DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 12/11/2025, in which claims 1-3 have been amended and claims 1-9 and 12-14 are pending and ready for examination.
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 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 “providing a fibrous electrospun porous media including an electrospun nanofiber selected from the group consisting of nylon-6, nylon-6, 6, nylon 6, 6-6,10, nylon-6 copolymers, nylon -6, 6 copolymers, nylon 6, 6-6, 10 copolymers and mixtures thereof solubilized in a mixture of formic acid, acetic acid and water for about 5-6 hours at about 80 C”. It is not clear if the fibers are solubilized in the mixture, or if the polymers are solubilized in the mixture before electrospinning. It will be interpreted that the polymers are solubilized in the mixture before electrospinning as is argued by Applicants in the remarks dated 12/11/2025 pg. 7. Correction is required. The suggested correction is “providing a fibrous electrospun porous media including an electrospun nanofiber selected from the group consisting of nylon-6, nylon-6, 6, nylon 6, 6-6,10, nylon-6 copolymers, nylon -6, 6 copolymers, nylon 6, 6-6, 10 copolymers and mixtures thereof which have been solubilized in a mixture of formic acid, acetic acid and water for about 5-6 hours at about 80 C prior to electrospinning”.
Claims 2-9 and 12-14 are rejected for depending on an indefinite claim.
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, 5-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0061332 A1 (hereinafter “Kas”) in view of US 2005/0163955 A1 (hereinafter “Schaefer”) and US 2013/0092622 A (hereinafter “Kas2”).
Regarding Claim 1 Kas discloses a method of removing retrovirus (i.e. virus) contaminants from an aqueous fluid feed solution [0031] comprising the steps of:
providing a porous electrospun nanofiber liquid filtration medium (i.e. fibrous electrospun porous media) [0031] including
wherein the nanofiber may comprise nylon, including nylon 6; which has been solubilized in a mixture of acetic and formic acids for 5 hours at 80°C, then in a solution of formic acid, acetic acid and water for an undisclosed amount of time and temperature [0055], [0095].
an electrospun nanofiber having an average fiber diameter ranging from about 10 nm to about 100 nm [0032], and
a porous support, wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media is disposed on the porous support [0060]-[0061], [0078], and
contacting the (retro)virus contaminated aqueous fluid feed solution with the fibrous electrospun porous media; and
obtaining a filtrate, wherein the membrane is disclosed to have a retrovirus LRV greater than about 6, so the filtrate would thus have less than 0.0001 % of the retrovirus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution ([0031]-[0037], [0060]-[0061], [0078], Claim 1).
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Kas does not disclose (1) removing virus contaminants in the 18 nm to 30 nm size range, (2) that the fibrous electrospun porous media has a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi, or (3) the polymer of the nanofiber of solubilized in a mixture of formic acid, acetic acid and water for about 5-6 hours at about 80°C.
However, with regard to (1) removing virus contaminants in the 18 nm to 30 nm size range, Schaefer discloses a similar electrospun porous media comprising a fine fiber layer and an optional support for filtering viruses and other contaminants in the 0.005-0.02 micron and larger size range, wherein the nanofiber media has a pore size of 0.01-25 micron; [0018]-[0021], [0042]-[0043].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kas by forming the electrospun porous media to have an average pores size of 0.01-25 micron so as to trap particles in the 0.005-0.02 micron and larger size range as discleod by Schaefer in order to remove particles are small as viruses and because pore size is known to be a result effective variable because pore size effects the size of particles retained by the filter, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using at least values as disclosed by Schaefer for a similar electrospun nanofiber virus filtration media, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
With regard to (2) a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi, the bubble point as measured with perfluorohexane is disclosed by Applicants to be a means of measuring the mean pore size [0094], and where the mean pore size is disclosed elsewhere to be 0.01-0.03 micron (10-30 nm), thus it is expected that a mean pore size of 30 nm or less will inherently produce a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi, see MPEP 2112. Thus combination of Kas in view of Schaefer, due to the porous electrospun nanofiber liquid filtration medium having an average pore size as small as 0.01 micron (i.e. 10 nm) (supra), is seen to inherently have a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi due (i.e. because as detailed above the bubble point is a measure of pore size and the pore sizes under 30 nm are expected to inherently result in a bubble point as claimed; see MPEP 2112) and the method is therefore seen to inherently or obviously provide removing virus contaminants and other particles in the 18 nm to 30 nm size range because they are larger than the pore size and would be expected to occur in the solutions filtered. Specifically, it is asserted that the mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane is above 100 psi.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to (3) solubilizing the polymer before electrospinning, Kas2 discloses a similar method of removing retrovirus (i.e. virus) contaminants from an aqueous fluid feed solution , using a similar composite filtration medium comprising a fibrous electrospun porous nanofiber media disposed on a porous support for filtering retroviruses having an average fiber diameter ranging from about 10 nm to about 150 nm, wherein the membrane is disclosed to have a virus LRV greater than about 6, so the filtrate would thus have less than 0.0001 % of virus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution [0049], [0066], [0080]-[0081], [0128]-[0129], [0149], Table 1; wherein the nanofiber is nylon 6 which is electrospun from a spinning solution prepared by mixing nylon 6 with a blend of acetic acid, formic acid and water for about 5 hours at 80°C [0137].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kas in view of Schaefer by solubilizing the nylon 6 in a mixture of formic acid, acetic acid and water for about 5-6 hours at about 80°C prior to electrospinning as disclosed by Kas2 because this involves the simple substitution of known methods of producing nylon 6 nanofibers by electrospinning from nylon 6 spinning solution to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful nylon 6 nanofiber filtration media.
Regarding Claim 2-3 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the membrane is disclosed to have a retrovirus LRV greater than about 6 [0037], so the filtrate would thus have less than 0.0001 % of retrovirus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution
Regarding Claim 5 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media has a mean pore size ranging 0.01-25, supra.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the fibrous electro spun porous media has a porosity ranging from about 80% to about 95%, Kas [0033].
Regarding Claim 7 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media has a thickness ranging from about 1 μm to about 100 μm, Kas [0035].
Regarding Claim 8 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media has liquid permeability of greater than 100 LMH/psi; Kas [0054].
Regarding Claim 9 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the combination of Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2, due to the porous electrospun nanofiber liquid filtration medium having an average pore size as small as 0.01 micron (i.e. 10 nm) (supra), is thus seen to inherently have a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi due (i.e. because as detailed above the bubble point is a measure of pore size and pore sizes under 30 nm are expected to inherently result in a bubble point as claimed; see MPEP 2112). Specifically, it is asserted that the mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane is above 120 psi.
Regarding Claim 12 and 14 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein Kas discloses it is obvious to use two nanofiber layers together, adjacent one another [0078], thus one may be considered the porous support, and as the fibrous electrospun porous layer has a fiber diameter of 10-100 nm (supra), this overlaps porous support fiber diameters range claimed.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 further in view of WO2010069296A1 (hereinafter “Greiner”).
Regarding Claim 4 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the virus is a parvovirus.
However Greiner discloses a similar electrospun porous media comprising a electrospun nonwoven fabric on a permeable carrier material for filtering viruses from aqueous solutions wherein the virus removed by the media may be a parvovirus; [0002], [0189], [0194], [0236], [0237].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 by removing parvovirus contaminants as disclosed by Greiner because Kas is disclosed to be used to remove viruses and via Greiner it is known to use similar electrospun porous media to remove the specific virus contaminates parvoviruses and so it would have been obvious to use the similar media in the same way, to remove parvoviruses from a aqueous solution, with an expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 further in view of US 2014/0076797 Al (hereinafter “Jo”).
Regarding Claim 13 Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the porous support comprises nanofibers having average fiber diameters between 50 nm and 200 nm.
However Jo discloses a similar electrospun porous media for filtering viruses from aqueous solutions wherein an ultra-fine fiber layer (i.e. support layer) is coated with a nanonet layer of electrosprayed nanofiber particles, wherein the support layer may comprise fibers having an average fiber diameter of 100-3000 nm; Abstract, [0034]-[0040].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kas in view of Schaefer and Kas2 by using a support layer comprising fibers having an average fiber diameter of 100-3000 nm as disclosed by Jo because this involves the simple substitution of known fibrous porous supports used for supporting a smaller pored nanofiber layer to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful electrospun porous media and successfully removing viruses from an aqueous solution.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2010069296A1 (hereinafter “Greiner”) in view of Kas2 and Schaefer.
Regarding Claim 1 Greiner discloses a method of removing virus contaminants in the 18 nm to 30 nm size range from an aqueous fluid feed solution (where it may remove parvo [0189],[0194],[0236],[0237], which has a size of 10-26 nm according to the instant specification [0005]) comprising the steps of:
providing a fibrous electrospun porous media including
an electrospun nanofiber, wherein the nanofiber may comprise polyamide-6, i.e. nylon 6 [0326], and having an average fiber diameter 10 nm to 50 µm [0044], [0053], and
a carrier material (i.e. a porous support, which may be selected from fiber-oriented nonwovens, random fiber nonwovens, porous solids (for example made of sintered metals), fabrics, paper filters, plastic filters, metal sieves and membrane filters, [0023]),
wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media is disposed on the porous support [0044], [0283], and
contacting the virus contaminated aqueous fluid feed solution with the fibrous electrospun porous media; and obtaining a filtrate having less of the virus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution; [0304], [0306], [0346].
Greiner does not disclose (1) the fibrous electrospun porous media has a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi, (2) the obtained filtrate has less than 0.01 % of the virus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution, or (3) the polymer of the nanofiber of solubilized in a mixture of formic acid, acetic acid and water for about 5-6 hours at about 80°C.
However, with regard to (1) a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi, the bubble point as measured with perfluorohexane is disclosed by Applicants to be a means of measuring the mean pore size [0094], and where the mean pore size is disclosed elsewhere to be 0.01-0.03 micron (10-30 nm), thus it is expected that a mean more size of 30 nm or less will inherently produce a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi, see MPEP 2112.
With regard to pore size, Schaefer discloses a similar electrospun porous media comprising a fine fiber layer and an optional support for filtering viruses and other contaminants in the 0.005-0.02 micron and larger size range, wherein the nanofiber media has a pore size of 0.01-25 micron; [0018]-[0021], [0042]-[0043].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner by forming the electrospun porous media to have an average pores size of 0.01-25 micron so as to trap particles in the 0.005-0.02 micron and larger size range as discleod by Schaefer in order to remove particles are small as viruses and because pore size is known to be a result effective variable because pore size effects the size of particles retained by the filter, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using at least values as disclosed by Schaefer for a similar electrospun nanofiber virus filtration media, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
With regard to (2) filtrate with less than 0.01 % of the virus contaminants, Kas2 discloses a similar method of removing retrovirus (i.e. virus) contaminants from an aqueous fluid feed solution , using a similar composite filtration medium comprising a fibrous electrospun porous nanofiber media disposed on a porous support for filtering retroviruses having an average fiber diameter ranging from about 10 nm to about 150 nm, wherein the membrane is disclosed to have a virus LRV greater than about 6, so the filtrate would thus have less than 0.0001 % of virus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution [0049], [0066], [0080]-[0081], [0128]-[0129], [0149], Table 1.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner in view of Schaefer to achieve a virus LRV of greater than 6 as disclosed by Kas2 because this is a known and desirable virus removal amount which is known to produce filtered solutions with an adequate removal of virus contaminants.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to (2) filtrate with less than 0.01 % of the virus contaminants, Kas2 further discloses wherein the nanofiber is nylon 6 which is electrospun from a spinning solution prepared by mixing nylon 6 with a blend of acetic acid, formic acid and water for about 5 hours at 80°C [0137].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Kas in view of Schaefer by solubilizing the nylon 6 in a mixture of formic acid, acetic acid and water for about 5-6 hours at about 80°C prior to electrospinning as disclosed by Kas2 because this involves the simple substitution of known methods of producing nylon 6 nanofibers by electrospinning from nylon 6 spinning solution to obtain the predictable results of forming a successful nylon 6 nanofiber filtration media.
The combination of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2, due to the porous electrospun nanofiber liquid filtration medium having an average pore size as small as 0.01 micron (i.e. 10 nm) (supra), is thus seen to inherently have a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi due (i.e. because as detailed above the bubble point is a measure of pore size and the pore sizes under 30 nm are expected to inherently result in a bubble point as claimed; see MPEP 2112) and the method is therefore seen to inherently or obviously provide removing virus contaminants and other particles in the 18 nm to 30 nm size range because they are larger than the pore size and would be expected to occur in the solutions filtered. Specifically, it is asserted that the mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane is above 100 psi.
Regarding Claim 2-3 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the membrane is disclosed to have a retrovirus LRV greater than about 6 (supra), so the filtrate would thus have less than 0.0001 % of retrovirus contaminants present in the aqueous fluid feed solution.
Regarding Claim 4 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the virus is a parvovirus; Greiner [0189],[0194],[0236],[0237].
Regarding Claim 5 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media has a mean pore size ranging 0.01-25, supra.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but is silent to the porosity, and thus does not disclose wherein the fibrous electro spun porous media has a porosity ranging from about 80% to about 95%,
However Kas2 discloses their similar fibrous electro spun porous media has a porosity 80-95% [0080].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 so that the fibrous electro spun porous media has a porosity ranging from about 80% to about 95% as disclosed by Kas2 because porosity is known to be a result effective variable because porosity effects the resistance to flow and filtration properties, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using at least values as disclosed by Kas2 for a similar electrospun nanofiber virus filtration media, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 7 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but is silent to the thickness, and thus does not disclose wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media has a thickness ranging from about 1 μm to about 100 μm,
However Kas2 discloses their similar fibrous electro spun porous media has a thickness of 1-100 micron [0080].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 so that the fibrous electro spun porous media has a thickness of 1 1-100 micron as disclosed by Kas2 because thickness is known to be a result effective variable because thickness effects the mechanical properties, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using at least values as disclosed by Kas2 for a similar electrospun nanofiber virus filtration media, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 8 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but is silent to the liquid permeability, and thus does not disclose wherein the fibrous electrospun porous media has liquid permeability greater than about 10 LMH/psi.
However Kas2 discloses their similar fibrous electro spun porous media has a liquid permeability of greater than 100 LMH/psi [0080].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 so that the fibrous electro spun porous media has a liquid permeability of greater than 100 LMH/psi as disclosed by Kas2 because liquid permeability is known to be a result effective variable because liquid permeability effects the speed and throughput of filtration, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using at least values as disclosed by Kas2 for a similar electrospun nanofiber virus filtration media, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 9 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the combination of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2, due to the porous electrospun nanofiber liquid filtration medium having an average pore size as small as 0.01 micron (i.e. 10 nm) (supra), is thus seen to inherently have a mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane above 100 psi due (i.e. because as detailed above the bubble point is a measure of pore size and pore sizes under 30 nm are expected to inherently result in a bubble point as claimed; see MPEP 2112). Specifically, it is asserted that the mean flow bubble point measured with perfluorohexane is above 120 psi.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiner in view of Kas2 and Schaefer and further in view of Kas.
Regarding Claim 12 and 14 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the porous support comprises nanofibers having an average fiber diameter between 10 nm and 500 nm.
However Kas discloses a similar method of removing retrovirus (i.e. virus) contaminants from an aqueous fluid feed solution [0031] using a composite porous electrospun nanofiber liquid filtration medium including an electrospun nanofiber having an average fiber diameter ranging from about 10 nm to about 100 nm [0031]-[0037], [0060]-[0061], [0078], Claim 1; and wherein it is disclosed that two nanofiber layers may be used together, adjacent one another to improve particle retention [0078].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 to use two nanofiber layers together, adjacent one another as disclosed by Kas in order to improve particle retention. Thus one nanofiber layer may be considered the porous support, and as the fibrous electrospun porous layer has a fiber diameter of 10nm-150 nm (supra), this overlaps porous support fiber diameters range claimed.
Since the range(s) disclosed overlaps the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of the disclosed range(s) that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 further in view of US 2014/0076797 Al (hereinafter “Jo”).
Regarding Claim 13 Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 discloses the method according to Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the porous support comprises nanofibers having average fiber diameters between 50 nm and 200 nm.
However Jo discloses a similar electrospun porous media for filtering viruses from aqueous solutions wherein an ultra-fine fiber layer (i.e. support layer) is coated with a nanonet layer of electrosprayed nanofiber particles, wherein the support layer may comprise fibers having an average fiber diameter of 100-3000 nm; Abstract, [0034]-[0040].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Greiner in view of Schaefer and Kas2 by using a support layer comprising fibers having an average fiber diameter of 100-3000 nm as disclosed by Jo because this involves the simple substitution of known fibrous porous supports used for supporting a smaller pored nanofiber layer to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful electrospun porous media and successfully removing viruses from an aqueous solution.
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-14 are withdrawn in view of the Applicants’ arguments and amendments. Though it should be noted that new 112(b) rejections of claim 1-14 are introduced in this office action above, as necessitated by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive with regard to the previous combination of references as they would apply to the amended claims, but they are now moot because they are directed in their entirety to grounds of rejection which are no longer cited in the current action and the new limitations of the amended claims which had not been previously addressed. See the updated rejection above citing a new combination of references to address the amended claims.
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