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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, please delete the phrase “in particular” in line 2. For clarity, it is suggested that Applicant amend the claim to recite “ a surfactant solution, wherein the surfactant solution comprises a benzalkonium chloride solution.”
Claim 5, please delete “wherein one or more or all of the ribs of said plurality” in lines 1-2. For clarity, it is suggested that the Applicant amend the claim to recite “wherein one or more of the plurality of ribs…”
Claim 11, please delete the phrase “in particular” in line 2.
Claim 13, please add “the” before “inlet port” in line 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7 and 13-14 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 7 recites the limitation “the ribs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To cure this issue, it is suggested the Applicant amend the claim to recite “the plurality of ribs” as consistent with claim 4.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "[the] inlet port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 13 will be understood to be dependent on claim 2 which recites an inlet port.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a one-way valve fluidly coupled upstream to [the] inlet port.” It is unclear whether the valve is upstream of the inlet port or just coupled to the inlet port. For examination purposes, the valve will be interpreted as located upstream of the inlet port as recited in the specification [0022]. To cure this issue, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “a one-way valve fluidly coupled upstream to and located upstream of the inlet port.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the outlet port" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 14 will be understood to be dependent on claim 2 which recites an outlet port.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a filter fluidly coupled downstream to the outlet port.” It is unclear whether the valve is downstream of the outlet port or just coupled to the inlet port. For examination purposes, the filter will be interpreted as located downstream of the inlet port as recited in the specification [0022]. To cure this issue, it is recommended to amend the claim to recite “a filter fluidly coupled to and located downstream of the outlet port.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stoin (US 20230089967 A1) (eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 5/21/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Stoin teaches a device for removing virus particles in an air flow ([abstract], Figures. 2, 3a-3c, device 300 houses reactor 310, which is embodied in Figure 2., [0086]), wherein the device comprises:
- a tubular member having an inlet at a first end portion and a plurality of outlets at an outer lateral surface (Fig. 2, contaminated air enters tubular member 236 via inlet 224, and exits via a plurality of lateral outlets [0084-0086]);
- an envelope surrounding totally or partially the tubular member and containing virucidal liquid, wherein the envelope comprises a membrane being gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable (Fig. 2, tubular member 236 understood to be surrounded by a membrane [made of plastic] which releases contaminated gas into a virucidal reservoir 220 = understood to be gas permeable and liquid impermeable envelope ([0052], [0084-0086]),
the device being configured so that air enters through the inlet, flows in the tubular member, escapes through the outlets, diffuses in the virucidal liquid, and exits through the gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable membrane of the envelope [0084-0086], the tubular member being configured so that virucidal liquid cannot escape from the inlet (Fig. 2, contaminated air 242 is pressurized, which is understood to be capable of preventing liquid from escaping through inlet 224, [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1, comprising further:
- a casing having an inlet port for receiving the air flow before virus removal and an outlet port for sending the air flow after virus removal (Fig. 3c, purifier 300 houses reactor 310 which is embodied in Figure 2, which is understood to be a casing including an inlet port 224 and outlet port 232, [0086]), wherein the casing houses the tubular member and the envelope ([0086]); wherein the inlet port is fluidly coupled to the inlet (Fig. 2, inlet port 224 fluidly coupled to inlet of tubular member 236), and wherein the outlet port is fluidly coupled to the gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable membrane of the envelope (Fig. 2, outlet port 232 fluidly coupled to membrane 236 such that purified air exits through the outlet port [0084-0086]).
Regarding claim 8, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1 wherein the outlets are holes having an increasing size, depending on a distance from the inlet (outlets have increased sizes across membrane thickness [0052]).
Regarding claim 9, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1 wherein the gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable membrane is positioned so to face the outlets (Fig. 2, membrane 236 faces the outlets).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoin (US 20230089967 A1) (eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 5/21/2020) in view of Zhu (US 20170106333 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the virucidal liquid is a solution of sodium hydroxide solution [0006] but does not teach wherein the virucidal liquid is a surfactant solution, in particular a benzalkonium chloride solution.
