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 § 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) 1-4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2021/0379559 A1) in view of Seino et al. (US 2021/0291142 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weston discloses a sorbent filter (modified metal organic framework (MOF) composition which can be used to remove Toxic Industrial Compounds (TICs) from various gaseous streams such as air, Abstract)), comprising: a first adsorbent layer comprising at least one of a metal organic framework (MOF) or activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029); and a second adsorbent layer positioned adjacent the first adsorbent layer and comprising an adsorbent material (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029).
Although Weston further teaches the use of water as a solvent (Paragraph 0040), Weston doesn’t explicitly state the adsorbent material with water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%.
However, Seino teaches a adsorbent filter (Abstract) comprising an adsorbent material being activated carbon (absorbent materials 1a, 1b are at least one of activated carbon, Paragraph 0073) wherein the absorbent material is in water in an amount by weight greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% (the water content of the activated carbon may be less than 8% weight, Paragraph 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the absorbent material (activated carbon) comprise water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%, as taught by Seino, as preparing activated carbon with a relatively low water content allows a stable formation of the absorbent agent (Paragraph 0089 of Seino) and maintaining a level of moisture to the activated carbon offers various benefits such as fire prevention, static and dust suppression, and optimal adsorption characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Weston further teaches wherein the first adsorbent layer comprises the MOF (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029), and wherein the MOF is one of zirconium-based or UiO-66 NH2-based (zirconium based MOF, Paragraph 0038). The Examiner notes that claim 1, from which claim 2 is dependent upon, recites “a first adsorbent layer comprising at least one of a metal organic framework (MOF) or activated carbon”, therefore claim 2 is further limiting an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Weston further teaches wherein the MOF further comprises at least one of zinc chloride, magnesium chloride, a polymeric binder, or water to define an impregnated MOF (the MOF is contacted with a solution of a metal salt, thereby impregnating the metal salt onto the MOF, the salts include magnesium chloride, zinc chloride, Paragraph 0043). The Examiner notes that claim 1, from which claim 3 is dependent upon, recites “a first adsorbent layer comprising at least one of a metal organic framework (MOF) or activated carbon”, therefore claim 2 is further limiting an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Weston further teaches wherein the impregnated MOF comprises zinc chloride (the MOF is contacted with a solution of a metal salt, thereby impregnating the metal salt onto the MOF, the salts include magnesium chloride, zinc chloride, Paragraph 0043). The Examiner notes that claim 1, from which claim 4 is dependent upon, recites “a first adsorbent layer comprising at least one of a metal organic framework (MOF) or activated carbon”, therefore claim 2 is further limiting an optional limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Weston further teaches further comprising a third adsorbent layer comprising at least one of activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two, therefore may comprise a third, active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029), copper carbonate hydroxide, zinc oxide, water, or copper oxide. The Examiner notes due to the presence of the term “or”, the remaining limitations are not required.
Regarding claim 17, Weston further teaches comprising: a housing at least partially defining a filtering facepiece respirator with an air flow path; and the sorbent filter of claim 1 disposed within the housing; wherein the air flow path is in a direction from one of the first adsorbent layer or the second adsorbent layer toward the other of the first adsorbent layer or the second adsorbent layer (the metal impregnated MOF filtering apparatus may be housed in rigid containers such as cartridges through which the air stream flows through both layers, wherein the cartridge is a part of a respiratory face mask, Paragraph 0052).
Claim(s) 5, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2021/0379559 A1) in view of Seino et al. (US 2021/0291142 A1) and in further view of Flaugher et al. (US 2018/0169616 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Weston in view of Seino teach the sorbent filter of claim 4, and although Weston further teaches the use of water as a solvent (Paragraph 0040), Weston doesn’t explicitly state the wherein the impregnated MOF comprises water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20%.
However, Flaugher teaches an adsorbent material (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a layer comprising metal organic framework (absorbent particles 12 may include a metal-organic framework material, Paragraph 0027) wherein the metal organic framework comprises water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20% (the metal-organic framework material may have a water weight of about 10%, therefore greater than 0% and less than 20%, Paragraph 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the MOF layer comprise water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20%, as taught by Flaugher, as preparing a MOF filtering layer with a level of water increases the filter’s hydrophilic affinity which may assist in filtering out volatile organic compounds.
Regarding claim 18, Weston discloses a sorbent filter (modified metal organic framework (MOF) composition which can be used to remove Toxic Industrial Compounds (TICs) from various gaseous streams such as air, Abstract), comprising: a first adsorbent layer comprising a metal organic framework (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029) and a second adsorbent layer positioned adjacent the first adsorbent layer and comprising activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, Paragraph 0029).
Although Weston further teaches the use of water as a solvent (Paragraph 0040), Weston doesn’t explicitly state the metal organic framework with water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20%; and the activated carbon with water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%.
Regarding the activated carbon layer, Seino teaches a adsorbent filter (Abstract) comprising an adsorbent material being activated carbon (absorbent materials 1a, 1b are at least one of activated carbon, Paragraph 0073) wherein the absorbent material is in water in an amount by weight greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% (the water content of the activated carbon may be less than 8% weight, Paragraph 0089).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the absorbent material (activated carbon) comprise water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%, as taught by Seino, as preparing activated carbon with a relatively low water content allows a stable formation of the absorbent agent (Paragraph 0089 of Seino) and maintaining a level of moisture to the activated carbon offers various benefits such as fire prevention, static and dust suppression, and optimal adsorption characteristics.
Regarding the layer comprising the metal organic framework (MOF), Flaugher teaches an adsorbent material (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a layer comprising metal organic framework (absorbent particles 12 may include a metal-organic framework material, Paragraph 0027) wherein the metal organic framework comprises water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20% (the metal-organic framework material may have a water weight of about 10%, therefore greater than 0% and less than 20%, Paragraph 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the MOF layer comprise water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20%, as taught by Flaugher, as preparing a MOF filtering layer with a level of water increases the filter’s hydrophilic affinity which may assist in filtering out volatile organic compounds.
Regarding claim 19, Weston further teaches wherein the MOF is one of zirconium-based or UiO-66 NH2-based (zirconium based MOF, Paragraph 0038), and further comprises at least one of zinc chloride (zinc chloride, Paragraph 0043), magnesium chloride (magnesium chloride, Paragraph 0043), or a polymeric binder (polymeric binders, Paragraph 0045).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2021/0379559 A1) in view of Seino et al. (US 2021/0291142 A1) and in further view of Flaugher et al. (US 2018/0169616 A1), Kim (KR 2021/0075555 A) and Holbrook et al. (US 2018/0001296 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Weston in view of Seino teach the sorbent filter of claim 3, with Weston further teaching wherein the impregnated MOF comprises: zinc chloride (zinc chloride, Paragraph 0043) and polymeric binder (organic binders such as polymers, Paragraph 0045); however Weston doesn’t explicitly state zinc chloride in an amount by weight greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10%; water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20%; and polymeric binder in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%.
Regarding the zinc chloride content amount, Kim teaches a metal organic framework adsorbent material (Abstract and Figure 1) wherein the impregnated MOF comprises zinc chloride in an amount of 10% by weight or less (content of zinc chloride is 5% wt, Page 7, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the zinc chloride in an amount of 10% or less, as taught by Kim, as providing zinc chloride in such a quantity is an effective and art-recognized means of increasing particle adsorption within the impregnated MOF.
Regarding the water content amount, Flaugher teaches an adsorbent material (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a layer comprising metal organic framework (absorbent particles 12 may include a metal-organic framework material, Paragraph 0027) wherein the metal organic framework comprises water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20% (the metal-organic framework material may have a water weight of about 10%, therefore greater than 0% and less than 20%, Paragraph 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the MOF layer comprise water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 20%, as taught by Flaugher, as preparing a MOF filtering layer with a level of water increases the filter’s hydrophilic affinity which may assist in filtering out volatile organic compounds.
Regarding the polymeric binder having an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%, Holbrook teaches an absorbent material comprising both a MOF (Paragraph 0074) and a polymeric binder weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (polymeric binders with a weight of 10%, Paragraph 0134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the polymeric binder have a weight of between 0 and 10%, as taught by Holbrook, as providing a sufficient amount/weight of polymeric binding to a filtering apparatus is an art-recognized means of adding structural integrity to the filtering apparatus.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2021/0379559 A1) in view of Seino et al. (US 2021/0291142 A1) and in further view of Holbrook et al. (US 2018/0001296 A1) and Peterson (US 9868107 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Weston in view of Seino teach the sorbent filter of claim 3, with Weston further teaching wherein the impregnated MOF comprises: UiO-66 NH2 (see paragraph 0014) and polymeric binder (organic binders such as polymers, Paragraph 0045) however doesn’t explicitly state the UiO-66 NH2 in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 80%, and less than or equal to 100%; or the polymeric binder in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%.
However, Peterson teaches a modified MOF material (Abstract) comprising UiO-66 NH2 in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 80 % (UiO-66 NH2 at a weight of 80%, Col. 8 and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by adding a sufficient quantity/amount of UiO-66 NH2 , as taught by Peterson, as providing a sufficient quantity of (UiO-66 NH2 to a MOF significantly enhances its chemical stability, adsorption capacity and hydrophilicity.
Regarding the polymeric binder having an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%, Holbrook teaches an absorbent material comprising both a MOF (Paragraph 0074) and a polymeric binder weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (polymeric binders with a weight of 10%, Paragraph 0134).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by having the polymeric binder have a weight of between 0 and 10%, as taught by Holbrook, as providing a sufficient amount/weight of polymeric binding to a filtering apparatus is an art-recognized means of adding structural integrity to the filtering apparatus.
Claims 8-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2021/0379559 A1) in view of Seino et al. (US 2021/0291142 A1) and in further view of Boehringer et al. (US 2016/0166970 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Weston in view of Seino teach the sorbent filter of claim 1, with Weston further teaching wherein the first adsorbent layer comprises: the activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029); however is silent on the layer comprising: copper II oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%; silver in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 1%; triethylenediamine in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%; and zinc oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%.
However, Boehringer teaches an adsorptive filtering unit intended for filtering air of biological and chemical substances (Abstract) wherein the absorbent layer comprises activated carbon (absorbent material comprises activated carbon, Paragraph 0039 and Figure 1), further comprising copper II oxide (adsorption material 1 may comprise copper, more particular copper II oxide, Paragraph 0073) in an amount by weight greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% (the first adsorbent material may comprise copper in an amount in the range of from 0.0001% by weight to 10% by weight, Paragraph 0064), silver in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 1% (first adsorbent material may comprise silver in an amount in the range of from 0.001% by weight to 1% by weight, Paragraph 0064), triethylenediamine in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (triethylenediamine should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraph 0079); and zinc oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (zinc oxides should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraphs 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by including, in addition to the already present activated carbon, copper II oxide, silver, triethylenediamine, and zinc oxide, into the absorbent material, as taught by Boehringer, these elements are art-recognized elements to further aid in optimal adsorption of a filtering unit containing activated carbon, with particular useful properties with regard to the filtering of poisonous agents (Paragraph 0073 of Boehringer).
Regarding claim 9, Weston further teaches wherein the adsorbent material of the second adsorbent layer comprises activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029), and water (water used as a solvent, Paragraph 0040), with Boehringer again teaching copper II oxide triethylenediamine, and at least one of molybdenum , silver, or zinc oxide (see Paragraph 0073 listing all of the recited elements).
Regarding claim 10, Boehringer further teaches wherein the adsorbent material of the second adsorbent layer comprises: activated carbon in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 60% and less than 100%; (activated carbon in an amount in the range of 15% to 100%, Paragraph 0130), copper II oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0% , and less than or equal to 10% (the first adsorbent material may comprise copper in an amount in the range of from 0.0001% by weight to 10% by weight, Paragraph 0064); molybdenum in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 5% (adsorbent material may comprise molybdenum in an amount in the range of from 0.0001% by weight to 6% by weight, Paragraph 0065); triethylenediamine in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 0%, and less than or equal to 15% (triethylenediamine should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraph 0079); and water in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (water moisture levels in range of 0.1 by weight to 10%, Paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 11, Boehringer further teaches wherein the adsorbent material of the second adsorbent layer comprises: activated carbon in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 60%, and less than 100% (activated carbon in an amount in the range of 15% to 100%, Paragraph 0130); copper II oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (the first adsorbent material may comprise copper in an amount in the range of from 0.0001% by weight to 10% by weight, Paragraph 0064); silver in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 5% (first adsorbent material may comprise silver in an amount in the range of from 0.001% by weight to 1% by weight, Paragraph 0064); triethylenediamine in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 0%, and less than or equal to 15% (triethylenediamine should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraph 0079); and water in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (water moisture levels in range of 0.1 by weight to 10%, Paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 12, Boehringer further teaches wherein the adsorbent material of the second adsorbent layer comprises: activated carbon in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 54%, and less than 100% (activated carbon in an amount in the range of 15% to 100%, Paragraph 0130); copper II oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (the first adsorbent material may comprise copper in an amount in the range of from 0.0001% by weight to 10% by weight, Paragraph 0064); silver in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 1% (first adsorbent material may comprise silver in an amount in the range of from 0.001% by weight to 1% by weight, Paragraph 0064); zinc oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (zinc oxides should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraphs 0078-0079).; triethylenediamine in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 15% (triethylenediamine should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraph 0079); and water in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (water moisture levels in range of 0.1 by weight to 10%, Paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 14, Weston in view of Seino teach the sorbent filter of claim 13, with Weston further teaching wherein the third adsorbent layer comprises: activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, therefore fully capable of having a third layer of activated carbon), however is silent on the activated carbon in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 60%, and less than 100%; copper carbonate hydroxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%; copper oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%; water in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%; and zinc oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10%.
However, Boehringer teaches an adsorptive filtering unit intended for filtering air of biological and chemical substances (Abstract) wherein the absorbent layer comprises activated carbon (absorbent material comprises activated carbon, Paragraph 0039 and Figure 1) in the amount but weight greater than 60 but less than 100% (activated carbon in an amount in the range of 15% to 100%, Paragraph 0130) further comprising copper carbonate hydroxide (adsorption material 1 may comprise copper, such as copper II carbonate, Paragraph 0073) in an amount by weight greater than 0% and less than or equal to 10% (the first adsorbent material may comprise copper in an amount in the range of from 0.0001% by weight to 10% by weight, Paragraph 0064), copper oxide (Paragraph 0076), water in an amount by weight greater than or equal to 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (water moisture levels in range of 0.1 by weight to 10%, Paragraph 0088). and zinc oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (zinc oxides should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraphs 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by including, in addition to the already present activated carbon, copper II oxide, silver, triethylenediamine, and zinc oxide, into the absorbent material, as taught by Boehringer, these elements are art-recognized elements to further aid in optimal adsorption of a filtering unit containing activated carbon, with particular useful properties with regard to the filtering of poisonous agents (Paragraph 0073 of Boehringer).
Regarding claim 15, Boehringer further teaches wherein the first adsorbent layer defines a first layer thickness, and the second adsorbent layer defines a second layer thickness greater than the first layer thickness (see layers 1 and 2 having differing thickness, with layer 1 having a greater thickness than layer 2, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Weston further teaches further comprising a third adsorbent layer positioned adjacent the second adsorbent layer and comprising at least one of activated carbon, copper carbonate hydroxide, or copper oxide, and defining a third layer thickness less than the second layer thickness (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, therefore fully capable of comprising a third layer of activated carbon with any thickness, Paragraph 0029).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weston et al. (US 2021/0379559 A1) in view of Seino et al. (US 2021/0291142 A1) and in further view of Flaugher et al. (US 2018/0169616 A1) and in further view of Boehringer et al. (US 2016/0166970 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Weston in view of Seino and Flaugher teach sorbent filter of claim 18, with Weston further teaching wherein the second adsorbent layer comprises activated carbon (the apparatus comprises an assembly of at least two active layers comprising a first layer comprising activated carbon, and a second layer comprising a modified MOF composition, Paragraph 0029); however is silent on, copper II oxide, triethylenediamine, water, and at least one of molybdenum, silver, or zinc oxide.
However, Boehringer teaches an adsorptive filtering unit intended for filtering air of biological and chemical substances (Abstract) wherein the absorbent layer comprises activated carbon (absorbent material 3comprises activated carbon, Paragraph 0039 and Figure 1), further comprising copper II oxide (adsorption material 1 may comprise copper, more particular copper II oxide, Paragraph 0073), silver in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 1% (first adsorbent material may comprise silver in an amount in the range of from 0.001% by weight to 1% by weight, Paragraph 0064), triethylenediamine in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (triethylenediamine should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraph 0079); and zinc oxide in an amount by weight greater than 0%, and less than or equal to 10% (zinc oxides should be in the range of from 1 to 20/0.5 to 18/0 to 15/0.1 to 10, especially in the range of from 3 to 15/1 to 15/0 to 12/1 to 8, and preferably about 5/0.05/5/2, Paragraphs 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Weston’s filtering device by including, in addition to the already present activated carbon, copper II oxide, silver, triethylenediamine, and zinc oxide, into the absorbent material, as taught by Boehringer, these elements are art-recognized elements to further aid in optimal adsorption of a filtering unit containing activated carbon, with particular useful properties with regard to the filtering of poisonous agents (Paragraph 0073 of Boehringer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al. (US 2020/0139342 A1) and Billingsley et al. (US 2016/0361679 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571)-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights