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 Objections
The preamble of “An air filter according to claim 22” in claims 23–37 and 39–41 should be “The [[An]] air filter according to claim 22”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 23, 29–33 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.
Claim 23 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “at least one additional filter medium” includes “said at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics”.
Claims 29–33 are indefinite because the limitation of “said filter medium” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 22–23, 26, 28, 32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krespi et al., US 2017/0157437 A1 (“Krespi”).
Regarding claim 22:
Krespi discloses an air filter (Krespi’s filter 14, Fig. 1, [0076]) comprising:
at least one filter medium (Krespi’s textile of the filter 14, Id.) including sonochemically-deposited at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics (Krespi discloses particles could be microparticle or nanoparticles that are embedded in a textiles via a sonochemical process, Krespi Fig. 1, [0077]);
said at least one filter medium (filter 14 of Krespi) being fixed within a mountable frame (Krespi’s body 12, Krespi Fig. 1, [0073]) associated with a mechanical air filtration system (Krespi’s nasil device 10 is a mechanical filter, because it filters air).
Regarding claim 23:
Krespi discloses an air filter according to claim 22, and further comprising:
at least one additional filter medium adhered to said at least one filter medium including said at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics (Krespi discloses its filter 14 could have one or more layers 32, 34, 36, and one or more layers oudl have microbial composition, Krespi Fig. 3, [0079]).
Regarding claim 26:
Krespi discloses an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said at least one filter medium comprises a non-woven polymer filter medium (Krespi [0079]).
Regarding claim 28:
Krespi discloses an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said at least one filter medium comprises a mesh (Krespi discloses its filter could be mesh, Krespi [0089]).
Regarding claim 32:
Krespi discloses an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said filter medium has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm (Krespi discloses its fitler has a thickness of 0.2 mm, falls within the claimed range, Krespi [0128]).
Regarding claim 37:
Noted here that this limitation is directed to product by process claim. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. MPEP 2113(I). Here, the recited steps are given patentable weight only insofar as it impacts the structure of the filter member.
Krespi discloses an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein depositing said at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics on said at least one filter medium comprises:
providing a roll of said at least one filter medium;
in a roll-to-roll manner, passing said at least one filter medium through a sonochemical bath for depositing therein said at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics; and
thereafter, drying said at least one filter medium, including said sonochemically- deposited said at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics (since the product-by-process claim produess the air filter as recited in claim 22, the structure limitation is met and the process associated with producing such structure does not limit the structure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 24–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi in view of Lang, US 2020/0376305 A1 (“Lang”).
Regarding claim 24:
It is noted that the limitation of “high-efficiency filter medium” is interpreted as MERV 14-16, HEPA or equivalent1, based on a google search since the applicant fails to provide a specific definition of the term.
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 23 and wherein said at least one additional filter medium comprises a high-efficiency filter medium.
In the analogous art of mechanical air filters comprising antiviral particles, Lang discloses its air filter could be a high efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA), Lang [0151]. It would have been obvious for Krespi’s filter medium to be a HEPA air filter for the purpose of improving filtration efficiency.
Regarding claim 25:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 23, further comprising:
a layer of carbon particles retained between said at least one additional filter medium and said at least one filter medium including said at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics.
In the analogous art of mechanical air filters comprising antiviral particles, Lang discloses that activated carbon could be included in the entire face mask to adsorb odor, Lang [0144]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include activated carbon in Krespi’s entire filter layer to adsorb odor. With such modification, there would be a layer of carbon particles (in Krespi’s layer 34), which is between said at lest one additional filter medium and at least one filter medium.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi in view of Tayebi, US 4,641,645 A (“Tayebi”).
Regarding claim 27:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, wherein said at least one filter medium comprises a non-woven polyester prefiltration mat.
However, Krespi discloses its filter can be nonwoven, Krespi [0076]. Krespi also teaches that the filter could be any suitable material that can be used to design a nasal device, Krespi [0078].
In the analogous art of air filters, Tayebi discloses a face mask comprising a non-woven polyester wet that serves as a pre-filter, Tayebi col. 4, ll. 48–49. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Tayebi’s nonwoven polyester in Krespi to serve as a prefilter because polyester is recognized in the art as being suitable as prefilter material.
Claims 29–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi in view of Wang et al., CN 113769481 A (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 29:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said filter medium has a distribution of not less than 0.5 g of said at least one of said nanoparticles and said microparticles per square meter of said filter medium.
In the analogous art of air filter comprising nanoparticles, Wang discloses a total loading amount of nano-fiber and the micro-nano-size particles is 3 to 30 g/m2, Wang p. 3. Wang discloses its invention improves filtration efficiency and reduce the pressure drop, Wnag p. 3. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing ofr Krespi to adopt the nanoparticle loading ad disclosed by Wang for the benefits disclosed. Such modification would provide Krespi with nanoparticle distribution overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed nanoparticle distribution range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 30:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said filter medium has a distribution of not less than 1 g of said at least one of said nanoparticles and said microparticles per square meter of said filter medium.
In the analogous art of air filter comprising nanoparticles, Wang discloses a total loading amount of nano-fiber and the micro-nano-size particles is 3 to 30 g/m2, Wang p. 3. Wang discloses its invention improves filtration efficiency and reduce the pressure drop, Wnag p. 3. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing ofr Krespi to adopt the nanoparticle loading ad disclosed by Wang for the benefits disclosed. Such modification would provide Krespi with nanoparticle distribution overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed nanoparticle distribution range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claims 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi.
Regarding claim 31:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said filter medium has a thickness of 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm.
However, Krespi discloses its filter could have a thickness of about 0.2 mm, and other dimensions can be used as recognized as those skilled in the art, Krespi [0128]. And since a thickness of 0.3 mm is merely close to the range disclosed by Krespi, a prima facie case of obviousness under MPEP § 2144.05 is established.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed thickness range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 33:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said filter medium has a thickness of2mm to 20 mm.
However, Krespi discloses its filter could have a thickness of about 0.2 mm, and other dimensions can be used as recognized as those skilled in the art, Krespi [0128]. It would have been a routine engineering choice to choose an optimum filter medium choice based on an application. MPEP 2144.04.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed thickness range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Claims 34–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi in view of Fu et al., US 2013/0025466 A1 (“Fu”).
Regarding claim 34:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said mountable frame comprises an injection-molded frame structure.
In the analogous art of air filters, Fu discloses an air filter frame 128 of filter medium 1130, Fu Fig. 2, [0048]. Fu discloses “injection molding” could be used to form the frame 128, Fu [0047]. Fu discloses injection molding is suitable for manufacturing a rigid form around a relatively flexible filter medium, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Krespi’s mountable frame to be formed by injection molding because injection molding are known in the art to form frame filter frame structure.
Regarding claim 35:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said mountable frame comprises strip-glued side walls.
In the analogous art of air filters, Fu discloses its frame 128 could be secured to the filter medium 130 by adhesive, Krespi Fig. 2, [0048]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Krespi’s mountable frame to use strip-glued side walls to connect Krespi’s frame to its filter medium because glue is known in the art to be suitable for such connection.
Claim 36 and 38–39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi in view of Jensen et al., US 2005/0133034 A1 (“Jensen”).
Regarding claim 36:
Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 22, and wherein said at least one filter medium comprises a pleated filter medium.
In the analogous art of filter covering nostrils, Jensen discloses its filter medium could be pleated, Jensen [0032]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Krespi’s filter medium to be pleated for an increase of filtration area and such design is recognized in nostril filtration as being suitable.
Regarding claim 38:
Krespi discloses an air filter (Krespi’s filter 14, Krespi Fig. 1, [0078]) comprising:
at least one filter medium including sonochemically-deposited at least one of nanoparticles having anti-microbial characteristics and microparticles having anti-microbial characteristics (Krespi discloses its filter medium 14 comprising nanoparticles or microparticles embedded via a sonochemical process, Krespi Fig. 1, [0077]).
Krespi does not disclose the filter medium is pleated.
In the analogous art of filter covering nostrils, Jensen discloses its filter medium could be pleated, Jensen [0032]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Krespi’s filter medium to be pleated for an increase of filtration area and such design is recognized in nostril filtration as being suitable.
Regarding claim 39:
Modified Krespi discloses an air filter according to claim 38, further comprising: a mountable frame (Krespi’s outer contour 20, Krespi Fig. 1, [0080]) associated with a mechanical air filtration system (Krespi’s filter 14 is a mechanical fitler), said at least one filter medium (14 of Krespi) being fixed within said mountable frame (see Fig. 1 of Krespi).
Claims 40–41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Krespi in view of Jensen as applied to claim 39 above, and in further view of Fu.
Regarding claim 40:
Modified Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 39, and wherein said mountable frame comprises an injection-molded frame structure.
In the analogous art of air filters, Fu discloses an air filter frame 128 of filter medium 1130, Fu Fig. 2, [0048]. Fu discloses “injection molding” could be used to form the frame 128, Fu [0047]. Fu discloses injection molding is suitable for manufacturing a rigid form around a relatively flexible filter medium, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Krespi’s mountable frame to be formed by injection molding because injection molding is known in the art to form frame filter frame structure.
Regarding claim 41:
Modified Krespi does not disclose an air filter according to claim 39, and wherein said mountable frame comprises strip-glued side walls.
In the analogous art of air filters, Fu discloses its frame 128 could be secured to the filter medium 130 by adhesive, Krespi Fig. 2, [0048]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Krespi’s mountable frame to use strip-glued side walls to connect Krespi’s frame to its filter medium because glue is known in the art to be suitable for such connection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (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.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
1 high-efficiency filter medium standard - Google Search
Prosecution Insights