DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
2. The applicant’s response dated 25 September 2025 have been entered into the record. Claims 16-30 are currently pending. No claim amendments were offered by the applicant in their response. The applicant’s response is considered fully responsive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 16, 17, 18, 20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stojadinovic et al.
Stojadinovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080131 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a woven or non-woven web comprising polymer fibers and inorganic salts for use in alkaline water electrolysis (abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, Stojadinovic et al. discloses a separator for alkaline water hydrolysis (i.e.: woven or non-woven web for use in alkaline water hydrolysis in abstract and Claims 40-42). The separator comprises one hydrophilic polymer layer (¶61; e.g.: polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and polyarylketones; all have polar groups such as R2C=O, RSO2R, and R-O-R) and hydrophilic inorganic particles, such as, barium sulfate with a preferred D50 between 0.1 µm to 0.5 µm (¶80). In ¶126, Stojadinovic et al. indicates that precipitation of BaSO4 into the (polyphenylene sulfide) polymer matrix reduces the pore diameter and improves the gas tightness properties of the separator. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses a range overlapping with the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03 II).
Regarding Claim 17, Stojadinovic et al. discloses the separator of Claim 16, wherein the amount of barium sulfate particles (i.e.: inorganic salts) ranges between 0.1 to 70 wt.% based on the total weight of the web (i.e.: inorganic particles + polymer fibers) as per ¶78, ¶151, and Claim 8. In ¶126, Stojadinovic et al. indicates that precipitation of BaSO4 into the (polyphenylene sulfide) polymer matrix reduces the pore diameter and improves the gas tightness properties of the separator. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses a range overlapping with the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(II).
Regarding Claim 18, Stojadinovic et al. discloses the separator of Claim 16, further comprising a porous support as described in ¶127 referring to the polyphenylene sulfide felt which has pores in which the BaSO4 particles deposit. FIG. 1 of Stojadinovic et al. depicts the deposition of said particles into the fiber matrix structure (i.e.: porous support of the present application).
Regarding Claim 20, Stojadinovic et al. discloses the separator of Claim 16 wherein the polymer resin is polysulfone or polyethersulfone as per ¶61.
Regarding Claim 30, Stojadinovic et al. discloses an alkaline water electrolysis device comprising a separator according to Claim 16 located between an anode and a cathode as described in ¶58 in which the cell voltage vs. current density (data shown in FIG. 22) was evaluated using a 30% KOH in water electrolyte.
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.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojadinovic et al. as applied to Claim 16 and 18 above, and further in view of Suzuki.
Stojadinovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080131 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a woven or non-woven web comprising polymer fibers and inorganic salts for use in alkaline water electrolysis (abstract). Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 20180073155A1 - previously presented) is directed at diaphragm for alkaline water electrolysis (title).
Regarding Claim 19, Stojadinovic et al. discloses a separator with one or more porous hydrophilic polymer layers comprising a polymer resin and barium sulfate particles having a particle size D50 between 0.1 and 0.5 µm or less as discussed above for Claim 16 and 18. However, Stojadinovic et al. does not discuss applying one or more hydrophilic polymers layer contiguously to both sides of the porous support. Suzuki et al. teaches the use of zirconium oxide as the hydrophilic inorganic particle (abstract and examples) in a membrane for alkaline water electrolysis and that the mode particle size of zirconium oxide ranges from 0.3 microns to 5.0 microns (¶90). In ¶94 and ¶237 of Suzuki, an abundance of the hydrophilic inorganic particles is referenced and the process of surface treating both surfaces of porous polymer membrane is disclosed. It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki’s method of coating both sides of the polymeric support using the coating composition of Stojadinovic et al. with the reasonable expectation of producing a membrane/separator/diaphragm with an abundance of hydrophilic particles as described by Suzuki et al.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stojadinovic et al. as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Vogt et al.
Stojadinovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080131 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a woven or non-woven web comprising polymer fibers and inorganic salts for use in alkaline water electrolysis (abstract). Vogt et al. (Membrane Development for Alkaline Water Electrolysis. 4th European PEFC & H2 Forum, July 2013. Luzern, Switzerland - A copy of the presentation with relabeled slides was provided in the Office action dated 31 October 2024) is directed toward membrane development for water electrolysis (title).
Regarding Claim 21, Stojadinovic et al. discloses the separator as per Claim 16 and indicates that the deposition of BaSO4 into the polymer web reduces the pore size of the polymer layer (¶126), but is silent on the specific value of the pore size.
Vogt et al. teaches a separator (analogous to “membrane” in Vogt et al.) for alkaline water electrolysis (Title) comprising one of more porous hydrophilic polymer layers (“hydrophilic surface” on presentation slide #12), the one or more porous hydrophilic polymer layers comprising a polymer resin (polysulfone on presentation slide #12 and #13) and hydrophilic inorganic particles (barium sulfate on presentation slide #13). On slide #12, Vogt et al. discloses an example separator composition with barium sulfate and polysulfone with a maximal pore diameter between 0.05 and 0.3 µm as depicted in the Figure below from Slide#16 (green trace labeled as baryte-membrane). Claim 21 of the instant application indicates a maximum pore diameter between 0.05 and 2.0 µm. Regarding the maximal pore diameter, it has been found that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range overlaps with the range taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Stojadinovic et al. by using the application process of Vogt et al. to prepare a separator for alkaline water electrolysis with the reasonable expectation of generating high purity oxygen and hydrogen gas (Vogt et al. – Slide#20 – conclusion).
6. Claims 16, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al.
Stojadinovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080131 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a woven or non-woven web comprising polymer fibers and inorganic salts for use in alkaline water electrolysis (abstract). Vogt et al. (Membrane Development for Alkaline Water Electrolysis. 4th European PEFC & H2 Forum, July 2013. Luzern, Switzerland - A copy of the presentation with relabeled slides was provided in the Office action dated 31 October 2024) is directed toward membrane development for water electrolysis (title).
Regarding Claim 16, Vogt et al. teaches a separator (analogous to “membrane” in Vogt et al.) for alkaline water electrolysis (Title) comprising one of more porous hydrophilic polymer layers (“hydrophilic surface” on presentation slide #12), the one or more porous hydrophilic polymer layers comprising a polymer resin (polysulfone on presentation slide #12 and #13) and hydrophilic inorganic particles (barium sulfate on presentation slide #13), wherein the inorganic particles are barium sulfate particles. Vogt et al. discloses the use of barium sulfate particles as depicted in the SEM image on Slide #15, but does not explicitly disclose a particle size D50 of 0.35 microns or less.
Stojadinovic et al. discloses a separator for alkaline water hydrolysis (i.e.: woven or non-woven web for use in alkaline water hydrolysis in abstract and Claims 40-42). The separator comprises one hydrophilic polymer layer (¶61; e.g.: polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and polyarylketones; all have polar groups such as R2C=O, RSO2R, and R-O-R) and hydrophilic inorganic particles, such as, barium sulfate with a preferred D50 between 0.1 µm to 0.5 µm (¶80). In ¶126, Stojadinovic et al. indicates that precipitation of BaSO4 into the (polyphenylene sulfide) polymer matrix reduces the pore diameter and improves the gas tightness properties of the separator. Stojadinovic et al. further discloses the formation of free barium sulfate particles that are not grown onto the polymer layer as per ¶56 and FIG. 20 which shows the particles are less than 80 nm in particle size. Stojadinovic et al. indicates that the barium sulfate particle precipitated using barium perchlorate and sulfuric acid resulted in improved ionic conductivity of the woven or nonwoven web, and improved gas tightness reducing crossover for oxygen and hydrogen formed during the electrolysis as per ¶129. Regarding the particle size of barium sulfate, it has been found that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range overlaps with the range taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator composition of Vogt et al. with the small particle sized barium sulfate taught in Stojadinovic et al. with the reasonable expectation of preparing a separator with enhanced ionic conductivity (¶129 in Stojadinovic et al.).
Regarding Claim 22, Vogt et al. discloses a method of preparing a separator using the composition of Claim 16 for alkaline water electrolysis (title) wherein the method comprises the steps of: applying a dope solution (presentation slides #12-#14) comprising a polymer resin (PSF on presentation slides #12 and #13), barium sulfate particles (presentation slide #12; depicted in an SEM image on slide #15), and a solvent (NMP on slide #12) on a substrate (schematics on presentation slides #13 and #14), and subjecting the applied dope solution to phase inversion (schematics on presentation slides #13 and #14). However, Vogt et al. does not explicitly disclose a particle size D50 of 0.35 microns or less for barium sulfate particles.
Stojadinovic et al. discloses a separator for alkaline water hydrolysis (i.e.: woven or non-woven web for use in alkaline water hydrolysis in abstract and Claims 40-42). The separator comprises one hydrophilic polymer layer (¶61; e.g.: polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and polyarylketones; all have polar groups such as R2C=O, RSO2R, and R-O-R) and hydrophilic inorganic particles, such as, barium sulfate with a preferred D50 between 0.1 µm to 0.5 µm (¶80). In ¶126, Stojadinovic et al. indicates that precipitation of BaSO4 into the (polyphenylene sulfide) polymer matrix reduces the pore diameter and improves the gas tightness properties of the separator. Stojadinovic et al. further discloses the formation of barium sulfate particles that are not grown onto the polymer layer as per ¶56 and FIG. 20 which shows the particles are less than 80 nm in particle size. Stojadinovic et al. indicates that the barium sulfate particle precipitated using barium perchlorate and sulfuric acid resulted in improved ionic conductivity of the woven or nonwoven web, and improved gas tightness reducing cross over for oxygen and hydrogen formed during the electrolysis as per ¶129. Regarding the particle size of barium sulfate, it has been found that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range overlaps with the range taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating composition applied using the method of Vogt et al. with the small particle sized barium sulfate taught in Stojadinovic et al. with the reasonable expectation of preparing a separator with enhanced ionic conductivity and reduced product crossover (¶129 in Stojadinovic et al.).
Regarding Claim 23, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. discloses a method of preparing a separator further comprising a porous support (presentation slide #9 of Vogt et al.). The porous support in Vogt et al. is polyphenylsulfone (PPS).
Regarding Claim 25, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. discloses a method wherein the solvent of the dope solution is N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as shown on presentation slides #12 (under organic solvent) and #13 (“membrane production”) of Vogt et al.
7. Claims 24, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt et al. and Stojadinovic et al. as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al.
Stojadinovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080131 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a woven or non-woven web comprising polymer fibers and inorganic salts for use in alkaline water electrolysis (abstract). Vogt et al. (Membrane Development for Alkaline Water Electrolysis. 4th European PEFC & H2 Forum, July 2013. Luzern, Switzerland - A copy of the presentation with relabeled slides was provided in the Office action dated 31 October 2024) is directed toward membrane development for water electrolysis (title). Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 20180073155A1 - previously presented) is directed at diaphragm for alkaline water electrolysis (title).
Regarding Claim 24, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. discloses a method for making a separator for alkaline water electrolysis (Vogt et al.: title) wherein the method comprises a series of steps including: applying a dope solution as described in greater detail in Claim 22 above. Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. does not discuss the application of the dope solution on either side of the porous support. Suzuki et al. teaches the use of zirconium oxide as the hydrophilic inorganic particle (abstract and examples) in a membrane for alkaline water electrolysis. In ¶94 and ¶237 of Suzuki et al., an abundance of the hydrophilic inorganic particles is referenced and the process of surface treating both surfaces of porous polymer membrane is mentioned. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application process of Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. by coating both sides of the polymeric support as disclosed in Suzuki et al. with the reasonable expectation of producing a separator with an abundance of hydrophilic particles as described by Suzuki et al. on both size of the porous polymer support.
Regarding Claim 26, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. discloses a method for making a separator for alkaline water electrolysis (title) as discussed above in Claim 22. However, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. does not disclose the use of polyvinylpyrrolidone or glycerol as a part of the dope solution. Suzuki et al. discloses the addition of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to the dispersion of inorganic particles and polymer. In ¶140 and ¶159, Suzuki et al. indicates that PVP significantly impacts the phase separation rate even when added in a small amount. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to incorporate PVP as taught in Suzuki into the coating composition and application of Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. with the reasonable expectation of precisely controlling the phase separation rate and pore size of the resultant membrane.
Regarding Claim 27, Vogt et al. in view Stojadinovic et al. discloses a method for making the separator for alkaline water electrolysis (title) as discussed above in Claim 22, but indicates the phase inversion is facilitated using liquid (analogous to LIPS in the present application). In Claim 15 of Suzuki et al., a method for producing a diaphragm for alkaline water electrolysis is described. The steps of Suzuki et al. from Claim 15 include: (A) preparing a solution containing the polymer resin, a solvent capable of dissolving the polymer resin, and the hydrophilic inorganic particles; (B) applying the solution to a substrate to form a coating on the substrate; (C) exposing a surface of the coating, said surface being located opposite from the substrate, to a gas containing vapor of a poor solvent for the polymer resin; and (D) immersing the coating on the substrate in a coagulation bath containing a poor solvent for the polymer resin to form a porous polymer membrane. Step (C) of Suzuki et al. is analogous to “Vapor Induced Phase Separation (VIPS)” and step (D) is analogous to “LIPS” described in Claim 27 of the present application. Suzuki et al. teaches that the vapor step is preferably performed prior to the liquid step in order to prevent large void formation as large voids in the membrane may cause a decrease in gas impermeability or strength of the membrane (¶136). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating method of Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. with vapor phase inversion step (prior to the liquid step) taught by Suzuki with the reasonable expectation of forming a membrane with few voids resulting in good gas impermeability and excellent strength/resistance to deterioration as taught by Suzuki (¶40, 136, and 301).
Regarding Claim 28, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. discloses a liquid inversion step, but is silent on the chemical composition of the liquid coagulation bath (Vogt slide #14). Suzuki et al. discusses a method for making a membrane for alkaline water hydrolysis as detailed above in Claims 22 and 27, in which the vapor phase inversion is conducted prior to the liquid phase inversion for membrane formation. Suzuki et al. further discloses the use of a coagulation bath (LIPS in the present application) that comprises a poor solvent, which renders the polymer insoluble (¶163). One example of a poor solvent is water, which is the major component of the coagulation bath in Example 9 of Suzuki et al. In ¶101, Suzuki et al. teaches that during the phase separation, the coagulation bath is a mixture of the poor solvent (e.g.: water) and the polymer resin (e.g.: PSF) dissolved in the solvent (e.g.: NMP), which acts a binder between the hydrophilic inorganic particles (e.g.: BaSO4). This binding action increases the cohesion of the secondary aggregated particles, thus preventing the secondary aggregates of the hydrophilic inorganic particles from “being disintegrated and detached due to vibration of the porous polymer membrane or permeation of the electrolyte solution caused by a differential pressure” (Suzuki et al.: ¶101). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the membrane formation method of Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. with the coagulation bath comprising a poor solvent (e.g.: water) taught by Suzuki et al. with the reasonable expectation of producing a robust and high performing membrane with good cohesion between the polymer and the inorganic particles as disclosed in Suzuki et al. (¶101).
8. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. as applied to Claim 22 above, and further in view of Doyon et al.
Stojadinovic et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0080131 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward a woven or non-woven web comprising polymer fibers and inorganic salts for use in alkaline water electrolysis (abstract). Vogt et al. (Membrane Development for Alkaline Water Electrolysis. 4th European PEFC & H2 Forum, July 2013. Luzern, Switzerland - A copy of the presentation with relabeled slides was provided in the Office action dated 31 October 2024) is directed toward membrane development for water electrolysis (title). Doyan et al. (US Pub. No. 20070286949A1 – previously presented) is drawn toward a web-reinforced separator and continuous method for producing the same.
Regarding Claim 29, Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. discloses a method for making a separator for alkaline water electrolysis (title) as discussed above in Claim 22, but does not show the application of the composite slurry and phase inversion conducted in the vertical direction. Vogt et al., Stojadinovic et al. and Doyan et al. are all directed toward the formation of a membrane for alkaline water electrolysis. Doyan et al., in Figure 1, ¶41, and Claim 20, discloses a process a for “preparing an ion-permeable web-reinforced separator membrane, comprising the steps of: providing a web and a suitable paste, guiding said web in a vertical position, equally coating both sides of said web with said paste to produce a paste coated web, symmetrically exposing both sides of the paste coated web to water vapor phase and symmetrically exposing both sides of the paste coated web to a coagulation bath comprising water to produce a web-reinforced separator membrane.” The steps described in Doyan et al. are analogous to Claim 29 of the present application, specifically conducting the process in the vertical direction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to combine the vertical application/phase inversion procedure of Doyan et al. with the composition or method Vogt et al. in view of Stojadinovic et al. with the reasonable expectation of producing a two-side membrane having the same pore size characteristics (¶15 of Doyan et al.).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 15 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore the rejection of Claims 16, 17, 18, 20, and 30 under USC § 102(a)(1) in view of Stojadinovic et al. and Claims 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 25, 27, 28, and 29 under USC § 103 in view of at least Stojadinovic et al. and Vogt et al. are all maintained.
10. Stojadinovic et al. discloses barium sulfate particles used in a membrane for alkaline water hydrolysis with a preferred range of 0.1 to 0.5 microns when precipitated into the membrane structure or less than 80 nm when precipitated from a mixture of barium perchlorate and sulfuric acid. Therefore Stojadinovic et al. or the combination of Vogt et al and Stojadinovic et al. teach the particle size limitation of Claims 16 and 22. A more detailed explanation can be found in the above rejection.
11. Pertaining to the applicant’s argument on pg. 3-5 that the precipitation of BaSO4 using the method of Stojadinovic et al. would not result in the structure of the membrane for alkaline water hydrolysis in Claim 16, the examiner does not find this argument to have merit. The structure of the membrane is not limited by any specific series of steps in Claim 16 as it is a composition. In order to render the teachings of Stojadinovic et al. not pertinent to the limitations of Claim 16, the applicant would need to include specific limitations around the steps for depositing or preparing the hybrid membrane for alkaline hydrolysis.
12. The modification of Vogt et al. with Stojadinovic et al. for the method claims that depend from Claim 22 are addressed by the applicant on pg. 7-9 of their response. The applicant contends that one of skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the particle size of the particles in the method of deposition of Vogt by using smaller BaSO4 particles as taught Stojadinovic et al. because the membrane deposition method are different. However, the precipitation method Stojadinovic et al. is applied to the formation of free barium sulfate particles that are not grown onto the polymer layer as per ¶56 and FIG. 20 which shows the particles are less than 80 nm in particle size. These particles are smaller than the upper particle size limit of Claim 22. Stojadinovic et al. further indicates that the precipitated BaSO4 results in improved ionic conductivity likely from the smaller size of the barium sulfate particles. Therefore, the examiner does not find the applicant’s arguments persuasive.
13. Regarding the other secondary references, the applicant alleges on pages 9-10 that Suzuki et al. and Doyon et al. do not suggest the use of small particle size inorganic fillers. The office notes that Suzuki et al. and Doyon et al. are relied upon for the hydrophilic polymer layer and transporting the porous support in the vertical direction as the applicant agreed. As discussed in detail above, Stojadinovic et al. or the combination of Stojadinovic et al. and Vogt et al. clearly discloses that the D50 of barium sulfate is 0.35 microns or less.
The applicant asserts on pages 10, that Suzuki et al. teaches larger particle size inorganic fillers based upon the ratio of the mode particle size to the average pore size. The applicant further asserts that Suzuki et al. favors larger particles sizes. The examiner acknowledges that the particles size of the fillers used in Suzuki et al. range of 1-10 microns (Tables 3, 5, and 7). However, Suzuki et al. clearly teaches a mode particle size range of 0.3 microns to 5.0 microns in ¶90. In fact, Suzuki et al. indicates that hydrophilic inorganic particles with a D50 of 0.3 microns or more used in production of a porous polymer membrane by a non-solvent-induced phase separation process result in uniform porous polymer membrane with enhance attachment of the hydrophilic inorganic particles to the porous polymer membrane (¶90). Therefore, the examiner does not view Suzuki et al. as a teaching away from the alleged invention in the present application.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jin et al. (“Fabrication of BaSO4-based mineralized thin-film composite polysulfone/polyamide membranes for enhanced performance in a forward osmosis process,” RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 79774-79782) is directed toward a hybrid membrane (pg. 79774: title).
15. The examiner encourages the applicant or the applicant’s representative to schedule a telephonic interview to further discuss the claims of the instant application. The examiner’s contact details are listed below.
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794