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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6 – 12, 16 – 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0172812 to Ueda et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ueda) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0033665 to Smithies et al. (hereinafter referred to as Smithies).
In regard to claims 1, 16, and 17, as discussed in the abstract, Ueda discloses a biodegradable filter assembly. The biodegradable filter assembly of Ueda is capable of being used for an electrical appliance comprising a motor for generating an airflow through eh appliance. In use, the biodegradable filter assembly is capable of filtering particulate matter from the airflow. The biodegradable filter assembly includes a wrought fiber sheet that forms a filter medium. As discussed in paragraphs [0011], [0012], and [0022], the wrought fiber sheet forming the filter medium is formed of a bio-based polymer. As further discussed in the abstract, the biodegradable filter assembly includes a frame that is also biodegradable. As discussed in paragraphs [0020] and [0048], the frame can also be made from a bio-based polymer. Both the filter medium and frame are capable of being composted at the end of the filter assembly service life. As discussed in paragraph [0025], the filter medium can be a multi-layer structure having a first, fiber layer and a second, net layer, which are both formed by bio-based polymers. The net layer can be considered a membrane layer, as broadly recited in the claim.
Ueda does not disclose any of the layers of the multi-layer structure having an omniphobic coating. As discussed in page 5 lines 29 – 34 of the present application, an omniphobic coating can repel water and oil. Smithies also discloses a multilayer filter media. As discussed in paragraph [0029], the third layer can include a hydrophobic and/or oleophobic coating to protect the downstream layers form mist, fog, agglomerating dust, and hydrocarbons. A coating that is hydrophobic and oleophobic can be considered to be omniphobic.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda to form an omniphobic layer on the first fiber layer as suggested by Smithies in order to protect the further layers.
In regard to claim 3, Ueda does not specifically disclose using a plurality of multi-layer structures. The use of multiple filter layers is series is considered a mere duplication of parts. It is known to use multiple layers in series, such as to provide a depth filter effect. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda and Smithies to include a plurality of multi-layered structures as this represents a mere duplication of parts that provides a thicker filter medium which can provide a depth filtration effect.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, as further disclosed in paragraph [0025] of Ueda, the layers can be bonded together with a compostable chemical adhesive, or binder. Alternately, the layers can be thermally bonded together.
In regard to claim 8, Ueda is used as the primary reference. As discussed in paragraph [0028], the reinforcing member can be formed as a fiber sheet and can be considered an additional fiber layer.
In regard to claim 9, Ueda is used as the primary reference. As discussed in the examples in paragraph [0077] and [0079], the reinforcing member, which forms the additional fiber layer, can have a thickness that is large than the thickness of fiber sheet, which is formed by the multi-layer structure.
In regard to claim 10, Ueda is used as the primary reference. As discussed in paragraph [0032], the additional fiber layer formed by the reinforcing member and the multi-layer structure can be bonded together with a biodegradable, or compostable, adhesive, or chemical binder.
In regard to claim 11, the multi-layer structure in Ueda is a filter media. The additional fiber layer is a reinforcing member. Thus, the multi-layer structure is inherently configured to filter particles from the airflow having a relatively small particle size compared to those filtered by the additional fiber layer.
In regard to claim 12, the direction of flow does not affect the structure of the filter assembly. Thus, the additional fiber layer can be considered to be arranged upstream of the multi-layer structure.
In regard to claim 18, Ueda is used as the primary reference. As shown in figures 2 and 3, and discussed in paragraphs [0026] and [0027], the filter medium formed by the multi-layer structure can be formed into a pleated structure.
In regard to claim 19, Ueda is used as the primary reference. As discussed in paragraph [0052], an adhesive can be used for adhering the filter medium to the filter frame. The adhesive can also be formed by a biodegradable polymer.
In regard to claim 20, the biodegradable filter assembly of Ueda and Smithies includes all of the required structural features and can be considered to be part of an air purification system, as broadly recited in the claim.
In regard to claims 22 and 23, as discussed in paragraph [0001], the biodegradable filter assembly of Ueda can be used in equipment requiring energy saving, which inherently can be considered an electrical appliance. The appliance includes the biodegradable filter assembly and thus includes an air purification device.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda and Smithies as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ES 2765374 to Cabello et al. (hereinafter referred to as Cabello).
The combination of Ueda and Smithies is discussed above in section 3. Ueda is used as the primary reference. Ueda does not specifically disclose a further fiber layer to define a sandwich layer structure with a membrane sandwiched between the first and further fiber layers. Ueda also does not disclose a further membrane layer. Cabello discloses a multilayer filter medium having at least: an internal layer, an intermediate layer, and an outer layer. Cabello also discloses using polymers that make up the filter layers that are compostable and/or biodegradable. The intermediate layer can include one or more layers that are electrospun nanofiber layers. These layers can be considered membrane layers (see examples 1 – 8). Cabello discloses the filter medium being useful for respirators and filter masks.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda and Smithies to form the filter media with two outer fiber layers and two inner membrane layers as suggested by Cabello as this is a known filter layer arrangement and is known to be useful for respirators and/or filter masks.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda and Smithies as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of WO 2020/261034 to Schultz et al. (hereinafter referred to as Schultz).
The combination of Ueda and Smithies is discussed above in section 3. Ueda is used as the primary reference. As discussed in paragraph [0024], the a layer in the multi-layer fabric sheet of Ueda can be formed into an electret. Ueda notes that that method used is not critical. Ueda, however, does not disclose using an electrostatic enhancing additive. As discussed in the abstract and claim 1, Schutlz discloses a filter assembly with a filter medium that can be provided with an electrostatic enhancing additive to have an electrostatic charge.
Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda and Smithies to use a coating of an electrostatic enhancing additive on a surface of any of the layers as suggested by Schutlz as this is a known method in the art for forming a filter medium layer with an electrostatic charge.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda and Smithies as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0132681 to Chu (hereinafter referred to as Chu).
The combination of Ueda and Smithies is discussed above in section 3. Ueda is used as the primary reference. Ueda does not specifically disclose the air purification system the filter assembly is used in. Ueda does not disclose a further activated carbon filter arranged downstream of the multi-layer structure. The multi-layer structure of Ueda forms a particulate filter. Chu discloses an air cleaner (10), as shown in figures 1 and 2. As shown in figures 2 – 4, and discussed in paragraph [0041], Chu includes particulate filters (30, 40, 40’) and a downstream deodorizing filter (60, 60’). The deodorizing filter includes activated carbon and can adsorb odors.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda and Smithies to form an air purification system having the multi-layer structure and a downstream activated carbon filter as suggested by Chu in order to be able to further remove odors from the flow through the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejections under 35 USC 102. The examiner, however, respectfully disagrees that places claim 1 in condition for allowance. The examiner agrees that Smithies and Ptak were previously used to suggest hydrophobic and oleophobic coatings. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require an omniphobic coating. An omniphobic coating is considered to be a coating that can repel polar and non-polar liquids. Page 5 lines 29 – 34 of the present application describes an omniphobic coating to be able repel water (a polar liquid) and oil (a non-polar liquid). Applicant argues that Smithies and Ptak only teach hydrophobic or oleophobic coatings, and thus fail to disclose an omniphobic coating. As discussed in paragraph [0029] of Smithies, however, the coating is recited to be a hydrophobic and/or oleophobic coating. Therefore, Smithies discloses a coating that can be hydrophobic and oleophobic. While Smithies does not use the term omniphobic, a coating that is both hydrophobic and oleophobic is considered to be omniphobic. Therefore, the examiner maintains the combination of Ueda and Smithies discloses all of the features in amended claim 1 of the present application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights