DETAILED ACTION
This is the first action in response to US Patent Application No. 18/725,673, filed 28 June, 2024, as the National Stage Entry of International Application No. PCT/SK2021/000007, filed 30 December, 2021. The preliminary amendments filed 28 June, 2024, have been entered; all claims 1-10 are amended and have been fully considered.
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
Claims 1-10 are objected to for various reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 is objected to as failing to set forth the claimed invention in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” at least because the claim is not concise; see MPEP 608.01(m) and the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a). For example, claim 1 first describes “accordion-shaped arranged porous walls of filter paper sheet wherein it contains nanofibrillated cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse and/or nanocellulose” (claim 1, lines 14-16) and then reiterates “the filter paper sheet is folded accordion-shaped in the filter cartridge” (claim 1, lines 20-21). Thus, claim 1 effectively repeats limitations in an unconcise manner. Furthermore, the language and formatting of the claim impedes easy understanding of the core structural elements required by the claim, such that the clarity of the claim is lacking.
Claims 6 and 10 are objected to for at least the informalities indicated below.
Claim 6 at line 7 includes a period splitting the claim into two sentences; the claim should at least be adjusted at lines 6-7 to read “…below their solubility limittogether with the filter material which is folded…”.
Claim 10 is objected to because the phrase “wherein filtrated sheet it contains” at lines 4 of the claim should at least be adjusted to read “wherein
Claims 2-10 are further objected to because the claims fail to set forth the claimed invention in a “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” because the claims are not concise; see MPEP 608.01(m) and the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a). Particularly, claims 2-10 are dependent claims which recite multiple features which are already present in claim 1, the repeated recitations in dependent claims 2-10 not setting forth any further limitation on most of said features.
Specifically, independent claim 1 establishes that the claimed device includes… -“A nanofiltration device…for inactivation of air-filtered pathogens through a filter containing inorganic additives…on a cellulosic carrier with a flat base connected to the environment via a perforated base/pedestal with an interior space” (claim 1, lines 1-4);
-“accordion-shaped arranged porous walls of filter paper sheet wherein it contains nanofibrillated cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse and/or nanocellulose” (claim 1, lines 14-16) and “the filter paper sheet is folded accordion-shaped in the filter cartridge so that its surface is maximal and completely irradiated with UV-C radiation” (claim 1, lines 20-21); and
-“fan/fans is/are installed below and/or above the filter cartridge to provide a forced flow of air through the pores of the accordion-shaped folded filter sheet” (claim 1, final three lines).
Despite claim 1 already establishing the presence of these features, all of claims 2-9 include language indicating that the device is “for inactivation pathogens filtered from the air by means of inorganic additives on a cellulose carrier with the flat base connected with the surrounding environment via a base/pedestal” (e.g., claim 2, lines 1-4), that the device has “the filter material … folded accordion-shaped in the filter cartridge so that its surface is maximal and completely irradiated with UV-C radiation” (e.g., claim 2, lines 7-8), and that the device has “fan/fans … installed below and/or above the filter cartridge to provide a forced flow of air through the pores of the accordion shaped folded filter sheet” (e.g., claim 2, lines 9-10). These repeated limitations yield the claims needlessly unconcise. Dependent claims 2-10 should be adjusted such that the claims only includes the language required to clearly set forth a further limitation on the independent claim from which they depend. Particularly, the repeated limitations with respect to the flat base connecting to the environment via a base/pedestal, the shape of the filter, and the presence of the fan/fans should be removed from claims 2-10, and the claims reworked to emphasize the further limitations being set forth, which in the case of claims 2-10 [are intended to] relate to the particular combination of salts present in/on the filter.
In view of the various irregularities throughout the claims, a set of claim amendments is presented below (see claim interpretation and suggested amendment section) which is formulated to encompass substantially the same [intended] subject matter of the presently presented claims [as best understood] while more clearly setting forth the core structures of the independent claim and further limitations of the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, in accordance with the preliminary amendment filed 18 June, 2024, indicates that walls of a filter paper sheet contain “aluminum compounds AlPO4, Al(OH)3, Al2PO4SO4OH and chitosan added below their solubility limit” (claim 1, lines 16-18). Claim 1 (as amended) also recites “cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse”. The specification as originally filed does not discuss any of chitosan, cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse, or the aluminum compounds recited in claim 1. Also, no evidence was found that the parent application (PCT/SK2021/000007) as originally filed disclosed such subject matter. Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification at the time the application was filed.
Claims 2-10 incorporate subject matter not described in the originally filed specification by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, as presently presented, recites at lines 14-19: “…porous walls of filter paper sheet wherein it contains nanofibrillated cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse and/or nanocellulose, adjuvants – aluminum compounds AIPO4, AI(OH)3, (AI)2PO4SO40H and chitosan added below their solubility limit and nitrate salts Cu(N03)2, Zn(N03)2, Ca(N03)2 and Mg(N03)2 or other soluble salts of Cu, Zn, Ca and Mg in concentration below their solubility limit” (emphasis added). This limitation is directed toward a core compositional limitation of the claim, but poorly conveys what the actual required composition is. Particularly, it is not clear if the dash after the term “adjuvants” is indicating that the adjuvant comprises the recited aluminum compounds and chitosan, if the term “adjuvants” comprises all of the aluminum compounds, chitosan, and the nitrates or other salts of copper, zinc, calcium, and magnesium, or if the term “adjuvants” refers to a distinct component from the aluminum compounds, chitosan, and metal salts. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted such that the recited aluminum compounds and chitosan are the claimed adjuvants.
Also, the limitation as presently presented requires all of aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide, Aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, chitosan, a nitrate or salt of copper, a nitrate or salt of zinc, a nitrate or salt of calcium, and a nitrate or salt of magnesium. However, dependent claims 2-9 attempt to further limit claim 1 by defining the nitrates or soluble salts as being sub-combinations of the group of metals recited in claim 1 (e.g., claim 2 is for nitrates or salts of zinc, calcium, and magnesium; claim 3 is for nitrates or salts of copper, calcium, and magnesium). Since claim 1 already is written as requiring nitrates or salts for all of copper, zinc, calcium, and magnesium (because of the conjunction “and” at lines 18 and 19 of claim 1), claims 2-9 fail to be further limiting on claim 1 because claims 2-9 do not require an additional feature not already present in claim 1 (e.g., claim 8 requires the nitrate or soluble salts be of copper and magnesium, but claim 1 already requires nitrates or soluble salts of copper and magnesium).
Accordingly, claims 2-10 are not clear because they do not set forth a further limitation on independent claim 1. It would appear that claim 1 was likely intended to be constructed such that the claim requires a nitrate or soluble salt comprising “at least one of Cu(N03)2, Zn(N03)2, Ca(N03)2 and Mg(N03)2 or other soluble salts of Cu, Zn, Ca and Mg”.
Furthermore, various limitations throughout the claims lack proper antecedent basis, with some instances in claim 1 identified below:
-“the incoming airflow” (claim 1, line 10)
“the filter cartridge” (claim 1, liens 10-11)
-“the lower part” of the interior space (claim 1, line 11)
-“the air sucked in” (claim 1, line 12)
-“the openings” (claim 1, lines 12)
-“the lower part” of the device (claim 1, lines 12-13)
-“the centre” of “the cartridge” (claim 1, line 13).
Thus, claims 1-10 are further indefinite because of the antecedent basis issues identified above; in view of the numerous errors and abnormalities in the claim language, rewritten claims are suggested in the section below.
Claim Interpretation and Suggested Amendment
The claim language includes various abnormalities, not all of which could practically be enumerated above, which impede the clarity and conciseness of the claims. For purposes of examination with respect to the prior art, the claims have been afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language as presented, with the current phrasing generally taken literally (especially with respect to all of the aluminum compounds, chitosan, and all of the nitrate or salt compounds being required). However, where possible, the discussion of the claims with respect to the prior art below includes comments regarding the potential novelty or obviousness of the claims if amended to address the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues identified above and adjusted to encompass what is believed to be the intended scope of the claim.
Exemplary claims which address the issues raised above while encompassing what is believed to be the intended scope of the presented claims are included below for the applicant’s consideration; the exact claim amendments do not need to be implemented, but it is strongly encouraged that the claims be rewritten in a more standard form for US practice.
1. (Suggested Re-Write) A nanofiltration device for inactivation of pathogens, comprising:
a cylindrical or prismatic housing comprising a perforated pedestal base and walls formed of a material that is stable against the action of UV-C radiation, the walls and pedestal defining an interior space of the device;
a filter cartridge comprising a flat base and accordion-shaped porous walls formed of a filter paper sheet folded into an accordion shape, the filter cartridge arranged within the housing such that air which enters a lower portion of the interior space through perforations in the pedestal base is forced into a central portion of the filter cartridge before exiting the filter cartridge by passing through the accordion-shaped porous walls and into an upper part of the interior space;
an emitter of germicidal UV-C radiation in the form of a cylinder or a U tube, the emitter arranged parallel to a direction of airflow into the filter cartridge; and
at least one fan installed upstream or downstream of the filter cartridge configured to provide a forced flow of air through pores of the filter paper sheet;
wherein the filter paper sheet comprises:
a filter material comprising nanofibrillated cellulose or nanocellulose;
adjuvants; and
an inorganic additive comprising a nitrate salt or other soluble salt of at least one of Cu, Zn, Ca, and Mg.
2. (Suggested Re-Write) The nanofiltration device of claim 1, wherein the inorganic additive comprises a combination of nitrate salts comprising all of Zn(NO3)2, Ca(NO3)2, and MG(NO3)2, or a combination of other soluble salts comprising all of Zn, Ca, and Mg soluble salts.
3. (Suggested Re-Write) The nanofiltration device of claim 1, wherein the inorganic additive comprises a combination of nitrate salts comprising all of Cu(NO3)2, Ca(NO3)2, and MG(NO3)2, or a combination of other soluble salts comprising all of Cu, Ca, and Mg soluble salts.
It is suggested claims 4-10 are suggested to be rewritten in the same form as shown with respect to suggested claims 2-3 above, swapping out the recited combination of metal species to correspond to the present limitations of each claim.
Comparison to Prior Art (Allowable Subject Matter)
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art—Gilleland et al. (US 2010/0095844 A1, cited in the IDS filed 28 June, 2024)—teaches a filtration device (portable room air purifier—tittle) comprising a prismatic housing (air purifier 10 including upper and lower housings 12 and 14—[0032]; Figs. 1-3 show prismatic shape of housing) defining an interior space bounded by UV-C stable material (bottom wall 22, side walls 24, top 26—[0033]; side walls 24 and lower housing 14 define an interior air treatment space—[0034]; fairly implied walls are reasonably stable to UV light). A pedestal/base (bottom wall 22) of the housing includes perforations (intake vent or openings 30—[0033]), which allows air to enter a central portion (cylindrical air treatment space 48) of a filter cartridge (air filter 18—[0035]). A UV-C emitting germicidal lamp (16) tube ([0037]) having a cylindrical shape is arranged inside the central portion of the filter, arranged longitudinally in the interior space of the device parallel to the direction of the incoming airflow into the interior of the cartridge (see arrangement of lamp 16 in Fig. 2). A fan (20) is positioned downstream of the filter ([0040]), and functions so that air is drawn into the housing (14) through intake openings (30) and enters the center portion (48) of the filter, the air is subsequently forced through the walls of the filter (18), and the air then exits the housing via a top portion (12) thereof (see [0046]-[0048]). The filter (18) of Gilleland comprises an accordion shaped (pleated) filter material ([0013]), particularly comprising a pleated inner surface (42) coated with an activated carbon sorbent material (46) which faces the germicidal lamp ([0036]). The device of Gilleland functions to destroy airborne pathogens ([0025], [0051]); see said device in Fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the above, it is evident that Gilleland only meaningfully differs from the claimed device (as best understood) with respect to the material of the filter walls; that is, Gilleland does not teach the filter paper sheet of the accordion-shaped porous walls comprises nanofibrillated cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse and/or nanocellulose, adjuvants - aluminum compounds AIPO4, AI(OH)3, (AI)2PO4SO40H and chitosan added below their solubility limit and nitrate salts Cu(N03)2, Zn(N03)2, Ca(N03)2 and Mg(N03)2 or other soluble salts of Cu, Zn, Ca and Mg in concentration below their solubility limit.
As indicated above, these limitations as presented are interpreted as requiring all of: 1) nanofibrillated cellulose from corn-based distillery refuse or nanocellulose; 2) adjuvants comprising all of AIPO4, AI(OH)3, (AI)2PO4SO40H and chitosan added below their solubility limit; and 3) nitrate or other soluble salts of all of Cu, Zn, Ca, and Mg in concentration below their solubility limit.
With respect to the nanocellulose, Yu (CN 212214966 U, cited in the IDS filed 28 June,2024; see machine translation provided with this correspondence) teaches an air purifier filter element comprising an activated carbon layer, a nano cellulose filter layer, a silver sterilization layer, a photocatalyst layer, and a micron cellulose layer (abstract). Yu indicates the nano cellulose filter layer can effectively filter pollutant particles in the air while reducing air resistance and energy consumption, and that the material is environmentally friendly in that it is plant based ([0017]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gilleland such that nanocellulose is selected as a base filter material for the filter (18) of Gilleland for the benefit of effectively filtering pollutant particles using an environmentally friendly material while reducing air resistance and energy consumption (see Yu at [0017]).
With respect to various metal salts, Dutkiewicz et al. (US 2020/0254372), in the analogous art of air filtration media (abstract), teaches treating fibers with a polyvalent metal-containing compound ([0046]), including cellulose-based fibers ([0054]), wherein the polyvalent metal can include magnesium, calcium, copper, zinc, and aluminum, which are supplied to the fiber is supplied as an inorganic salt of the polyvalent metal, such as a nitrate, sulfate, hydroxide, or phosphate of the polyvalent metal ([0056]). The metal salt is capable of increasing the stability of a cellulose fiber in an alkaline environment ([0056]). The salt may be applied to a web of cellulose fibers as an aqueous solution ([0064]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Gilleland such that the cellulose material of the modified invention is treated with various combinations of soluble metal salts of calcium, cooper, zinc, and aluminum, for the benefit of improving the stability of the cellulose in alkaline environments (Dutkiewicz [0056]); such combinations include a combination comprising all of magnesium nitrate, calcium nitrate, copper nitrate, zinc nitrate, aluminum sulfate, and aluminum hydroxide, which would fairly be expected to provide increased cellulose stability based on the teachings of Dutkiewicz ([0056]).
With respect to, chitosan, Lagaron Cabello et al. (US 2021/0322907 A1), in the analogous art of multilayer filters with antimicrobial properties (title), teaches a multilayer filter ([0009]-[0013]) wherein any of an intermediate, inner, or outer layer may contain antimicrobial substances including chitosan, optionally in combination with a zinc compound, a copper compound, and an aluminum compound ([0021]-[0022]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate chitosan into the filter material of Gilleland for the benefit of increasing an antimicrobial effect thereof (consider Lagaron Cabello at [0021]-[0022].
It is noted that the claim indicates that the metal salts and chitosan are present below their solubility limit. It would appear the claim may be requiring that the components be fully dissolved within residual water present on the cellulose material of the filter. The cited prior art does not clearly convey such a characteristic; thus, amendments which clarify this aspect of the claim may further distinguish the claimed device form the cited prior art.
Also, no prior art was found which particularly suggested incorporating (AI)2PO4SO40H into a filter media, in combination with all the other required components of claim 1 as interpreted.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 1 as interpreted (i.e., wherein the filter comprises all of AIPO4, AI(OH)3, (AI)2PO4SO40H and chitosan added below their solubility limit, nitrate or other soluble salts of all of Cu, Zn, Ca, and Mg in concentration below their solubility limit) appears novel and non-obvious over the prior art, as best understood. Claims 2-10 incorporate such allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency.
However, the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 and general issues of clarity present in the claims as discussed above necessitate amendments which would be expected to alter the analysis of the claims over the prior art. Particularly, if the claimed adjuvants (AIPO4, AI(OH)3, (AI)2PO4SO40H and chitosan) are removed from the claim, the remaining limitations of the claims would be obvious as substantially outlined above. Also, defining the inorganic additive of claim 1 as comprising at least one of a copper, zinc, calcium, or magnesium salt (instead of a combination of all four) would further broaden the scope of the claims. Ultimately, a more definitive determination of obviousness or allowability will require further search and consideration of any future claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY C PILSBURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8054. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/BRADY C PILSBURY/Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
Prosecution Insights