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 second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, as amended 04 MAR. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows:
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 1 ln. 15: the phrase “material that can force“ is vague, indefinite and confusing as being unclear if this is a product or a method claim. The functional step of “can force” suggests a method step when this appears to be a product claim.
Cl. 1 ln. 15-16: “the gas diffusing through the space” is vague indefinite, and confusing having not been heretofore introduced. It is unclear which “gas” is being referred to here.
Cl. 1 ln. 17: recitation “the material comprises a chemically inert matrix that carries a reactive material that can react with the gas within the space” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if the “inert matrix” is claimed as “can react” or if the “reactive material” is being claimed as “can react”. Clarification is required.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-16 also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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),
wherein each gas-permeable wall member has openings therein that can permit passage of gas (see “transfer path 2” FIG. 1; this is recognized as being able to “permit passage” as least somewhat, as broadly claimed) through the respective gas-permeable wall member;
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 that can force the gas diffusing through the space to diffuse around the material in the space (see “bounds” as above identified; this is recognized as “a material that can force the gas to diffuse around the material” as broadly claimed because Lee acknowledges “a direction” because the gas is already flowing independently of the material),
wherein the material comprises a chemically inert matrix that carries a reactive material that can react with the gas (see “activated carbon” [0065]; this is recognized as teaching “can react” as broadly claimed) within the space, and
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 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 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 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 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 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 04 MAR. 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument (Page 6 of 10):
Neither Lee alone nor Lee in view of Nagaki, Nakagawa, and/or Jeanseau discloses or suggests the barrier assembly as recited in claim 1, including the space between opposing gas-permeable panels that forces diffusion around material and the plurality of openings configured to reduce lateral and vertical spread of gas.
the Examiner submits functional step of “can force” suggests a method step when this appears to be a product claim, which renders these claims indefinite. Insofar as the structural limitations of the claimed “barrier assembly” Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Lee in view of Nagaki teaches the structural limitations of Cl. 1 and are thus considered to anticipate the intended use of “can force the gas diffusing through the space to diffuse around” as claimed and/or “forces diffusion around material and the plurality of openings configured to reduce lateral and vertical spread of gas” as argued. (note: The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself” (Product by Process 2113)).
As per Applicant’s supposition that (Page 6 of 10) “Lee does not disclose a passive barrier intended to protect people from escaped toxic and/or corrosive gas, a structure designed to contain, slow, and directionally limit gas spread, or a reactive material positioned in a space between opposing permeable walls” the Examiner submits one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Nagaki was relied upon to teach wall members.
As per the argument (Page 8):
Nakagawa treats indoor air rather than preventing the escape of toxic and/or corrosive gas or reducing lateral and vertical spread of gas.
the Examiner submits Nakagawa was relied upon to teach mesh, not a system.
:
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 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/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights