DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 09/26/2025 in which claims 1-3 and 9 have been amended, and claims 1-3, 9-11, 15-16, 19, 24, 34-40, 52 and 70-71 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 26 SEPTEMBER 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 15-16, 19, 24 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0203306 A1 (hereinafter “Grafe”) in view of Lievana, E. and Karger-Kocsis, J. (2003), Impact modification of PA-6 and PBT by epoxy-functionalized rubbers. Macromol. Symp., 202: 59-66.(hereinafter “Lievana”), and alternatively further in view of Yalcinkaya, F., Yalcinkaya, B. & Hruza, J. Electrospun Polyamide-6 Nanofiber Hybrid Membranes for Wastewater Treatment. Fibers Polym 20, 93–99 (2019). (hereinafter “Yalcinkaya”).
Regarding Claims 1-3 Grafe discloses a nonwoven wipe material (i.e. which is porous, [0021] and claims 5-6, and thus may function as filter media), comprising:
a fine fiber layer comprising a plurality of fine fibers; wherein the fine fibers comprise electrospun fibers [0007]-[0009], [0041];
wherein the fine fibers may comprise a blend of polymers including nylon-6 “blended with a nylon copolymer such as a Nylon-6, 6,6; 6,10 copolymer” [0032]-[0034], and thus the fine fibers are seen to comprise an impact modifier (nylon copolymer comprising at least two different monomers) dispersed in a matrix polymer (nylon 6); and
wherein the molecular weight of the nylon 6 is not specifically disclosed, it is noted that the polymer blend should use a first and a second polymer differing in “polymer type, molecular weight or physical property”, and therefore as the nylon copolymer is already of a different polymer type then nylon 6, it would have been obvious to use a nylon 6 polymer having the same or similar molecular weight as the copolymer, wherein the nylon copolymer is disclosed to have a molecular weight of 21,500-24,800 [0034], i.e. 2.15-2.48 kDa, and therefore the matrix polymer comprises only polymers with a molecular weight of greater than 3 kDa.
With regard to the amount of impact modifier, Grafe is silent to the relative amounts of nylon-6 and nylon copolymer, however it is disclosed that the blend of polymers is done specifically to improve physical properties [0032]. Therefore the amount of nylon copolymer/impact modifier (i.e. relative to the combination of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer) is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
With more specific regard to what percent of the copolymer to include, Lievana discloses using rubber copolymers (GMA grated EPDM and NBR) blended with PA-6 as impact modifiers to toughen the PA-6, wherein the copolymers were used at 5, 10 and 50 wt% of the polymer mixture (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nonwoven PA-6 nanofibers of Grafe by using 5, 10 and/or 50 wt% of the copolymer mixed with remainder PA-6 as disclosed by Lievana because this involves the simple substitution of known concentrations of copolymer additives added to PA-6 to improve its mechanical properties to obtain the predictable result of forming a functional PA-6/copolymer composite material.
With more specific regard to the wipe being filter media, as Grafe makes a distinction between filter media and wipes via discussion of stiffness [0061]-[00065], it is noted that this distinction is with regard to filter media needing to withstand certain filtration process conditions which do not apply to all “filter media” as broadly claimed, which can comprise media which are used as adsorbents or column packing and need no structural support.
Further, alternately, with regard to functioning specifically as industrially applicable filter membranes, Yalcinkaya discloses it is known to provide PA-6 based nanofiber filtration layers with a supporting porous woven and nonwoven fabric materials to improve the mechanical properties of the membrane for use as filters (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nonwoven PA-6 nanofiber layer of Grafe by providing an additional supporting woven or nonwoven fabric material in order to use it as a filter because Yalcinkaya discloses such materials are highly promising for microfiltration applications.
Regarding Claim 9 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier (PA-6-66-610) a copolymer comprising at least two different monomers, wherein at least one monomer has an affinity to the matrix polymer (i.e. because it is the same monomer as the matrix polymer) and wherein at least one monomer does not have affinity to the matrix polymer (because it is not the same monomer as the matrix polymer). Alternatively Lievana also discloses using GMA grated EPDM and NBR (supra) and it would therefore have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to subsitite for the copolymer GMA grated EPDM and NBR because this involves the simple substation of known copolymer additives for PA-6 to improve mechanical strength to obtain the predictable result of successful PA-6 composite formation; where GMA grated EPDM and NBR also are seen to possesses at least one monomer has an affinity to the matrix polymer and at least one monomer does not have affinity to the matrix polymer.
Regarding Claim 10 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer (nylon copolymer) comprises 100 wt.% of a linear polymer [0034].
Regarding Claim 11 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises greater than or equal to 50 wt.% and less than or equal to 100 wt.% of a thermoplastic polymer (PA-6), supra.
Regarding Claims 15-16 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fibers have an average fiber diameter of 0.01-5 microns [0034, including specifically 0.05 micron [0036].
Regarding Claim 19 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the matrix polymer comprises a polyamide, supra.
Regarding Claim 24 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier comprises a polyamide, supra.
Regarding Claim 34 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier comprises a terpolymer (nylon 6-66-610), supra.
Regarding Claim 35 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein because the matrix polymer is polyamide 6 and the impact modifier is a copolymer of multiple types of polyamides, just as Applicants Example 2, it is expected to possesses the same properties as claimed, see MPEP 2112.02, including that the impact modifier exhibits independent thermal transitions from the matrix polymer, does not substantially chemically react with the matrix polymer, and/or does not substantially affect thermal transitions of the matrix polymer, wherein the impact modifier does not substantially chemically react with the matrix polymer when there is no observable heat flow when observed using calorimetry.
Regarding Claim 36 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein because the matrix polymer is polyamide 6 and the impact modifier is a copolymer of multiple types of polyamides, just as Applicants Example 2, it is expected to possesses the same properties as claimed, see MPEP 2112.02, including that wherein the impact modifier comprises discrete microdomains having an average largest cross-sectional diameter less than or equal to 3/4 the average diameter of the fine fibers.
Regarding Claim 37 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein because the matrix polymer is polyamide 6 and the impact modifier is a copolymer of multiple types of polyamides, just as Applicants Example 2, it is expected to possesses the same properties as claimed, see MPEP 2112.02, including that wherein the impact modifier comprises discrete microdomains having an average largest cross-sectional diameter of greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 500 nm.
Regarding Claim 38 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein Grafe discloses a wide range of polymers/blends [0024]-[0034] and thus a wide range of polymers which may be the matrix polymer many of which have glass transition temperatures in the range claimed, including polyamide 6 which is known to have a glass transition of around 60°C.
Regarding Claim 39 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein Grafe discloses a wide range of polymers/blends [0024]-[0034] and thus a wide range of polymers which may be the impact modifier, many of which have glass transition temperatures in the range claimed, particularly the fluorocarbons show to be useful down to -15, -22, -40 and -50°F [0028], [0030].
Regarding Claim 40 Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, wherein the fine fiber layer comprises a void volume of greater than or equal to 60% and less than or equal to 95%, or 75-85%; [0014]-[0017].
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe in view of Lievana and Yalcinkaya further in view of US 2018/0272258 A1 (hereinafter “Healey”).
Regarding Claim 52 Grafe in view of Lievana and Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the filter media has a gamma of greater than or equal to 3 and less than or equal to 400.
However Healey discloses a fibrous filter media, wherein it is disclosed that values of gamma including “greater than or equal to about 90” are desirable for similar fibrous filtration media; [0165]-[0166].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter media of Grafe in view of Lievana and Yalcinkaya by using gamma values of greater than or equal to about 90 as disclosed by Healey because these are known desirable gamma values for similar fibrous filtration media.
Claims 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grafe in view of Lievana and Yalcinkaya further in view of US 2012/0137885 A1 (hereinafter “Dullaert”).
Regarding Claims 70-71 Grafe in view of Lievana and Yalcinkaya discloses the filter media of claim 1, but does not disclose additional filter layers, however Dullaert discloses a similar fine fiber filter layer, wherein the fiber filter layer filter medium can be used in multilayer filtration media, including support(s) of PP or PET nonwovens [0081] specifically including melt blown material [0083]-[0084], but where such nonwovens are well known to includes those made by wet-laid/dry-laid processes, and any layer could be considered a “spacer”; and where there may be two or more layers, including other nanoweb layers; [0027]-[0028], [0033].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter of Grafe in view of Lievana and Yalcinkaya by using the fine fiber layer in a multilayer filter including at least two layers, and thus any number of more layers, as disclosed by Dullaert because this provides further support and protection to the fine fiber layer and overall filter. With specific regard to the layers and their order, it is seen as obvious to use at least 2 layers, and thus any number of further layers including 4 and 6, the order of the layers is not seen as critical, and as above the disclosed additional layers in Dullaert would include nonwovens which are obvious to form via various process including melt-blown, wet-laid, and dry-laid, and any of which could be called a spacer layer, including further fine filter layers is similarly seen as obvious in constructing a multilayer filter. Without further details to the layers and criticality to their order, the claimed layers are seen as obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive in part.
The previous 102 rejections citing Grafe are withdrawn in view of Applicants’ arguments and amendments.
Applicants’ arguments with regard to the 103 rejections citing Grafe in view of Lievana and alternatively Yalcinkaya (and Healey and Dullaert) are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ argument that it would not have been obvious to modify Grafe by using the copolymer weight percentages disclosed by Lievana; the Examiner disagrees. Applicants’ argue that the results of the substitution would not have been predictable because the copolymers disclosed by Lievana are epoxy functionalized rubbers whereas the copolymers in Grafe are nylons, which are “vastly different polymers”, thus the substitution is arbitrary and would not have led to predictable outcomes. However, as is noted in the rejection, Grafe does not disclose any particular limit to the percentages of copolymer in the nylon 6/nylon copolymer blend, and only discloses one example where the mixture is on nylon 6 (about 45%), nylon 66(about 20%) and nylon 610 (about 25%) which is not seen to be limiting as no reason is given for these percentages; notably there is no teaching away from using other percentages so one of skill in the art would have expected that any mixture of the polymers would be successful. It is further disclosed that the blend of polymers is done specifically to improve physical properties [0032], and thus the amount of nylon copolymer/impact modifier (i.e. relative to the combination of the impact modifier and the matrix polymer) is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize, i.e. absent any teaching from Lievana. In light of the teaching that the relative amount of copolymer additive effects physical properties, one of skill in the art would look to other prior art disclosing copolymer additives blended to effect physical properties of nylon 6 in order to find other suitable copolymer blending percentages. While the copolymer used by Lievana are different than the nylon copolymers of Grafe, they are seen to be similar copolymer additives used for the same purpose, to improve the physical properties of nylon6 based polymer blends, and therefore they would have been obvious to substitute with a reasonable expectation of success.
In response to Applicants’ argument that the modification of Grafe by using the copolymer weight percentages disclosed by Lievana would have led to a material that is unsuited for the intended purpose of Grafe; the Examiner disagrees. Applicants argue that using lower percentages of the copolymers than used in the example in Grafe would rendered it unsuitable for its intended purpose because “the altered three-component nylon of Grafe would likely have been compromised since the copolymers would be in smaller amounts.” However, as Grafe does not teach any detrimental effects from using a blend with less copolymer, and Applicant’s cite no other evidence that this would occur, this amounts to nothing more than Attorney argument, which is not given weight; see MPEP 2145(I) “assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773