shows the ultrasonic nozzle 74 introducing the atomized precursor.) . Claim 26 : Goodwin teaches the compressible structure is air-permeabl e ([0052]-[[0060] teaches that the substrate can be a multitude of different items such as fibers, membranes, clothing, air filtration means, of which are air permeable.) . Claim 30 : Goodwin teaches a compressible structure comprising a coating obtained using the method according to claim 16 (See abstract and rejection of claim 16.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin . Claim (s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin in view of Jung (US20130291736A1) . Rejection in view of Goodwin Claim 27 : Goodwin does not explicitly state the air permeability of the coated structure has decreased with respect to the air permeability of the uncoated structure for 20% or less. However Goodwin teaches in [0054]-[0056] that the substrate can be a multitude of different kinds of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention for the permeability to decrease when a coating is being applied on the structure as this is how a coating would work when applied to a substrate . As for the percentage, since this is 20% or less, it can be 0%. This percentage is also obvious as it can also change depending on what material is being used as the substrate. Claim 29 : Goodwin does not explicitly state the structure comprises a thickness of at least 1mm or wherein the structure comprises a thickness of at least 3 cm. However Goodwin teaches in [0054]-[0056] that the substrate can be a multitude of different kinds of products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal thickness depending on what type of substrate is being used. Rejection in view of Goodwin and Jung Claim 28: Goodwin does not explicitly state the compressed structure is exposed to said precursor-comprising plasma from at least two sides simultaneously. Goodwin shows in figure 1 only a single side being coated. Jung teaches a similar device that coats an antimicrobial filter on both sides. Jung [0047] teaches that applying the coating to both sides allows it to enhance the filtration properties of the filter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to coat the substrate on both sides as certain filters require a coating on both sides to function. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20200171244, 20190287791, 20180286669, 20140186544, 20140170410, 20110186537, 20060177599, 6169127 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8171 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri; 9-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /P.Y.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776 04/01/2026