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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 10 is 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 10 recites the limitations "the first frame portion" & “the second frame portion” in line 1 & line 1 to line 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je (Document Identification No. WO 2018/199579) provided in the Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
It is first noted that the English Translation of Document Identification No. WO 2018/199579) to Je will be referenced herein.
Concerning claims 1 & 13, Je discloses a system including:
An antimicrobial mesh (2) having at least a partially corrugated structure (page 4, lines 5-30; Figure 6); and
A filter (1) configured to be received at least partially within a frame (page 4, lines 4-30) as shown in Figure 6.
Je does not appear to specifically disclose that the embodiment of Figure 6 is provided with a frame however. Nonetheless, in Figures 1, 4 & 5, the reference discloses the antimicrobial mesh (2), and a frame configured to at least partially receive a filter (1) such that at least a portion of fluid flow through the filter interacts with the anti-microbial mesh (page 4, line 36 to page 5, line 17). Je discloses that the frame is provided in order to offer structural support for said mesh and said filter (page 4, lines 11-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a frame comprising the corrugated anti-microbial mesh and the filter in the embodiment of Figure 6 of Je, in which the frame is configured to at least partially receive said filter such that a portion of fluid flow through the filter interacts with the mesh in order to offer structural support for said mesh and said filter as shown in the embodiments of Figures 1, 4 & 5 of Je.
As such, claims 1 & 13 are not patentable over Je (herein referred to as modified Je).
Concerning claims 2-6, Je continues to disclose that the anti-microbial mesh is constructed at least partially of a copper-containing material including a mesh consisting essential of copper metal; and/or that said mesh is constructed at least partially of a copper-containing material including a mesh constructed at least partially from a copper alloy (page 4, lines 11-15).
Regarding claims 8 & 9, modified Je continues to disclose that the frame includes a frame portion (1a) defining a recess configured to at least partially receive the filter (1) as shown in figures 4 & 5; and that said frame includes a first frame portion (1a) at top, and a second frame portion (1a) at bottom.
With respect to claim 11, modified Je also discloses that the frame includes a rectilinear frame supporting a substantially planar anti-microbial mesh (2) as shown in Figures 1-5.
Concerning claim 12, while Je discloses that the frame and mesh are rectilinear (Figure 1), the reference does not appear to disclose that the frame supports an at least partially cylindrical mesh. Nonetheless, In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F .2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Accordingly, the claimed dimensions and shapes of an at least partially cylindrical anti-microbial mesh and a frame to support said mesh are considered to be not patentably distinct from the disclosed Je device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Thus, claim 12 is not patentable over Je as well.
Regarding claims 14-16, Je discloses a system comprising:
An antimicrobial mesh (2) having an open area percentage (page 4, lines 5-30; Figures 1-3); and
A frame (10/1a & 1b) configured to at least partially receive a filter (1) such that at least a portion of fluid flow through the filter interacts with the anti-microbial mesh as shown in Figures 1-5 (page 4, line 11 to page 5, line 3).
Je does not appear to specifically disclose that the open area percentage is approximately 30% however. However, the Courts have held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). As such, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the open-area percentage of the anti-microbial mesh to approximately 30% is in to maximize the contact between said airflow and said mesh to create the greatest anti-bacterial effect while minimizing pressure loss for a particular application, as such is considered a result effective variable that would be optimized by one of ordinary skill through routine experimentation. Only the expected results would be attained.
Thus, claims 14-16 are not patentable over Je as well.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je (Document Identification No. WO 2018/199579) in view of Tharval et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0047978).
Je is relied upon as set forth above. Je does not appear to disclose that the anti-microbial mesh includes a substrate at least partially coated with an anti-microbial material. Tharval discloses a system that includes an anti-microbial mesh (14) and a filter (12) configured to be received within a frame (Figure 2) as set forth in paragraph 67 (See also paragraph 45). The reference continues to disclose that the anti-microbial mesh includes a substrate at least partially coated with an anti-microbial material in order to form a positively charged protective shield that inactivates bacterial cells on a substrate that also captures dust particles (paragraphs 45 & 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an anti-microbial mesh that includes a substrate at least partially coated with an anti-microbial material in the system of Je in order to form a positively charged protective shield that inactivates bacterial cells on a substrate that also captures dust particles as exemplified by Tharval.
As such, claim 7 is not patentable over Je in view of Tharval.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Je (Document Identification No. WO 2018/199579) in view of Grimes (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0207572).
Je is relied upon as set forth above. Je does not appear to disclose that the first frame portion defines a recess configured to at least partially receive both the filter and the second frame portion. Grimes discloses a system comprising a frame configured to receive a filter (16) as shown in Figures 1-5 (paragraphs 5-7). The reference continues to disclose a first frame portion (18/22) that defines a recess (Figure 5) configured to at least partially receive both the filter (16) and a second frame portion (10) in order to provide insulation and further support for said filter (paragraph 21). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a frame in Je with a first frame portion that defines a recess configured to at least partially receive both the filter and the second frame portion in order to provide insulation and further support for said filter as exemplified by Grimes.
Therefore, claim 10 is not patentable over Je in view of Grimes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights