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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, but a modification of the previous prior art rejection using the same references reads upon the claimed invention.
On page 7 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant summarizes the amendments to the claims.
On page 8, Applicant summarizes the status of the claims, and discusses the objections to the Specification. The Examiner notes that the previous objection is withdrawn as a result.
On pages 8-9, Applicant discusses the previous 112(b) rejections, noting that Claim 12 is cancelled, and that Claim 1 has been amended to address the 112(b) rejection indicated. The Examiner notes that these particular rejections have been withdrawn, but that the other outstanding rejections have not been addressed, and still remain.
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues against the previous 102 prior art rejection of Claim 1, arguing that previous anticipatory reference Hester et al., (“Hester”, US 2010/0209693), does not disclose the added limitation of “wherein the monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer is present in an amount of 2 wt-% to 75 wt-%, based on the total weight of the interpolymerized monomers”. However, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because Hester explicitly discloses this feature, (See paragraph [0045], [0076], Hester; anticipates the claimed range from either 2 to 25 or 2 to 10 wt%). Thus, this remark against Claim 1, and successively against Claim 10, and the later 103 prior art rejection of dependent Claims 3-7 are considered moot.
On pages 11-13, Applicant argues against the 102 rejection of independent Claim 11, regarding Vail et al., (“Vail”, US 2018/0066095). Applicant argues that Vail does not disclose a monofunctional monomer and how much of an amount it has as claimed above. The Examiner notes that Hester discloses this feature instead as described above, (See paragraph [0045], [0076], Hester; anticipates the claimed range from either 2 to 25 or 2 to 10 wt%). Thus, this remark is considered unpersuasive.
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 11 & 13-16 and their dependent claims 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 11 recites the limitation “a virus-containing sample” on line 10. It is not clear if this limitation is the same limitation as “a virus-containing sample” on line 1 of the claim, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the filtration media”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the viral filtration media” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least a portion of the target virus” and “other material”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least a portion of the target virus” and “other material” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a moving virus-containing sample” on lines 1-2. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the virus-containing sample” as in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the filtration media” on lines 2 & 4. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the viral filtration media” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least a portion of the target virus”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least a portion of the target virus” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a moving virus-containing sample” on lines 1-2. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the virus-containing sample” as in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the filtration media” on lines 2 & 4. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the viral filtration media” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “other material”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “other material” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a moving virus-containing sample” on line 2. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the virus-containing sample” as in Claim 13, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the filtration media” on line 3. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a/the viral filtration media” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “at least a portion of the target virus”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least a portion of the target virus” in Claim 11, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hester et al., (“Hester”, US 2010/0209693).
Regarding Claims 1, Hester discloses a viral filtration media, (See paragraph [0103], Hester), comprising: a porous substrate comprising a surface, (See paragraph [0024], Hester), having a polymer grafted thereto, (See paragraph [0012], [0021] & [0028], Hester), wherein the grafted polymer comprises interpolymerized monomers, (See paragraph [0028]), comprising: a monofunctional (meth)acrylic acid monomer, (See paragraph [0050], Hester); and a monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer optionally including a hydrocarbon chain, (See one of paragraphs [0037], [0038] or [0039], Hester), and wherein the monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer is present in an amount of 2 wt-% to 75 wt-%, based on the total weight of the interpolymerized monomers, (See paragraph [0045], [0076], Hester; anticipates the claimed range from either 2 to 25 or 2 to 10 wt%).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The filtration media of claim 1 wherein the (meth)acrylic acid monomer is methacrylic acid, (See paragraph [0050], Hester).
Claim 9: The filtration media of claim 1 wherein the porous substrate is a porous polymeric nonwoven substrate, (See paragraphs [0025] & [0026], Hester).
Claim 17: The filtration media of claim 1, wherein said monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer comprises a single ethylenically unsaturated polymerizable group, (See paragraph [0030], [0031], or [0039], Hester).
Claim 19: The filtration media of claim 1 wherein said (meth)acrylic acid monomer is present in an amount of at least 25 wt-%, based on the total weight of the interpolymerized monomers, (See paragraph [0045] & [0076], Hester; anticipates claimed range at 25 wt%).
Regarding Claim 10, Hester discloses an article comprising the viral filtration media of claim 1, (See paragraphs [0012] & [0110], Hester).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hester et al., (“Hester”, US 2010/0209693), in view of Kihara et al., (“Kihara”, US 2018/0296988).
Regarding Claim 3, Hester discloses the filtration media of claim 1 wherein the poly(alkylene oxide) monomer has the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
28
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, (See paragraph [0037], Hester), wherein: Z is a polymerizable ethylenically unsaturated group, (See paragraph [0037], Hester, “Z is an acrylate or…polymerizable ethylencially unsaturated group”); Q is a divalent linking group, (See paragraph [0037], Hester; there is no Q claimed previously); R1 is H or an alkyl group, (See paragraph [0037], “R1 is a H or a C1 to C4 alkyl group”); and m is 2 to 100, (See paragraph [0037], “n is from 2 to 100”).
Hester does not disclose that R2 is H or an alkyl group.
Kihara discloses a filtration media where its R2 is H or an alkyl group, (See paragraph [0180], Kihara discloses acryloyl and alkyl groups as interchangeable selections, (Hester discloses an acryloyl group in the R2 location)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filtration media of Hester by incorporating that R2 is H or an alkyl group as in Kihara because Kihara provides a “fluorinated polymer”, (See paragraph [0174], Kihara), with “a divalent organic group” and “substituent”, (See paragraph [0180], Kihara), generating a coating layer where “the durability…is excellent”, (See paragraph [0284], Kihara), which will help “the…porous substrates…overcome such durability problems”, (See paragraph [0109], Hester), which is a common concern in Hester.
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 4: The filtration media of claim 3 wherein Z is selected from the group consisting of:
PNG
media_image2.png
169
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein: R3 is H or CH3; and r is 1-10, (See paragraph [0037], Hester; “-C(O)-CH=CH2”, middle CH meets R3 is H, and r is not required).
Claim 5: The filtration media of claim 3 where Q is selected from the group consisting of: -O-, -NR3-, -C(O)O-, and -C(O)NR3-, wherein R3 is H or CH3, (See paragraph [0037], Hester).
Claim 6: The filtration media of claim 3 wherein R2 is an alkyl group, (See paragraph [0180], Kihara discloses acryloyl and alkyl groups as interchangeable selections, (Hester discloses an acryloyl group in the R2 location)).
Claim 7: The filtration media of claim 3 wherein m is 2 to 50, (See paragraph [0037], “n is from…preferably 5 to 20”, Hester).
Claim(s) 11-15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vail et al., (“Vail”, US 2018/0066095), in view of Hester et al., (“Hester”, US 2010/0209693).
Regarding Claims 11-15, Vail discloses a method of filtering a virus-containing sample, (See paragraph [0002] & [0031], Vail), the method comprising: providing a viral filtration media, (See paragraph [0031], Vail), comprising: a porous substrate comprising a surface having a polymer grafted thereto, (See paragraph [0033] & [0034], Vail), wherein the grafted polymer comprises interpolymerized monomers comprising: a (meth)acrylic acid monomer, (See paragraphs [0034] & [0035], Vail); providing a virus-containing sample comprising a target virus, (See Figure 1 or Figure 2, See paragraph [0069] or [0070]-[0072]; See paragraph [0020]); and contacting the viral filtration media with the virus-containing sample under conditions effective to separate at least a portion of the target virus from other material in the virus-containing sample, (See Figure 1 or Figure 2, See paragraph [0069] or [0070]-[0072]; See paragraph [0020]).
Vail does not explicitly disclose a monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer optionally including a hydrocarbon chain, or wherein the monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer is present in an amount of 2 wt-% to 75 wt-%, based on the total weight of the interpolymerized monomers.
Hester discloses a filtration media and method also including a monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer optionally including a hydrocarbon chain, a monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer optionally including a hydrocarbon chain, (See one of paragraphs [0037], [0038] or [0039], Hester), and wherein the monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer is present in an amount of 2 wt-% to 75 wt-%, based on the total weight of the interpolymerized monomers, (See paragraph [0045], [0076], Hester; anticipates the claimed range from either 2 to 25 or 2 to 10 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Vail by incorporating a monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer optionally including a hydrocarbon chain and wherein the monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer is present in an amount of 2 wt-% to 75 wt-%, based on the total weight of the interpolymerized monomers as in Hester in order to “provide the desired hydrophilicity”, (See paragraph [0037], Hester), because “those monomers that are more hydrophilic…may be preferred…due to their compatibility or solubility characteristics with the…group containing acrylic monomer”, (See paragraph [0035], Hester).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 12: The method of claim 11, wherein the interpolymerized monomers comprise: a (meth)acrylic acid monomer, (See paragraphs [0034] & [0035], Vail); and a monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer optionally including a hydrocarbon chain, (See one of paragraphs [0037], [0038] or [0039], Hester).
Claim 13: The method of claim 11 wherein contacting comprises allowing a moving virus-containing sample to impinge upon an upstream surface of the filtration media for a time sufficient to effect separation of at least a portion of the target virus from other material in the virus-containing sample, (See Figure 2, See paragraph [0072], then paragraphs [0073]-[0075], Vail).
Claim 14: The method of claim 13 wherein contacting comprises allowing a moving virus-containing sample to impinge upon an upstream surface of the filtration media for a time sufficient to effect binding of at least a portion of the target virus in the virus- containing sample to the filtration media, (See Figure 2, See paragraph [0072], then paragraphs [0073]-[0075], Vail).
Claim 15: The method of claim 13 wherein contacting comprises allowing a moving virus-containing sample to impinge upon an upstream surface of the filtration media for a time sufficient to effect binding of at least a portion of other material in the virus- containing sample to the filtration media, (See Figure 2, See paragraph [0072], then paragraphs [0073]-[0075], Vail).
Claim 18: The method of claim 11, wherein said monofunctional poly(alkylene oxide) monomer comprises a single ethylenically unsaturated polymerizable group, (See paragraph [0030], [0031], or [0039], Hester).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vail et al., (“Vail”, US 2018/0066095), in view of Hester et al., (“Hester”, US 2010/0209693), in further view of Seshadri et al., (“Seshadri”, US 2010/0075560).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Vail discloses the method of claim 13 wherein contacting comprises allowing a moving virus-containing sample to impinge upon an upstream surface of the filtration media for a time sufficient to effect separation of at least a portion of the target virus, (See Figure 2, See paragraph [0072], then paragraphs [0073]-[0075], Vail), but does not explicitly disclose separation of at least a portion of the target virus from another virus in the virus-containing sample.
Seshadri discloses a method with separation of at least a portion of the target virus from another virus in the virus-containing sample, (See paragraphs [0095] & [0096], Seshadri).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Vail by incorporating separation of at least a portion of the target virus from another virus in the virus-containing sample as in Seshadri so it “allows the selective capture or binding of target biomaterials…while other materials, lacking the specific binding interactions…are passed”, (See paragraph [0021], Seshadri),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights