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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 10, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 29 are currently amended and remain pending in the application. Claims 7, 11, 15, 17-18, 24-28, 30-36 are canceled. Claims 37-38 are new.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 37, and 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaganathan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 20160175752 A1, June 23, 2016 (hereinafter “Jaganathan”) in view of Singh et al U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0246323 A1, September 03, 2015 (hereinafter “Singh”).
Regarding claim 1, Jaganathan discloses filtration media (figs. 1A-D) comprising a membrane (paragraph 0007) having one or more polymeric layers for filtering particles including single-layer or multilayer films (paragraphs 0018 and 0060–0062). The membrane comprises a plurality of pores having disclosed mean flow pore sizes of 0.1–50 micrometers (paragraph 0063). Jaganathan discloses second-layer filtration efficiencies including at least 70%, exceeding the claimed minimum of 65% (paragraphs 0050–0051, 0060). Jaganathan further discloses second-layer pressure drops of 0.5–150 millimeters H₂O (paragraph 0054), measured over a 100 cm² area as described in paragraph [0033]. Under the interpretation that the claimed delta P is differential pressure divided by exposed area, these values fall below 5 millimeters H2O/cm2. Jaganathan also recognizes the relationship between membrane structure, efficiency, and pressure drop in paragraph [0014] and discloses selectable membrane-layer thicknesses in paragraph [0056]. However, Jaganathan fails to disclose channels connecting adjacent pores with the claimed average connectivity diameter.
Singh discloses a polymeric membrane comprising larger pore cavities interconnected by smaller openings permitting fluid communication between adjacent cavities (Figs 1 and 2; paragraphs 0009 and 0032). These connecting openings correspond to the claimed channels connecting adjacent pores. Singh’s Example 1 discloses larger pores having a controlled size of approximately 570 nanometers and connecting openings having a controlled size of approximately 171 nanometers (paragraph 0083). Paragraph 0082 identifies SEM analysis and porometry for determining the connecting-opening size. The approximately uniform, controlled pore dimensions provide a basis for identifying representative average dimensions: 570 nanometers is below the claimed maximum pore diameter of 175 micrometers, and 171 nanometers falls within the claimed connectivity-diameter range of 10 nanometers to 200 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Singh’s controlled pore and opening architecture in Jaganathan’s membrane filtration layer to provide defined particle retaining passages with fluid communication between adjacent pores. Singh identifies high-throughput filtration as an objective in paragraph [0001[ and discloses air and gas filtration in paragraph [0066[. Both references disclose compatible membrane materials, including polyether sulfone and polyvinylidene fluoride, as described in Jaganathan paragraph [0061[ and Singh paragraph [0050], supporting the suitability of the modification for Jaganathan’s filtration application.
Regarding claim 2, Jaganathan discloses that the filter media comprises polymeric membrane layer and/or polymeric fibrous layers formed from synthetic polymers, including layers formed using melt-blown, melt-spun, or electrospinning processes (paragraphs 0061 and 0091). Such processes are conventionally used to form polypropylene, polyester, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers.
Regarding claim 4, Jaganathan discloses that the layer or filter media may be charged and particle separation may not be substantially or solely due mechanical particle separation (paragraph 0040 and 0144).
Regarding claim 6, Jaganathan discloses filter layers having mean flow pore size up to 150 micrometers, as well as pore sizes of 50 micrometers, 40 micrometers, 30 micrometers, and smaller, depending on the configuration and layer selection (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 13, Jaganathan discloses the membrane layer may be a single layer film or a multilayer film. In embodiments which use multilayer films, the different layers may have different compositions (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 16, Jaganathan discloses the particulate efficiency of the pre-filter layer may have an initial DOP efficiency of greater than or equal to about 65%, greater than or equal to about 70%, greater than or equal to about 75%, greater than or equal to about 80%, greater than or equal to about 85%, or greater than or equal to about 90% (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 19, Jaganathan also discloses that the filter media and polymeric layers exhibit a low-pressure drop, including pressure drop less than or equal to about 5 mm H2O, and in some embodiments as low as 1 mm H2O or 0.5 mm H2O, as measured under standardized testing conditions (fig. 2, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 20, Jaganathan discloses filtration media configured to filter particulate matter, including submicron particles, as evidenced by experimental testing using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) aerosols having an average particle size of approximately 0.3 microns (300nm) and sodium chloride aerosols having an average particle size of approximately 0.26 microns (260nm) (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 22, Jaganathan discloses filtration media comprising polymeric membrane layers formed from polymeric materials using melt-based polymer processing and fiber-forming techniques, which necessarily involve heating polymetric materials to softened or molten state to form filtration layers (paragraph 0028, 0089-0090).
Regarding claim 37, Jaganathan fails to disclose that one or more channels comprise an average connectivity diameter of 100 nm to 900 nm. However, Singh discloses smaller openings connecting adjacent pore cavities (fig. 1, 2; paragraphs 0009 and 0032). Paragraphs [0082–0083] disclose determining the connecting-opening size using SEM analysis and porometry and identify a controlled connecting-opening size of approximately 171 nm, within the claimed average connectivity-diameter range of 100 nm to 900 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Singh’s controlled connecting openings in Jaganathan’s polymeric membrane filtration layer to provide defined filtration passages while allowing fluid communication between adjacent pore cavities. Singh identifies high-throughput filtration and discloses air and gas filtration (paragraph 0066). Both references disclose compatible membrane materials, including polyethersulfone and polyvinylidene fluoride, supporting the suitability of Singh’s membrane architecture for Jaganathan’s filtration application.
Regarding claim 38, Jaganathan fails to disclose that one or more channels comprise an average connectivity diameter of 10 nm to 2 pm. Singh discloses smaller openings connecting adjacent pore (figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs 0009 and 0032). Paragraphs [0082–0083] disclose determining the connecting-opening size using SEM analysis and porometry and identify a controlled connecting-opening size of approximately 171 nanometers, equivalent to 0.171 micrometers, within the claimed average connectivity-diameter range of 10 nanometers to 2 micrometers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ Singh’s controlled connecting openings in Jaganathan’s polymeric membrane filtration layer to provide defined filtration passages while allowing fluid communication between adjacent pore cavities. Singh identifies high-throughput filtration and discloses air and gas filtration (paragraph 0066). Both references disclose compatible membrane materials, including polyethersulfone and polyvinylidene fluoride, supporting the suitability of Singh’s membrane architecture for Jaganathan’s filtration application.
Claims 3, 5, 8-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaganathan and Singh, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Tepper et al U.S. Pub. No. 20080026041 A1, January 31, 2008 (hereinafter “Tepper”).
Regarding claim 3, Jaganathan fails to disclose that at least one of the one or more polymeric layers comprises an active agent configured to devitalize or deactivate one or more microorganisms or toxins. However, Tepper discloses a non-woven filtration media in which active agents are incorporated into or onto fibrous filter layers to neutralize, devitalize, or deactivate microorganisms and toxic contaminants (paragraph 0091). Tepper teaches adding antimicrobial and chemisorbing agents, including silver, copper, zinc ions, activated carbon, and chemically active sorbents media to intercept and deactivate bacteria, viruses, and toxic substances (paragraphs 0011 and 0092). Tepper further discloses that such active agents may be mixed with or adsorbed onto fibrous layers of the filter media so as to remain available for biological or chemical deactivation during filtration (fig. 11, paragraphs 147-157).
Therefore, 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 polymetric filtration media of Jaganathan-Singh to include an active agent configured to devitalize microorganisms as taught by Tepper, in order to enhance biological and chemical contaminant removal and improve hygienic performance of the filtration media.
Regarding claim 5, Jaganathan fails to disclose that at least one of the one or more polymeric layers is acidic. Tepper discloses that activated carbon and fibrous filter media may be impregnated with acidic compounds such as citric acid to improve adsorption and neutralization of contaminants. Therefore, 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 polymeric filtration media of Jaganathan-Singh to include an acidic polymer layer, in order to enhance adsorption of basic species, and increase antimicrobial effectiveness of the filtration media.
Regarding claim 8, Jaganathan discloses filtration media comprising multiple polymeric layers arranged in a stacked or composite configuration, wherein different layers may be selected or configured to achieve desired filtration performance characteristics, including particle capture and pressure drop (paragraphs 0024 and 0064). Tepper discloses a multilayer and composite non-woven filtration media in which different properties, such as pore size, fiber diameter, porosity, sorptive capability or chemical activity, to improve overall filtration performance (paragraph 0111). Tepper further discloses that combining layers with different properties is advantageous for controlling pressure drop, filtration efficiency, and contaminant removal (paragraph 0118-0127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the polymeric filtration media of Jaganathan-Singh to include layers with different set of properties, in order to optimize filtration efficiency, contaminant capture, and flow resistance.
Regarding claim 9, Jaganathan discloses a multilayered polymeric filtration media in which filtration performance is controlled by structural properties of the layers, including layer thickness, density, and pore size (figs. 1A-1D, paragraphs 0006-0007, 0032, 0044 ).Tepper discloses the performance of non-woven and fibrous filtration media is governed by layer thickness, and pore size, within an interconnected network, and that such properties maybe varied between layers to tailor filtration efficiency (figs. 13 and 14, paragraphs 0123-0126). Tepper teaches combinations of these properties when designing multilayer filtration media (paragraphs 0120, 0154, 0200). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to define the filtration layers in terms of properties, such as, layer thickness, pore size, pore density, or combination thereof, because these adjustments in filtration media design will increase filtration performance.
Regarding claim 10, Jaganathan discloses using multiple layers of varying properties in appropriate combination to form filter media (paragraph 0129).
Regarding claim 12, Jaganathan discloses the filter may comprise synthetic fibers formed from a melt-blown process, melt spinning process, centrifugal spinning process, or electrospinning process (paragraph 0024). Tepper discloses the fibrous structure is prepared by wet laying, but it may also be prepared by other methods well known in the art including air laying, melt-blowing, spun-bonding and carding (paragraph 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these well-known and routinely used techniques to fabricate the filtration media with predictable structural and filtration characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, Jaganathan fails to disclose the membrane comprises a single-use membrane or a reusable membrane. Tepper discloses that the filter can be disposed of as sanitary waste (paragraph 0150), thereby teaching a single-use or disposable filter configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art at the time of the invention to configure the filtration media as either single-use or reuseable membrane based on intended use, without altering the fundamental filtration function of the membrane.
Claims 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaganathan and Singh, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Huang et al U.S. Pub. No. 20170361254 A1, December 21, 2017 (hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claim 21, Jaganathan fails to disclose the membrane is biodegradable. Huang discloses using biodegradable polymers, bio-based polymers, natural polymers and combinations thereof, in fibrous filtration structures (paragraph 0061). 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 filtration media of Jaganathan-Singh to use biodegradable polymer materials, in order to reduce environmental impact and facilitate disposal of used filtration media.
Regarding claim 23, Jaganathan fails to disclose the filtration media of claim 1; and at least one securement member for securing the filtration media to a subject or an object. However, Huang discloses the filtration media is incorporated into a wearable structure, including the use of securement members such as straps, bands, fasteners, or similar attachment elements to secure the filtration media to a user (paragraph 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least one securement member, as taught by Huang, in order to retain the filtration media in a desired position during use, particularly for personal, environmental, or object-mounted filtration applications.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saroch et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0026897 A1, January 30, 2014 (hereinafter “Saroch”) in view of Singh et al U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0246323 A1, September 03, 2015 (hereinafter “Singh”).
Regarding claim 29, Saroch discloses a face mask for filtering biological and mechanical impurities from inhaled or exhaled air, comprising a multilayer filtration assembly having a polymer nanofiber filtration layer (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0020–0023). Saroch identify polycaprolactone as a suitable polymer for the filtration nanofibers (Paragraphs 0011 and 0023; claim 4). Saroch further discloses a peripheral adhesive layer on the face-contacting side of the mask (paragraph 0021). Saroch discloses securing the mask to the user’s face using the adhesive (paragraph 0022). The adhesive layer corresponds to the claimed securement member for securing the membrane to a subject. However, Saroch fails to disclose the claimed combination of pore diameter, channels connecting adjacent pores, and channel connectivity diameter.
Singh discloses a polymeric filtration membrane comprising larger pore cavities and smaller connecting openings between those cavities. The smaller openings permit fluid communication from the cavity within one pore rim into the cavity within another pore rim (Fig. 1 and paragraph 0032). Figure 2 shows the pore cavities, supporting polymer matrix, and connecting openings (paragraph 0009). These connecting openings correspond to the claimed channels connecting adjacent pores. Singh’s Example 1 discloses larger pores having a controlled size of approximately 570 nanometers and connecting openings having a controlled size of approximately 171 nanometers (paragraph 0083). Paragraph 0082 identifies SEM analysis and porometry for determining the connecting-opening size. The approximately uniform, controlled pore dimensions provide a basis for identifying representative average dimensions: 570 nanometers is below the claimed maximum pore diameter of 175 micrometers, and 171 nanometers falls within the claimed connectivity-diameter range of 10 nanometers to 200 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Singh’s controlled-pore polymeric membrane as an additional filtration layer in Saroch’s multilayer mask, while retaining Saroch’s polycaprolactone nanofiber layer and peripheral adhesive. This modification would provide controlled particle-retaining passages with fluid communication between adjacent pore cavities, consistent with Singh’s objective of providing high-throughput filtration membranes stated in paragraph [0001[. Saroch’s paragraphs [0013–0014 teach] joining filtration layers while minimizing interference with permeability, providing a suitable approach for integrating the additional membrane layer. The resulting multilayer membrane would comprise a polycaprolactone layer, the claimed pores and connecting channels, and an adhesive securement member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 7, 11, 15, 17, 18, 24-28, and 30-36 were cancelled in the amended claims.
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 MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
