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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, claims 1-26 and 30, in the reply filed May 6th, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 27-29 have been cancelled. Claims 1-26 and 30 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-5, “wherein at least one fan generates” should read “wherein the at least one fan generates”
In claim 10, “wherein the at least one filter comprises” should read “wherein the at least one substantially cylindrical filter comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-26 and 30 are directed to the same invention as that of claims 1-26 and 30, respectively, of commonly assigned Application No. 19/245714. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention.
The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention.
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 1-26 and 30 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional shape of the substantially cylindrical filter is one of substantially circular, substantially square, substantially triangular, or any other similar cross-sectional shape known.” (emphasis added) The term “similar” is indefinite as it is not clear what applicant intends to cover by the recitation “similar cross-sectional shape.” Additionally, it is unclear how a substantially cylindrical filter is capable of having a cross-sectional shape that is substantially square, substantially triangular, or any other similar cross-sectional shape while still meeting the limitation of a cylindrical filter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the immediately surrounding environment" in paragraph 11 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter comprises an aerosolized particle filter, wherein at least one of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter comprises a vapor contamination filter.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends for there to be at least two filters, one of which is an aerosolized particle filter and the other a vapor contamination filter, or if Applicant intends for the at least one substantially cylindrical filter to comprise either an aerosolized particle filter or a vapor contamination filter. As the claim may have more than one reasonable interpretation, it is unclear when infringement may occur and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the clean air delivery rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 45 inches.” It is unclear what these measurements are drawn to (length, width, height, etc.) and at which point from the device said measurements are taken (vertically, horizontally, from a central axis point, etc.).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the clean air delivery rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 30 inches.” Although this appears to be merely a grammatical error, it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the modular filter assembly to not exceed the required dimensions or intends for the modular filter assembly to measure exactly as about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 30 inches. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted this claim to mean that the modular filter assembly dimensions should not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 30 inches. Additionally, it is unclear what these measurements are drawn to (length, width, height, etc.) and at which point from the device said measurements are taken (vertically, horizontally, from a central axis point, etc.).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the clean air delivery rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the dimensions of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter and at least one fan do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 70 inches.” It is unclear whether the required dimensions are for both the cylindrical filter and fan individually or in combination. As the claim may have more than one reasonable interpretation, it is unclear when infringement may occur and the claim is therefore indefinite. Additionally, it is unclear what these measurements are drawn to (length, width, height, etc.) and at which point from the device said measurements are taken (vertically, horizontally, from a central axis point, etc.).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the clean air delivery rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 70 inches.” It is unclear what these measurements are drawn to (length, width, height, etc.) and at which point from the device said measurements are taken (vertically, horizontally, from a central axis point, etc.).
Claims 6-16, which are dependent upon claim 1, are likewise 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 17 recites the limitation “the total vapor air contamination concentration” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the current threshold” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-26 and 30, which are dependent upon claim 1, are likewise 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 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11-12, 21-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0338603 A1 to Blum et al. (hereinafter referred to as Blum), as evidenced by Air Quality Engineering, HEPA Filters: What They Are & How They’re Certified In The US, [retrieved on 2026-05-28]. Retrieved from the Internet <URL: https://air-quality-eng.com/air-cleaners/hepa-filters/> (hereinafter referred to as Air Quality Engineering).
Regarding claim 1, Blum teaches a modular filter assembly (¶0034 “Accordingly, the present invention relates to the field of air cleaning/treating/purifying devices”), comprising: at least one fan (Fig. 1, fan 1007) with a maximum diameter less than about 30 inches as measured perpendicular to the rotational axis of the at least one fan; at least one substantially cylindrical filter with maximum diameter between about 8 inches and about 30 inches (Fig. 1, carbon filter 1005 and HEPA 1006 ; Fig. 7 shows that the entirety of the device has a diameter of only 13 inches and the filter would therefore have a maximum diameter within the claimed range), wherein at least one of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter comprises an aerosolized particle filter (Fig. 1, HEPA 1006), wherein at least one of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter comprises a vapor contamination filter (Fig. 1, carbon filter 1005), wherein the vapor contamination filter comprises activated carbon (Fig. 1, carbon filter 1005 ; ¶0089 “The filter can be that of an activated Carbon Filter.”); at least one inlet for receiving ambient air from a surrounding environment (Fig. 1, ambient dirty air 1004 is received from the bottom of device), wherein the surrounding environment is a region of ambient air extending from an outside surface of the modular filter assembly to about 3 feet from the modular filter assembly (Fig. 5 depicts the device receiving particles from 3 feet away); at least one outlet for releasing filtered air into the surrounding environment (Fig. 1, cleaned air flow 1003 exits device); wherein the at least one fan is stacked with at least one substantially cylindrical filter (Fig. 1, carbon filter 1005, HEPA 1006, and fan 1007 are in a stacked configuration), wherein a cross-sectional shape of the substantially cylindrical filter is one of substantially circular, substantially square, substantially triangular, or any other similar cross-sectional shape known to the skilled artisan (Fig. 1), wherein a rotational axis of the at least one fan is substantially parallel to a central axis of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter (Fig. 1, fan 1007 is parallel with central axis of HEPA 1006 and carbon filter 1005), wherein at least one point of the inlet and at least one point of the outlet are within about 30 inches of the central axis of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter (Fig. 7 depicts the total width of the device to be about 3.25 inches and the inlet and outlet would therefore both be within 30 inches of the central axis of the filter), wherein the at least one fan substantially generates a filtered airflow at the outlet that has been substantially filtered by the at least one substantially cylindrical filter (Fig. 1, ambient dirty air 1004 flows up through filters 1006 and 1005 to form cleaned air flow 1003 ; ¶0125 “Ambient room air 1004 is pulled upward into the device, through a carbon 1005 and/or HEPA 1006 filter, using one or more fan 1007, and then out through outflow apertures at or near the top of the device.”); wherein the filtration efficiency of the filtered airflow is about 50% or greater as measured with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns relative to the test aerosol concentration outside the surrounding environment (As evidenced by Air Quality Engineering, in order for a filter to be classified as a HEPA filter is must capture at least 99.97% of fine airborne particles with a size of 0.3 microns), and wherein the filtration efficiency of the filtered airflow is about 50% or greater as measured with test vapor relative to the test vapor concentration outside the surround environment (As evidenced by Air Quality Engineering, HEPA filters must trap 99.97% of particles with a size of 0.3 microns and “Any particles that are larger or smaller than 0.3 microns are trapped with even higher efficiency.”). As to the limitations of wherein an airspeed is about 500 feet per minute or greater a measured within about 3 inches of the vertices of an equilateral triangle with side of length between about 7 inches and about 26 inches whose plane is substantially perpendicular to the central axis of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter and within one inch of where the at least one fan exchanges air with the surround environment, wherein the airspeed is about 10 feet per minute or greater as measured within about 3 inches of the vertices of an equilateral triangle with side of length between about 7 inches and about 26 inches whose plane is substantially perpendicular to the central axis of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter and within about one inch of where the at least one substantially cylindrical filter exchanges air with the surrounding environment, and wherein the airspeed as measured simultaneously at another point in the immediately surrounding environment is les than about 10 feet per minute, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 45 inches (Fig. 7 shows that the device falls within the required range). As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 100 cubic feet per minute (CFM) or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 100 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the modular filter assembly consumes about 35 watts or less, wherein at least one fan generates less than about 70 dBA as measured at a point within about 9 inches of the at least one fan, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 30 inches (Fig. 7 shows that the device falls within the required range). As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 250 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 250 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the modular filter assembly consumes about 250 watts or less, and wherein at least one fan generates less than about 90 dBA as measured at a point within about 9 inches of the at least one fan, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the dimensions of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter and at least one fan do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 70 inches (Fig. 7 shows that the device, which includes both the filter and the fan, falls within the required range). As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 200 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 200 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the modular filter assembly consumes about 70 watts or less, and wherein at least one fan generates less than about 70 dBA as measured at a point within about 9 inches of the at least one fan, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 5, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 70 inches (Fig. 7 shows that the device falls within the required range). As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 400 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 400 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, wherein the modular filter assembly consumes about 250 watts or less, and wherein at least one fan generates less than about 90 dBA as measured at a point within about 9 inches of the at least one fan, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. As previously established by Air Quality Engineering, HEPA filters must capture at least 99.97% of fine airborne particles with a size of 0.3 microns, and any particles that are smaller or larger than 0.3 microns are trapped with even higher efficiency. As is such, the composition of the test vapor will result in a filtration efficiency about 50% or greater as measured with a test vapor as required by claim 1 regardless of said composition. The limitation of wherein the test vapor is one or more of Novichok nerve agent (A232), thickened venomous nerve agent (TVX), sulfur mustard agent (HD), thickened sulfur mustard agent (THD), soman nerve agent (GD), and sarin nerve agent (GB) is an intended use limitation. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus form the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum does not disclose the amount of activated carbon that comprises the vapor contamination filter. However, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum further teaches that the thickness of the modular filter assembly is approximately 3.25 inches (Fig. 7). As can be seen in Figure 4, the filters occupy about half of the allotted 3.25 inches and would therefore be within the claimed range. Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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 is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 21, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 2 above, wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by about 30 inches by about 30 inches (Fig. 7 shows that the device falls within the required range). As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 125 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater and wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 125 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 22, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 2. As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 150 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater and wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 150 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 23, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 3 above. As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 300 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater and wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 300 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 24, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 4 above. As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 300 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater and wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 300 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 25, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 5 above, wherein the dimensions of the modular filter assembly do not exceed about 30 inches by 30 inches by about 45 inches (Fig. 7 shows that the device falls within the required range). As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 450 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater and wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 450 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 26, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 5 above. As to the limitations of wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 500 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test aerosol comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater and wherein the clean air delivery rate is about 500 CFM or greater as measured using air changes per hour with a test vapor comprised of particles having a size of about 0.3 microns in a test room having a size of about 2,000 cubic feet or greater, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 30, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 4 above. As to the limitation of wherein the modular filter assembly consumes about 35 watts or less, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum.
Regarding claim 9, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum does not teach wherein the at least one fan comprises two or more stacked fans, wherein a seal is interposed between each of the two or more stacked fans for substantially sealing an interface therebetween. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). As to the seal between the duplicate fans, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a seal between components of the modular filter assembly to prevent any air from bypassing the filters untreated.
Regarding claim 10, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum further teaches wherein the at least one filter comprises two or more stacked filters (Fig. 4, carbon filter and HEPA filter are in a stacked configuration). Blum does not explicitly teach wherein a seal is interposed between each of the two or more stacked filters for substantially sealing an interface therebetween. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place a seal between components of the modular filter assembly to prevent any air from bypassing the filters untreated.
Claims 6, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0304683 A1 to Ruia (hereinafter referred to as Ruia).
Regarding claim 6, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum does not teach wherein the activated carbon filter comprises activated carbon impregnated with an impregnant selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, zinc, molybdenum, triethylenediamine (TEDA), zeolite, potassium iodine, and combinations of two or more of the foregoing.
However, Ruia teaches a multilayered filter apparatus (Fig. 4A) which comprises a fan (Fig. 4A, motor 412), an aerosolized particle filter (Fig. 4A, HEPA filter 408), and a vapor contamination filter (Fig. 4A, chemical adsorption filter 404), wherein the vapor contamination filter comprises activated carbon impregnated with an impregnant selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, zinc, molybdenum, triethylenediamine (TEDA), zeolite, potassium iodine, and combinations of two or more of the foregoing (¶0063 “The chemical adsorption filter 404 may be constructed from part carbon base and part alumina base. According to some examples, the carbon base is an activated carbon base. … In still other examples, the carbon base is additionally impregnated with free silver and/or copper ions.”).
Blum and Ruia are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multilayered modular filter assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the activated carbon filter as taught by Blum with the impregnated activated carbon filter as taught by Ruia. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, the filtration of contaminants) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising a controller (¶0109 “The communication platform and or the air curtain device can comprise one or more of: transceiver, receiver, transmitter, speaker, microphone, Bluetooth chip, microchips, controller”). Blum does not explicitly teach wherein the controller comprises a regulator for manually activating or deactivating power from a power source electrically connected to the controller and the at least one fan.
However, Ruia teaches a modular filter assembly, further comprising a controller (Fig. 7, controller 706) comprising a regulator for manually activating or deactivating power from a power source electrically connected to the controller and the at least one fan (¶0048 “The controller 210 may be operated by a user to manually communicate to the fan 302 or motor 412 to operate the apparatus 100 on an “as needed” basis, which may provide benefits such as energy savings in a room that is not currently occupied.”).
Blum and Ruia are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multilayered modular filter assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as taught by Blum to further include the regulator as taught by Ruia in order to operate the modular filter assembly on an as needed basis, increasing the energy efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Blum and Ruia teach the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 14 above. Ruia further teaches at least one sensor for detecting one or more chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) contaminants (¶0079 “The apparatus 100 may further include a sensor configured to detect an air purity.” ; ¶0001 “There are many types of indoor air pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds … biological contaminants”).
Regarding claim 16, Blum and Ruia teach the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 14 above. Ruia further teaches at least one external sensor for detecting one or more of a presence of a specific vapor air contaminant and a total vapor air contamination concentration external to the modular filter assembly (¶0049 “While not illustrated, a sensor may be present on apparatus 100. The sensor may be capable of detecting the air purity in a room.”).
Regarding claim 17, Blum and Ruia teach the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 14 above. Ruia further teaches wherein the at least one fan is in signal communication with the controller, wherein the controller adjusts the speed of the at least one fan when one or more of the presence of a vapor air contaminant is detected external to the modular filter assembly and the total vapor air contamination concentration threshold is exceeded external to the modular filter assembly (¶0049-0050 “The sensor may be capable of detecting the air purity in a room. In some examples, this sensor can communicate with the fan or motor in order to influence the quantity of air being pulled through the apparatus 100. … It is important to increase the quantity of air moving through the apparatus 100 when air purity is lower”).
Regarding claim 20, Blum and Ruia teach the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 14 above. Ruia further teaches at least one external sensor for detecting one or more of a presence of a specific aerosol air contaminant and a total aerosol air contamination concentration external to the modular filter assembly (¶0049 “While not illustrated, a sensor may be present on apparatus 100. The sensor may be capable of detecting the air purity in a room.” ; ¶0001 “There are many types of indoor air pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds … biological contaminants”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0109493 A1 to de Jong (hereinafter referred to as de Jong).
Regarding claim 8, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum does not disclose the type of fan used.
However, de Jong teaches an air filtration apparatus for an enclosed space (¶0009 “In some embodiments, an apparatus is provided for preventing the spread of air-borne contaminants in a defined space.”) which comprises a mixed-flow fan (¶0182 “Motors 2610 can include … axial fans, mixed/cross flow centrifugal fans, cross flow blowers”).
Blum and de Jong are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of modular filter apparatuses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the fan as taught by Blum could be substituted with the mixed-flow fan as taught by de Jong. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, the controlled airflow through a filtering apparatus) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2005/0188749 A1 to Custer et al. (hereinafter referred to as Custer).
Regarding claim 13, Blum teaches the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Blum does not teach wherein the at least one substantially cylindrical filter comprises an M98 filter.
However, Custer teaches a filter assembly (¶0008 “a residual life indicating system for a filter includes a main filter, a sampling filter, and a sensor.”) wherein a filter comprises an M98 filter (¶0037 “The filter sets disclosed are M98 filters available from the Hunter Manufacturing Company of Solon, Ohio.”).
Blum and Custer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the filter as taught by Blum with the M98 filter as taught by Custer. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (in this case, efficient air filtration) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum and Ruia as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Custer.
Regarding claim 18, Blum and Ruia teach the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 14 above. Blum and Ruia do not teach at least one sensor for detecting one or more of a fouling amount of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter and a current of the at least one fan; and wherein the controller adjusts the speed of the at least one fan based on when one or more of a filter fouling threshold of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter is exceeded and the current threshold of the at least one fan is exceeded in relation to a set amount of time.
However, Custer teaches a filter assembly with a sensor(¶0008 “a residual life indicating system for a filter includes a main filter, a sampling filter, and a sensor.”) for detecting a fouling amount of a filter (¶0055 “If the challenge gas is detected by the sensor 156b, i.e., the sample filter 152b has not retained all the challenge gas, the sample filter is full.” ; ¶0008 “The sensor connects to the sampling filter and senses the presence of a predetermined chemical in the gas that has been filtered by the sampling filter.”). Custer further teaches that monitoring the filter with said sensor allows for more accurate filter life calculations (¶0002 “More specifically, the invention relates to a system to monitor the filter bed in a gas purifier to indicate how much filter life remains and when the filter should be changed.”).
Blum, Ruia, and Custer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air filtration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modular filter assembly as taught by Blum and Ruia to further include the fouling sensor as taught by Custer in order to accurately determine the filter life and when the filter should be changed. As to the limitation of wherein the controller adjusts the speed of the at least one fan based on when one or more of a filter fouling threshold of the at least one substantially cylindrical filter is exceeded and the current threshold of the at least one fan is exceeded in relation to a set amount of time, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the filter assembly as taught by Blum. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 19, Blum, Ruia, and Custer teach the modular filter assembly as applied to claim 18 above. Custer further teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a sensor disposed within the at least one substantially cylindrical filter (¶0008 “The sensor connects to the sampling filter and senses the presence of a predetermined chemical in the gas that has been filtered by the sampling filter.”). Ruia further teaches a sensor disposed external to the at least one substantially cylindrical filter (¶0054 “Likewise, the sensor and the camera as previously described may also reside on the top wall 104, bottom wall 108, any side of the walls 106, or any combination thereof.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights