Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action based on application 17/307/504 filed on May 4, 2021. The application is a CON of application 16/473,640, and its earliest priority claim is to German application DE10-2016-125818.0, filed December 28, 2016.
Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are pending and have been fully considered.
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 .
Status of the Rejection
The §103 rejection based on modified Tran (US 6,309,532 B1) is withdrawn.
The §103 rejection based on modified Vecitis (US 2012/0234694 A1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vecitis et al (US 2012/0234694 A1) in view of Faris (US 6,805,776 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Vecitis teaches a method for the at least temporary separation and/or detection of charged biologically active substances in a liquid by means of electrosorption and/or electrofiltration (abstract, “to reduce at least one contaminant (e.g., organic molecules, ions and/or biological microorganisms) in an aqueous fluid ... aqueous fluid is flowed through a filtration apparatus comprising a porous carbon nanotube filter material at an applied voltage”),
comprising the following steps:
a. providing a polymer membrane with a working electrode of porous electrosorbent material on at least on a first side of the polymer membrane (figure 1, filter membrane 108; para [0595]; per para [0680]-[0684] and figure 56A-C, filter membrane 5604 is a composite comprising porous membrane layer 5614 of PVDF and porous electrosorbent layer of carbon nanotubes);
b. providing a counterelectrode (figure 1, cathode 112; para [0595], in embodiment of figure 1 the cathode is a perforated steel disk spaced apart from the membrane; para [0088] and [0680]-[0684], in the embodiment of figure 56A-C, the counter electrode is carbon nanotube layer 5618 on the obverse of the membrane);
c. applying a voltage between the working electrode coating of the polymer membrane and the counterelectrode, wherein the voltage is applied to the working electrode with a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (per para [0414]-[0428], E. coli bacteria and bacteriophage MS2 virus (negatively charged) are filtered while positive voltage is applied to the electrode);
d. bringing the polymer membrane and the counterelectrode into contact with the liquid, with the contacting being performed such that the liquid generates at least one connection between the polymer membrane and the counterelectrode (para [0027]; [0414]-[0415]);
and e. electroadsorbing the charged biologically active substances to the polymer membrane due to the voltage applied (para [0026]-[0027]; para [0416], “electrochemical enhancement of viral filtration can be explained by ... physicochemical filtration, where the MWNT anode electrochemically acquires a positive charge, resulting in a deposition (attachment) efficiency of about 1”).
Vecitis does not teach the polymer membrane comprises a flat and porous metal coating on its first surface.
Faris discloses a capacitive deionization electrode, configured to remove charged contaminants from water by applying an opposite charge to the electrode and thereby adsorb the contaminent to an electrosorbent material layer on the electrode surface (col 1 ln 10-15, “flow through capacitors for removing ionic substances from charged fluids”; col 3 ln 21-37, “electrode 110 is the negative electrode, thus when the ionic fluid is salt water, sodium ions are absorbed or adsorbed by the electrode 110 and chlorine ions are absorbed by the positive electrode 105”).
Faris teaches that a suitable electrode structure for this purpose is a polymer membrane, coated on at least one side with a flat metal coating, with a high surface area sorbent material disposed on the metal coating (col 5 ln 66 - col 6 ln 11). The metal layer in this structure functions as a current distributor, “to provide efficient electrical conductance at the electrode surface” (col 6 ln 5-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrosorption membrane of Vecitis by incorporating, on a surface of the polymer membrane, a flat metal coating for distributing current to the high surface area sorbent material as taught in Faris, with the reasonable expectation that such a structure would be effective for distributing electric current to the electrosorbent material. It reasonably follows that the flat metal coating of Faris, applied to the porous polymer filter membrane of Vecitis, would obviously be configured as a flat porous metal coating so that it does not to obstruct the flow of liquid through the membrane. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. The incorporation of a predictable improvement into a known base invention, based on a finding that the prior art contained a comparable device that has been improved in the same way, is prima facie obvious as being part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (MPEP 2143(C)).
Regarding claim 2, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1. The steps of providing the metal coated membrane and the counterelectrode (steps a and b) necessarily take place before the step of applying voltage between the membrane and the counterelectrode (step c), and necessarily take place before the step of bringing the polymer membrane and the counter electrode into contact with the liquid (step d). Furthermore, step c necessarily takes place before and/or after step d. Therefore the prior art method that pre-empts claim 1 necessary pre-empts claim 2 as well.
Regarding claim 3, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1. Vecitis further teaches that after steps a to e, or after steps a to d and during step e, the liquid is removed at least partially and/or the liquid is allowed to pass through the membrane at least partially (para [0182]-[0186], liquid is at least partially allowed to pass through the membrane and is removed via an outlet on the other side; figure 1, “input fluid” passes from inlet 104 through membrane 108 to outlet 106 and is discharged as “output fluid”).
Regarding claim 4, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1, and Vecitis further teaches rinsing the membrane before or after polarity reversal or reduction in the voltage (para [0209]-[0213], [0507]-[0544]). Vecitis teaches that such a rinsing procedure, accompanied by a reduction or reversal of applied voltage, can effective to regenerate a membrane that is fouled, as well as to recover the substances that are accumulated on the membrane / electrode surface (para [0209]-[0213], [0507]-[0544]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1, and Vecitis teaches that the counterelectrode is formed by a through arrangement of a permeable electrode, wherein the permeable electrode is formed by a metallic mesh (para [0102], “the second conducting material 112 can be permeable to an input fluid, ... the second conducting material 112 can be a mesh”; para [0105], the counter electrode material can be steel) with interposition of an insulating and permeable spacer (para [0033], “FIG. 1D shows ... the perforated stainless steel cathode 112 ... is separated from the anodic titanium ring 110 by the insulating silicone rubber O-ring 114”; alternative embodiment of [0088] and figure 56A-C, the anode and cathode are disposed on opposite sides of the polymer membrane, and the polymer membrane forms an insulating permeable spacer separating the electrodes).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vecitis and Faris as applied to claim 1, in further view of Bormann et al (US 5,536,413 A).
Regarding claims 5-7, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1, and Vecitis teaches a "portable filtration apparatus" embodiment in which the liquid is pressed out of a syringe and through the housing through actuation of the syringe (para [0197]; figure 1B). Vecitis also teaches that the conductive-coated filter membrane may be formed as a circular membrane of 47 mm diameter, to fit in a commercially available 47 mm syringe-tip filter housing (para [0365], [0372], [0411], [0595]; figures 1C-1E show the membrane and housing; figure 1B is a photograph showing filter housing is mounted to the tip of a syringe). However, Vecitis does not disclose the hold-up volume of the syringe.
Bormann discloses a filter device which can be attached to a syringe to filter germs out of a parenteral medicine that is passed through the filter by actuation of the syringe (col 3 ln 35-45; figure 7; col 5 ln 42-61). Bormann's filter housing is sized so as to fit circular filter membranes of 47 mm diameter (col 20 ln 15-18). Bormann further teaches that the hold-up volume of their filter housing is preferably small, most preferably less than 2 mL (col 14 ln 26-30), which falls within the claimed range of no more than 10 mL.
Note that the area of a 47 mm filter membrane disc is about 17.35 cm2 (Bormann col 20 ln 17). A hold-up volume of 2 mL (= 2 cm3), divided by a membrane area of 17.35 cm2, is 0.115 cm3 / cm2 = 1.15 mm3 / mm2. Therefore Bormann's disclosed hold-up volume, applied to the membrane used in both Vecitis and Bormann, falls within the claimed range of wherein the area-normalized hold-up volume is no more than 2 mm3 / mm2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Vecitis’s filter, which is sized to fit a syringe tip and a 47 mm filter paper, by making the filter housing's hold up volume less than 10 mL and less than (2 mm x the metal-coated membrane area), based on Bormann's teaching that such low hold-up volumes are desirable for a 47 mm filter that attaches to a syringe (col 14 ln 26-30).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vecitis and Faris as applied to claim 1, in further view of Manniso (US 4,720,400 A).
Regarding claims 10-11, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the porosity of the polymer membrane with metal coating is reduced by between 1% and 50%, or between 1% and 20%, relative to the initial bubble point pore and/or the mean pore size compared to the uncoated polymer membrane.
Manniso discloses a polymer membrane with metal coating (col 1 ln 10-15) useful as a filtration or electrofiltration membrane (col 7 ln 30-35, col 10 ln 46 - col 11 ln 7). Manniso further teaches that the porosity of the polymer membrane with the metal coating, as measured by initial bubble point pore size, is reduced by about 3.33% (col 8 Table 1, the bubble point pressure of the coated sample A is 60, and the bubble point pressure of the corresponding uncoated sample A1 is 58. The percent reduction in pore size is therefore (1 - 58/60) * 100% = 3.33%), which falls within the claimed ranges of between 1 and 50% (claim 10) and between 1 and 20% (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement Vecitis’s metal-coated filtration membrane using the polymer filter membrane pore dimensions and metal coating dimensions as disclosed in Manniso, based on Manniso's teaching that their metal-coated filtration membrane material is suitable for electrofiltration membranes (col 10 ln 46 - col 11 ln 7). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07), and it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, Vecitis and Faris render obvious the method of claim 1, but do not teach that the thickness of the metal coating is from 5 to 50 nm and the pore size of the uncoated polymer membrane is greater than 0.01 µm.
Manniso discloses a polymer membrane with metal coating (col 1 ln 10-15) useful as a filtration or electrofiltration membrane (col 7 ln 30-35, col 10 ln 46 - col 11 ln 7). Manniso teaches that the thickness of the metal coating is from 1 to 100 nm (col 2 ln 4-9) which encompasses the claimed range of from 5 to 50 nm, and that the pore size of an uncoated polymer membrane is preferably in a range of from 0.01 to 15 µm (col 2 ln 38-39; col 5 ln 51-52; col 6 ln 54-60).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the method of Vecitis and Faris using the dimensions disclosed for Manniso's membrane, which has a pore size range falling in the claimed range and coating thickness range overlapping the claimed range, based on Manniso's teaching that their metal-coated filtration membrane material is suitable for electrofiltration membranes (col 10 ln 46 - col 11 ln 7). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07), and it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vecitis and Faris, in further view of Witte.
Regarding claim 15, Vecitis teaches a method for determininq at least one concentration of charged biologically active substances in a liquid by means of electrosorption of the charged biologically active substances to a porous polymer membrane or for determining an occupancy of binding sites of the porous polymer membrane being occupied by charged biologically active substances, comprising the following steps:
a. providing a polymer membrane (figure 1, filter membrane 108; para [0595]; per para [0680]-[0684] and figure 56A-C, filter membrane 5604 is a composite comprising porous membrane layer 5614 of PVDF and porous electrosorbent layer of carbon nanotubes);
b. providing a counterelectrode (figure 1, cathode 112; para [0595], in embodiment of figure 1 the cathode is a perforated steel disk spaced apart from the membrane; para [0088] and [0680]-[0684], in the embodiment of figure 56A-C, the counter electrode is carbon nanotube layer 5618 on the obverse of the membrane);
c. applying a voltage between the metal coating of the polymer membrane and the counterelectrode (per para [0414]-[0428], E. coli bacteria and bacteriophage MS2 virus (negatively charged) are filtered while positive voltage is applied to the electrode);
d. bringing the polymer membrane and the counterelectrode into contact with the liquid, the liquid containing the charged biologically active substances, with the contacting being performed such that the liquid generates at least one connection between the polymer membrane and the counterelectrode (para [0027]; [0414]-[0415]);
e. removing the liquid at least partially or allowing the liquid to pass through the membrane at least partially to filter the charged biologically active substances by electroadsorbing the charged biologically active substances to the porous polymer membrane (para [0182]-[0186], liquid is at least partially allowed to pass through the membrane to filter contaminants from the liquid, and the filtrate is removed via an outlet on the other side; figure 1, “input fluid” passes from inlet 104 through membrane 108 to outlet 106 and is discharged as “output fluid”; para [0026]-[0027]; para [0416], “electrochemical enhancement of viral filtration can be explained by ... physicochemical filtration, where the MWNT anode electrochemically acquires a positive charge, resulting in a deposition (attachment) efficiency of about 1”); and
f. detecting or evaluating a current flow caused by the applied voltage (para [0211], “for characterizing the performance of the electrode in an electrochemical filtration process ... measuring the current flowing through the filtration apparatus”; para [0374], [0413]); wherein the occupancy of the binding sites of the polymer membrane occupied by charged biologically active substances or the at least one concentration of charged biologically active substances in the liquid is related to the detected or evaluated current flow (para [0374], “In FIG. 3A, the instantaneous current of the aqueous solution flowing at 1.5 mL min−1 is plotted as a function of applied voltage and NaCl concentration ... the current increases with increasing electrolyte concentration”, i.e. the detected current is deterministically related to the concentration of charged species in the solution; para [0511]-[0516], the extent to which the electrode surface is occupied by passivating material is monitored based on the detected current, and this is used to determine when electrode regeneration is needed).
Vecitis does not teach the polymer membrane comprises a flat and porous metal coating on at least a first side thereof.
Faris discloses a capacitive deionization electrode, configured to remove charged contaminants from water by applying an opposite charge to the electrode and thereby adsorb the contaminant to an electrosorbent material layer on the electrode surface (col 1 ln 10-15, “flow through capacitors for removing ionic substances from charged fluids”; col 3 ln 21-37, “electrode 110 is the negative electrode, thus when the ionic fluid is salt water, sodium ions are absorbed or adsorbed by the electrode 110 and chlorine ions are absorbed by the positive electrode 105”).
Faris teaches that a suitable electrode structure for this purpose is a polymer membrane, coated on at least one side with a flat metal coating, with a high surface area sorbent material disposed on the metal coating (col 5 ln 66 - col 6 ln 11). The metal layer in this structure functions as a current distributor, “to provide efficient electrical conductance at the electrode surface” (col 6 ln 5-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrosorption membrane of Vecitis by incorporating, on a surface of the polymer membrane, a flat metal coating for distributing current to the high surface area sorbent material as taught in Faris, with the reasonable expectation that such a structure would be effective for distributing electric current to the electrosorbent material. It reasonably follows that the flat metal coating of Faris, applied to the porous polymer filter membrane of Vecitis, would obviously be configured as a flat porous metal coating so that it does not to obstruct the flow of liquid through the membrane.
While Vecitis teaches monitoring the current caused by the applied voltage, and using the monitored current to control regeneration (para [0211], [0374], [0413], [0511]-[0516]), and Vecitis also teaches that the electrode current is related to the concentration of charged biologically active substances in the liquid (para [0374]) and to the occupancy of binding sites on the electrode (para [0511]-[0516]), Vecitis does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the fluid or the occupancy of the binding sites is determined based on the detected or evaluated current flow.
Witte is directed to a capacitive deionization device and method which alternates between a deionization mode in which ions are removed from water and electrosorbed onto porous electrodes, and a regeneration mode in which accumulated ions are released from the binding sites of the electrodes (para [0004]-[0010]). Witte's method includes contacting the electrodes with liquid while applying a voltage between electrodes to electrosorb ions from the liquid onto the electrodes (para [0044]-[0046]); detecting or evaluating a current flow caused by the applied voltage (para [0012], [0060]); and determining an occupancy of the sorption electrodes based on the detected current flow (para [0012], "The electrodes themselves may act as voltage, resistivity, or conductivity sensors to monitor how the electrodes have become loaded with ions extracted from passing fluid through the electrodes. In one example, if the current (or voltage) monitor detects that the current (voltage) flowing to the electrodes goes past a certain, predetermined threshold level or falls within a predetermined range, the programmable logic controller can execute an electrode regeneration process"; para [0060]). Witte teaches that this control protocol is an effective way to automatically determine when the electrodes are fully occupied with bound ions and in need of regeneration (para [0012], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate, into the electrosorption filtration method of Vecitis, the step of determining a state of occupancy of the electrode binding sites based on the detection of the amount of current passing through the electrodes, as taught in the method of Witte. Such a step could be implemented in a known way (per Witte para [0012] and [0060], Witte uses a programmable controller to compare the measured current to a threshold value), and would provide the predictable advantage of allowing the filtration method to automatically monitor the electrodes and determine when the electrodes are in need of regeneration (Witte [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Vecitis and Faris render the method of claim 1 obvious, and Vecitis teaches detecting or evaluating a current flow caused by the applied voltage, wherein the occupancy of the binding sites of the polymer membrane or the at least one concentration of charged biologically active substances in the liquid is related to the detected or evaluated current flow (para [0374], “In FIG. 3A, the instantaneous current of the aqueous solution flowing at 1.5 mL min−1 is plotted as a function of applied voltage and NaCl concentration ... the current increases with increasing electrolyte concentration”, i.e. the detected current is deterministically related to the concentration of charged species in the solution; para [0511]-[0516], the extent to which the electrode surface is occupied by passivating material is monitored based on the detected current, and this is used to determine when electrode regeneration is needed). However, while Vecitis teaches monitoring the current caused by the applied voltage, and using the monitored current to control regeneration (para [0211], [0374], [0413], [0511]-[0516]), and Vecitis also teaches that the electrode current is related to the concentration of charged biologically active substances in the liquid (para [0374]) and to the occupancy of binding sites on the electrode (para [0511]-[0516]), Vecitis does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the fluid or the occupancy of the binding sites is determined based on the detected or evaluated current flow.
Witte is directed to a capacitive deionization device and method which alternates between a deionization mode in which ions are removed from water and electrosorbed onto porous electrodes, and a regeneration mode in which accumulated ions are released from the binding sites of the electrodes (para [0004]-[0010]). Witte's method includes contacting the electrodes with liquid while applying a voltage between electrodes to electrosorb ions from the liquid onto the electrodes (para [0044]-[0046]); detecting or evaluating a current flow caused by the applied voltage (para [0012], [0060]); and determining an occupancy of the sorption electrodes based on the detected current flow (para [0012], "The electrodes themselves may act as voltage, resistivity, or conductivity sensors to monitor how the electrodes have become loaded with ions extracted from passing fluid through the electrodes. In one example, if the current (or voltage) monitor detects that the current (voltage) flowing to the electrodes goes past a certain, predetermined threshold level or falls within a predetermined range, the programmable logic controller can execute an electrode regeneration process"; para [0060]). Witte teaches that this control protocol is an effective way to automatically determine when the electrodes are fully occupied with bound ions and in need of regeneration (para [0012], [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate, into the electrosorption filtration method of Vecitis, the step of determining a state of occupancy of the electrode binding sites based on the detection of the amount of current passing through the electrodes, as taught in the method of Witte. Such a step could be implemented in a known way (per Witte para [0012] and [0060], Witte uses a programmable controller to compare the measured current to a threshold value), and would provide the predictable advantage of allowing the filtration method to automatically monitor the electrodes and determine when the electrodes are in need of regeneration (Witte [0027]).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Vecitis and Faris in view of Witte render obvious the methods of claim 15 and 18 respectively, and Witte further teaches that the current flow caused by the applied voltage is evaluated with regard to falling below a limit or exceeding a positive or negative rate of change (para [0012], "if the current (or voltage) monitor detects that the current (voltage) flowing to the electrodes goes past a certain, predetermined threshold level or falls within a predetermined range, the programmable logic controller can execute an electrode regeneration process to regenerate the electrodes").
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Vecitis and Faris in view of Witte render obvious the methods of claim 15 and 18 respectively. Witte further teaches that, in the event the current flow or another measured system parameter undershoots or overshoots a reference value, the system can respond by shutting down and/or by triggering an alarm to notify a technician to address the problem (para [0075], "a series of diagnostics of the apparatus can be performed. ... In another example, the voltage and current supplied to the electrodes 150 can also be diagnosed. If a constant current is supplied and for some reason the voltage exceeds a preset limit, the operation may be suspended. ... status information/condition ... can be stored in the controller 100 at the time that the voltage exceeded the limit so that cause of the abnormality can be determined later on. In another example of diagnostics, if the controller 100 instructs to output fluid and there is still a zero reading on the outlet fluid sensor 320, that may trigger an alarm to alert a technician to address the problem"). Although Witte says that current flow is one of the parameters that is evaluated for overshoot/undershoot to determine that an abnormal operating condition is present (para [0075]), and also says that an alarm is triggered in the event of abnormal operation operating condition (para [0075]), Witte does not specifically say that the alarm is triggered in the event of a current flow overshoot/undershoot. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trigger the alarm in the event of a current overshoot/undershoot, based on Witte's teachings that a current overshoot/undershoot indicates abnormal operation and an alarm should be triggered in the event of abnormal operation. The claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results [MPEP 2143(A)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of record have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The §103 rejection of claim 15 based on “Tran” (US 6,309,532 B1) has been withdrawn. The §103 rejections based on Vecitis are maintained.
With respect to Tran
Applicant amends claim 15 to recite that the polymer membrane is porous and liquid passes through it. Applicant argues that this amendment overcomes Tran, because the element which Examiner identified as Tran’s polymer membrane is decidedly not porous and does not permit the flow of liquid therethrough.
This argument is persuasive and the §103 rejection based on Tran is withdrawn.
With respect to Vecitis
Applicant amends the claim language of claims 1 and 15 to replace the phrase “the polymer membrane” with “the polymer membrane with the flat and porous metal coating” at various points. Applicant argues that the method as defined by the claim text is distinct from the method of modified Vecitis. Particularly, Applicant argues that Vecitis is adsorbing charged biologically active substances to a carbon nanotube layer that is supported by the polymer membrane, rather than adsorbing them to the membrane itself. Applicant argues that the claim language distinguishes over Vecitis by specifying that the substances are adsorbed to the polymer membrane.
This argument is unpersuasive because the rejection of record was (and still is) established on the interpretation that the CNTs are part of the porous polymer membrane in Vecitis’s device and method. Therefore, when biologically active substances electro-adsorb to the CNTs, they are adsorbing onto the membrane. This would apparently remain true if the membrane were modified to include a metal coating as suggested from Faris. Note that claims under examination are treated based on their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (MPEP 2111), and the claim language does not require the biologically active substances to adsorb specifically to the metal portion of the metal-coated porous membrane. Therefore the method of Vecitis modified in view of Faris, in which the membrane comprises polymer, carbon nanotubes, and porous metal coating, and charged biologically active substances are electroadsorbed to the carbon nanotube portion of the membrane, preempts the claimed method as written.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Andrew R Koltonow whose telephone number is (571)272-7713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Luan V Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/ANDREW KOLTONOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795