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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16, as originally filed 13 JUL. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
13 JUL. 26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10, and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US 20100180763 A1 In view of NAGAKI et al. JP 2003027605 A (Nagaki)
As per claim 1 the primary reference of Lee teaches a barrier assembly for protecting people from escaped gas, the barrier assembly comprising:
an inlet side (see left side of “transfer path 2” FIG. 1; the left side of FIG. 2 is recognized as an “inlet side” as broadly claimed; note arrow on right side of FIG. 1) facing, in operation, the escaped gas,
wherein the escaped gas is toxic and/or corrosive (with regards to this “toxic and/or corrosive”, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987));
an outlet side (see right side of “transfer path 2” FIG. 1) opposite the inlet side;
a first gas-permeable wall member (filters 10, 20, left side, FIG. 1) on the inlet side;
a second gas-permeable wall member (filters 40, 50, right side, FIG. 1) on the outlet side (see right side of “transfer path 2” FIG. 1),
a space (volumetric bounds of the filter assembly 30, 36, FIG. 1-2) in the barrier assembly between opposing inner faces of the first gas-permeable wall member and the second gas-permeable wall member (see “deodorizing filter 30 may be prepared in such a manner that a starting material comprised of single component or multiple components” [0065]),
wherein the space (volumetric bounds of the filter assembly 30, 36, FIG. 1-2) is at least partially filled with a material disposed in the space and arranged to divert the escaped gas diffusing through the space around the material in the space from a straight path through the barrier assembly (see “bounds” as above identified; this is recognized as “a material disposed in the space” as broadly claimed would divert gas at least somewhat because Lee acknowledges “a direction” and the gas is already flowing independently of the material),
wherein the material comprises a chemically inert matrix that carries a reactive material, wherein the reactive material is configured to react (see “activated carbon” [0065]; this is recognized as teaching being capable —or “configured”— to “react” as broadly claimed) with the escaped gas within the space,
wherein the openings in the first gas-permeable wall member and the second gas-permeable wall member and the space are configured to maintain natural ventilation at the inlet side of the barrier assembly and to permit the escaped gas to diffuse through the barrier assembly from the inlet side to the outlet side (see FIG. 1-2; the cited members are recognized as being capable of maintaining “natural ventilation” at least somewhat because they necessarily allow some crosswise flow; i.e. they are not disclosed as being either completely obstructive or frictionless).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose:
a frame connecting the first gas-permeable wall member on a first side of the frame to the second gas-permeable wall member on a second side of the frame opposite the first side; and
wherein the first gas-permeable wall member and second gas-permeable wall member are panels that are connectable to the frame, and
each comprises a plurality of gas-permeable openings
to reduce lateral and vertical spread of the escaped gas
Nagaki teaches a frame for mounting the wall members, specifically:
a frame (see “frame” defined by first and second pillars 18, FIG. 7; note also FIG. 3 which details a hollow portion 7 receiving organic adsorbent 8 into opening 5) connecting the first gas-permeable wall member on a first side of the frame to the second gas-permeable wall member on a second side of the frame opposite the first side (see FIG. 7; this teaches a practical application of the assembly of Lee between an inlet and outlet opening 5, 5); and
wherein the first gas-permeable wall member and second gas-permeable wall member are panels (“organic matter adsorbent (8) is removably inserted into the hollow portion” Cl. 3) that are connectable to the frame, and
each comprises a plurality of gas-permeable openings to reduce lateral and vertical spread of the escaped gas (see “clean air flows out from the air conducting portion 3 through the opening 5” this is recognized as “reduce…spread” as broadly claimed because the air which flows out is at least somewhat reduced by the cited filter members).
the air which flows out is at least somewhat reduced by the filter members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lee by including the mounting frame as taught by Nagaki in order to use the barrier assembly in a frame between a gaseous area and a protected area.
As per claim 3 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Nagaki further discloses a base (bottom of pillars 18, FIG. 7)
wherein the first gas-permeable wall member (see “porous portion 4” FIG. 7) extends vertically from the base and in a direction that is perpendicular with respect to a ground. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lee in view of Nagaki by including the base as taught by Nagaki in order to support the assembly above the ground to conserve lateral space, allowing a vehicle to transit nearby.
As per claim 5 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 4, and Lee further discloses wherein the material is a particulate material (see “zeolite” [0065]) forming a particulate bed in at least a portion of the space (volumetric bounds of the filter 30, 36, FIG. 1-2).
As per claim 7 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the material can adsorb or absorb the escaped gas (see “deodorizing filter 30” [0065]; this is recognized as teaching the filter can at least “adsorb or absorb” the gaseous substances which flow therethrough; note “purifying and treating particulate substances contained in introduced air” [0025]).
As per claim 8 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the material comprises a ceramic material.
In a further development Nagaki the use of a ceramic material for the purposes of the combined assembly, specifically:
wherein the material comprises a ceramic material (see “FIG. 10 is a view… a porous portion 4 coated with ceramics”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lee in view of Nagaki by including the ceramic material in the flow path as taught by Nagaki in order to add a durable, heat-resistant filter material, thereby improving the performance of the assembly as a whole.
As per claim 10 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Lee further discloses further comprising a flow path (see ““transfer path 2” FIG. 1”) permitting the escaped gas to flow from an inlet on the inlet side to an outlet on the outlet side.
As per claim 16 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Lee teaches a reactive component (see “activated carbon” [0065]; this is recognized as teaching “reactive” as broadly claimed) Nagaki further discloses a safety system comprising: a first barrier assembly according to claim 1 (see left side, FIG. 18); and a second barrier assembly (right side, FIG. 18) according to claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lee in view of Nagaki by including the activated carbon in a first and second installation as taught by Nagaki in order to support the assembly above the ground to conserve lateral space, allowing a vehicle to transit nearby.
Claim 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nagaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NAKAGAWA FUMIHIRO et al. JP 2002001049 A (Nakagawa).
As per claim 11-12 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 11) wherein the first gas-permeable wall member comprises a mesh; and
(Cl. 12) wherein the first gas-permeable wall member and the second gas-permeable wall member comprise a mesh.
Nakagawa teaches a mesh, specifically:
(Cl. 11) wherein the first gas-permeable wall member comprises a mesh (see “FIG. 11 shows a… gas-permeable tubular body (1) is formed of a mesh body”); and
(Cl. 12) wherein the first gas-permeable wall member and the second gas-permeable wall member comprise a mesh (see “FIG. 11 shows a… gas-permeable tubular body (1) is formed of a mesh body”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lee in view of Nagaki by including the mesh as taught by Nakagawa in order to filter out larger debris which might damage the porous members as is old and well known in the art of filtration.
Claim 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nagaki as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jeanseau et al. US 6190431 B1 (Jeanseau).
As per claim 14-15 Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Lee teaches the ability to include a reactive composition (see “activated carbon” [0065]) but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 14) the first barrier assembly incorporates a reactive composition in the space, and wherein the second barrier assembly does not include a reactive composition in the space; and
(Cl. 15) the first barrier assembly and the second barrier assembly incorporate a reactive composition in the space.
Jeanseau teaches an obvious ability to file tune an amount of filtration to an area, which necessarily anticipates adding and subtracting a reactive composition to meet a desired level of filtering, specifically:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lee in view of Nagaki by including the filter and blank units or “sealed to each other” filter units to meet the needs of the room as taught by Jeanseau in order to precisely tune the filtration of the rooms as needed, and because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 JUL. 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument (“Page 6 of 8’”):
Critically, Lee relies on an air transfer unit to blow air that causes air to be discharged through the air cleaner.
Thus, Lee's filter path is not configured to maintain natural ventilation at a leak-facing inlet side while permitting escaped gas to diffuse through a barrier assembly from an inlet side to an outlet side.
the Examiner submits a structure with inlet and outlet openings, namely those taught by the references of record, would exhibit at least some natural ventilation. Further such a structure would allow at least some “gas to diffuse” as broadly claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s supposition that (Page 6 of 8) “Lee uses a blower-driven air-cleaner architecture to move air through filter components” the Examiner submits such architecture wouldn’t inhibit the ability of the structure to maintain at least some natural ventilation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
/JJS/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