One having ordinary skill in the art would contemplate other biocidal solutions capable of degrading pathogens in an air stream, motivating one to turn towards Zhu. Zhu teaches an apparatus for purifying air [abstract] that bubbles a contaminated air stream in a solution to remove pollutants [0126], wherein the solution may be a surfactant such as benzalkonium chloride which is optimal to kill microorganisms [0197].
Zhu is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purification apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sodium hydroxide virucidal solution as taught by Stoin with the benzalkonium chloride solution as taught by Zhu because Zhu teaches the benzalkonium chloride solution as optimal for killing microorganisms [0197] and this involves the substitution of elements (the sodium hydroxide solution of Stoin and the benzalkonium chloride solution of Zhu) to yield a predictable result (a disinfectant configured to remove contaminants from an air stream) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoin (US 20230089967 A1) (eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 5/21/2020) in view of Muenkel et al. (US 9492773 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the tubular member comprises further a plurality of ribs configured to support the envelope.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with improving the mechanical stability of the tubular member and the envelope, motivating one to turn towards Muenkel. Muenkel teaches an air filter comprising a filter media (Fig. 22) with a support frame (Fig. 22, 85) configured to provide axial and radial ribs that provide mechanical support to the filter media (col. 14, lns. 11-45).
Muenkel is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubular member as taught by Stoin (understood to be an air purifying media) with the support frame as taught by Muenkel (including the axial and radial ribs) because Muenkel teaches the support frame to provide mechanical support to an air filtering media (col. 14, lns. 11-45) and this involves the combination of elements (the tubular member of Stoin and the support frame of Muenkel) to yield a predictable result (improved mechanical stability) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Stoin teaches the device of claim 4, wherein one or more or all of the ribs of said plurality is in the form of a disk or a ring (Muenkel, supporting frame has ribs that extend radially = understood to be in the form of a ring (col. 14, lns. 11-45)).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Stoin teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the plurality of ribs are mechanically coupled to an outer lateral surface of the tubular member (Muenkel, supporting frame has ribs that extend radially = coupled to outer frame of the filter media [i.e. the tubular member] (col. 14, lns. 11-45).
Regarding claim 7, Stoin teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the ribs have an increasing size, depending on a distance from the inlet (Muenkel, supporting frame has ribs that extend radially within conical space = ribs understood to taper in size depending on position on filter media (col. 14, lns. 11-45).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoin (US 20230089967 A1) (eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 5/21/2020).
Regarding claim 11, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1 wherein the tubular member and envelope has a flat configuration (Fig. 2, 3a-3b, 236 is flat [0052]) but does not teach wherein the tubular member is rolled up so to form in particular a solenoid or a spiral. However, Stoin teaches other embodiments of the device that comprises a spiral tubular member and envelope (Fig 18a, air purifier 900 has spiral tubular member and envelope 936, [0028]), wherein the spiral configuration increases the residence time between the contaminated air and the virucidal solution, thereby increasing the purification efficiency [0116].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the tubular member as taught by the first embodiment of Stoin (Fig. 2, 3a-3c, 236) with the spiral tubular member taught by the second embodiment of Stoin (Fig. 18a, 936) because the spiral tubing of the second embodiment is taught to increase the air purification efficiency of the device [0116] and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 12, Stoin teaches the device of claim 1 wherein the envelope (Fig. 2, 3a-3b, 236 is flat [0052]) ) has a flat configuration (Fig. 2, 3a-3b, [0052]) but does not teach wherein the tubular member is rolled up. However, Stoin teaches other embodiments of the device that comprises a spiral tubular member and envelope (Fig 18a, air purifier 900 has spiral tubular member and envelope 936, [0028] = understood to be rolled up), wherein the spiral configuration increases the residence time between the contaminated air and the virucidal solution, thereby increasing the purification efficiency [0116].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the envelope as taught by the first embodiment of Stoin (Fig. 2, 3a-3c, 236) with the spiral envelope taught by the second embodiment of Stoin (Fig. 18a, 936) because the spiral envelope of the second embodiment is taught to increase the air purification efficiency of the device [0116] and this involves the substitution of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 14, Stoin teaches the device of claim 2 (Fig. 2, 3a-3c, purifier 300), but does not teach wherein the device comprising further a filter fluidly coupled downstream to the outlet port. However, Stoin teaches another embodiment of the device that comprises a carbon filter carbon filter (Fig. 16c, 849) located is downstream of a demister outlet to remove smells from the air [0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet port as taught by the first embodiment of Stoin (Fig. 2, 3a-3c, 232) with the charcoal filter taught by the second embodiment of Stoin (Fig. 16ac, 849) because the filter is taught to remove smells from the purified air stream [0106] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoin (US 20230089967 A1) (eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 5/21/2020) in view of Deng et al. (US 20210290813 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Stoin teaches the device of claim 2, but does not teach wherein the device further comprises a one-way valve fluidly coupled upstream to inlet port.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with regulating the direction of contaminated air through the inlet and tubular member, motivating one to turn towards Deng. Deng teaches an air sterilizing system comprising a check valve (Fig. 2, 8) located upstream of an inlet to a tubular member (Fig. 2, pipeline 10), that transfers air to a high temperature sterilization system [0032], wherein the check valve is understood to be a one-way valve for preventing backflow of a fluid.
Deng is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inlet to the tubular member as taught by Stoin with the check valve as taught by Deng to prevent a backflow of contaminated air from exiting the inlet and because Deng teaches the check valve to be located upstream of the air inlet to ta tubular member (Fig. 2, check valve 8 upstream of inlet to pipeline 10) and this involves the combination of elements (the inlet of Stoin and the check valve of Deng) to yield a predictable result (prevention of backflow) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (JP 2005087429 A) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation) in view of Stoin (US 20230089967 A1) (eligible under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with an effective filing date of 5/21/2020).
Regarding claim 15, Aoki teaches a personal protective equipment (Fig. 1, respirator 1) connected to reservoir containing a liquid neutralizing agent (Fig. 7, 17), wherein the inhaled air is purified by diffusing the air through the liquid neutralizing agent (page 3, para 6). However, Aoki does not teach a personal protective equipment comprising a device having the features set out in claim 1.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with optimizing the air scrubbing function of the respirator, motivating one to turn towards Stoin. Stoin teaches a device for removing virus particles in an air flow ([abstract], Figures. 2, 3a-3c, 310), wherein the device comprises:
- a tubular member having an inlet at a first end portion and a plurality of outlets at an outer lateral surface (Fig. 2, contaminated air enters tubular member 236 via inlet 246, and exits via a plurality of lateral outlets [0084-0086]);
- an envelope surrounding totally or partially the tubular member and containing virucidal liquid, wherein the envelope comprises a membrane being gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable (Fig. 2, tubular member 236 understood to be surrounded by a membrane [made of plastic] which releases contaminated gas into a virucidal reservoir 220 = understood to be gas permeable and liquid impermeable envelope ([0052], [0084-0086]),
the device being configured so that air enters through the inlet, flows in the tubular member, escapes through the outlets, diffuses in the virucidal liquid, and exits through the gas-permeable and liquid-impermeable membrane of the envelope [0084-0086], the tubular member being configured so that virucidal liquid cannot escape from the inlet (Fig. 2, contaminated air 242 is pressurized, which is understood to be capable of preventing liquid from escaping through inlet 224, [0084]). Stoin also teaches wherein an embodiment of the air purifier may be mobile [0049] and that the air purifier provides improved air quality due to the gas/liquid contacting mechanism [0024].
Stoin is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purifying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respirator, specifically the liquid reservoir, as taught by Aoki to include the air purifier as taught by Stoin because Stoin teaches the air purifier to provide improved air quality [0024] and this involves the combination of elements (the respirator of Aoki and the air purifier of Stoin) to yield a predictable result (improved air quality delivered to a user) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018002710 A2 teaches an air treatment system and method comprising a membrane submerged within a virucidal liquid (structure referenced by primary reference Stoin).
US 20210308602 A1 teaches radial ribs designed to support a tubular member.
US 20210330853 A1 teaches an air purifying respirator with a one-way inlet valve configured to prevent backflow.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights