DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/19/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagarajan et al. (US 2018/0016445 A1) (“Nagarajan” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Nagarajan teaches a composition (see Nagarajan at [0017] teaching disclosed herein is a crosslinked polyphenol and polymer composition), which is taken to meet the claimed composition based on the structure as outlined below, comprising:
a nylon polymer (see Nagarajan at [0047]-[0048] teaching the polymer can be any type, including… a thermoplastic… examples of thermoplastic polymers that can be used include… polyaramides including synthetic linear polyamides… Nylon 6 and Nylon 6,6); and
tannic acid (see Nagarajan at [0017] and [0020] teaching the crosslinked polyphenol can be prepared through polycondensation of a bio-based phenolic compound… in a specific embodiment, the natural product phenolic compound can be a tannin… there are two major classes of tannins: condensed tannins and hydrolysable tannins… tannic acid is a major commercial form of hydrolysable tannin);
wherein the nylon polymer and the tannic acid are homogenously distributed in the composition (see Nagarajan at [0063] teaching the polymer compositions can be manufactured by various methods known in the art… for example, when the polymer is a thermoplastic, the crosslinked polyphenol, the polymer… can be blended… in a high speed mixer or by hand mixing). The mixed or blended thermoplastic and the crosslinked polyphenol is taken to meet the claimed “the nylon polymer and the tannic acid are homogenously distributed in the composition”.
Regarding claims 2-3, Nagarajan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Nagarajan further teaches wherein the nylon polymer is nylon 6 (claim 2), and wherein the nylon polymer is nylon 6,6 (claim 3) (see Nagarajan at [0048] teaching Nylon 6 and Nylon 6,6).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan.
Regarding claim 4, Nagarajan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Nagarajan further teaches wherein the tannic acid has a wt% of at least 10% relative to the nylon polymer (see Nagarajan at [0046] teaching also provided is a polymer composition comprising a polymer; and 2 to 30 wt% of a crosslinked polyphenol, based on the total weight of the polymer and the crosslinked polyphenol, see Nagarajan at [0017] and [0020] teaching the crosslinked polyphenol can be prepared through polycondensation of a bio-based phenolic compound… in a specific embodiment, the natural product phenolic compound can be a tannin… there are two major classes of tannins: condensed tannins and hydrolysable tannins… tannic acid is a major commercial form of hydrolysable tannin) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deans et al. (US 2019/0077940 A1) (“Deans” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 5-6, Nagarajan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, Nagarajan teaches a composition comprising tannic acid and nylon (see Nagarajan at [0017], [0020], and [0047]-[0048]). Nagarajan also teaches a crosslinked polyphenol and polymer composition suitable as an FR additive for polymers and fabrics (see Nagarajan at [0017]). However, Nagarajan does not explicitly teach wherein the tannic acid has a wt% of at least 50% relative to the nylon polymer (claim 5), and wherein the tannic acid has a wt% of at least 100% relative to the nylon polymer (claim 6).
Like Nagarajan, Deans teaches a composition comprising tannic acid and nylon (see Deans at [0008]-[0009] and [0017] teaching a polymer composite material includes a blend of one or more thermoplastic polymers and one or more bio-based flame retardant additives… the one or more bio-based flame retardant additives includes tannic acid… in some embodiments, the one or more thermoplastic polymers includes one or more… nylon 6, nylon 6,6). Deans also teaches flame retardant polymer composite materials wherein the polymer is modified using one or more tannins… as flame retardant additives… the one ore more tannins… provide a bio-based additive that has been found by the inventors to provide flame retardant properties to the polymer (see Deans at [0006]).
Deans further teaches in some embodiments, the one or more bio-based flame retardant additives includes tannic acid… the tannic acid may be present from about 40 to about 100 parts per 100 parts by weight of the one or more thermoplastic polymers (see Deans at [0009]), which is taken to meet the claimed “ wherein the tannic acid has a wt% of at least 50% relative to the nylon polymer” (claim 5), and “wherein the tannic acid has a wt% of at least 100% relative to the nylon polymer” (claim 6) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected an amount of from about 40 to about 100 parts of tannic acid per 100 parts by weight of the one or more thermoplastic polymers as taught by Deans in the crosslinked polyphenol and polymer composition as taught by Nagarajan because there is a reasonable expectation of success that amounts disclosed amounts would be suitable so as to provide flame retardant properties to the polymer.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagarajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yung et al. (US 2018/0371656 A1) (“Yung” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, Nagarajan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Nagarajan further teaches also provided is a flame-retardant fabric comprising a woven or non-woven fabric substrate and a coating on a surface of the fabric substrate… any suitable material can be used as the fabric substrate, including polymers as described above… the fibers can be in any suitable form, for example single, twisted, knitted, or the like… in an embodiment, the woven or non-woven fabric substrate comprises polyamide fibers (see Nagarajan at [0068]).
However, Nagarajan does not explicitly teach wherein the composition is in the form of a nanofiber.
Like Nagarajan, Yung teaches fabrics comprising polyamide fibers (see Yung at [0002] and [0009] teaching a polyamide nanofiber nonwovens that may be useful for… breathable fabrics for apparel… as well as other applications… in some embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to a nanofiber nonwoven product comprising polyamide nanofibers… the polyamide may comprise… N6, N66… wherein “N” means Nylon). Nylon nanofibers is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the composition is in the form of a nanofiber”.
Yung further teaches polymer membranes, including nanofiber… nonwovens are known in the art and are used for a variety of purposes, including in connection with… apparel (see Yung at [0003]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Yung teaches nylon nanofiber nonwovens are known in the art and are used for a variety of purposes, and seek those advantages by using nanofibers in the non-woven fabric substrate as taught by Nagarajan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use nanofibers as taught by Yung in the non-woven fabric substrate as taught by Nagarajan because nylon nanofibers nonwovens are known in the art and are used for a variety of purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Nagarajan in view of Yung teach a nanofibrous mat (see Nagarajan at [0068] teaching a flame-retardant fabric comprising a woven or non-woven fabric substrate and a coating on a surface of the fabric substrate… any suitable material can be used as the fabric substrate, including polymers as described above… the fibers can be in any suitable form, for example single, twisted, knitted, or the like… in an embodiment, the woven or non-woven fabric substrate comprises polyamide fibers, see Yung at [0002] and [0009] teaching a polyamide nanofiber nonwovens that may be useful for… breathable fabrics for apparel… as well as other applications… in some embodiments, the present disclosure is directed to a nanofiber nonwoven product comprising polyamide nanofibers… the polyamide may comprise… N6, N66… wherein “N” means Nylon). Nylon nanofibers is taken to meet the claimed “nanofibrous mat”, comprising
the nanofiber of claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection for details).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights