DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE filed 09/04/2026 entering the amendments and remarks dated 08/04/2026, in which claims 1, 13 and 32 have been amended, claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12-17, 20-29 and 32-34 are pending, claims 17 and 20-29 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention and claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12-16 and 32-34 are ready for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12 and 33 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 1 recites the limitations “a carbonaceous material, an activated carbon”, it is thus not clear if the membrane includes a carbonaceous material and activated carbon or if the carbonaceous materials I the activated carbon. This should be corrected to ““a carbonaceous material, the carbonaceous material being an activated carbon”.
Claims 4-7, 10, 12 and 33 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 12-14, 16 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0061314 Al (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of US 2010/0313753 A1 (hereinafter “Calis”) and US 2018/0065105 A1 (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding Claims 1 Choi discloses a porous polymeric membrane (for photoresist filtration [0012]) comprising
a polymer (nylon nanofiber layer and ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) microporous membrane support layer, among other possible polymers [0064], [0070])),
wherein the porous polymeric membrane is in the form of a sheet which may be pleated [0046]-[0047], [0083] and exhibits:
(a) a bubble point of “greater than 30 psig” [0071], 75-90, 95-110 psi, [0072]; 38.4-94.5 psi, Table 2; when measured using ethoxy- nonafluorobutane HFE 7200 at a temperature of about 22°C [0072],
(b) an isopropanol flow time of 830-6172 seconds/500 ml when measured at 14.2 psi (see Fig. 5, Table 2, [0078]), and
(c) a G25 particle retention overlapping the range claimed of about 25% to about 100% (see Figs. 3, 4, 9-13 and 17-21, Table 2, and [0097] showing a range of G25 particle retention values which overlap those claimed).
Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Choi does not disclose the UHMWPE having admixed therein greater than about 20 percent by weight and less than about 80 percent by weight of a carbonaceous material which is an activated carbon having an average particle size in a range from about 30 pm to about 60 um, and a surface area of greater than or equal to 800 m2/g.
However, with regard to carbonaceous material, Calis discloses a similar UHMWPE membrane, which may include 1-50% other component(s) blended with the UHMWPE, the other components may be added to promote desired properties, such as for example provide electrical conductivity, change colour, strength, toughness, reduce cost, increase flexibility, modify hydrophobicity, introduce hydrophilicity, or as fillers, where the other component(s) may be carbon black, activated carbon, nanotubes, and which may be pleated; Abstract, [0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi by including activated carbon blended with the UHMWPE as disclosed by Calis in order to promote desired properties, such as for example provide electrical conductivity, change colour, strength, toughness, reduce cost, increase flexibility, modify hydrophobicity, introduce hydrophilicity, or as fillers.
Choi and Calis are silent to the average particle size and surface area of the activated carbon particles.
However, activated carbon particles inherently have an average particle size and surface area, so one of skill in the art would need to look to the prior art to choose those properties. Further, Song discloses a similar polymeric membrane which comprises a matrix polymer mixed with a sorbent particle filler, and may be formed by coextruding, Abstract, [0019], [0086], wherein the matrix polymer may be UHMWPE [0040] and the sorbent particle may be activated carbon [0054], and wherein the sorbent particle may have a particle size of 1-100 µm and a BET surface area of about 0.1-5,000 m2/g [0008], [0051].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi in view of Calis by using activated carbon having an average particle size of 1-100 µm and a BET surface area of about 0.1-5,000 m2/g as disclosed by Song because this involves the use of an activated carbon average particle size and surface area that is known to provide desirable properties in a similar UHMWPE/activated carbon membrane, where the use of this size and amount of activated carbon would be expected to predictably result in formation of a successful membrane.
Regarding Claim 4 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymeric membrane of claim 1, wherein Choi discloses the G25 particle retention is about 65% to about 80% at 5% monolayer (see Figs. 3, 4, 9-13 and 17-21, Table 2, and [0097] showing a range of values which overlap those claimed. Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 5 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymeric membrane of claim 1, wherein Choi discloses the bubble point is “greater than 30 psig” [0071] and 38.4-94.5 psi, Table 2; when measured using ethoxy- nonafluorobutane HFE 7200 at a temperature of about 22°C [0072]. Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymeric membrane of claim 1, wherein the isopropanol flow time is 830-6172 seconds/500 ml when measured at 14.2 psi (see Choi Fig. 5, Table 2, [0078]). Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymeric membrane of claim 1, wherein it is not specifically disclosed that the polymer contains less than about 65μg/g of extractible organic compounds and/or metal ions, however as the membrane is used for purification, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the polymer comprising a minimum amount (up to zero) of extractable contaminants, including organic compounds and/or metal ions, in order to not further contaminate the fluid being purified by the membrane.
Regarding Claim 10 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymeric membrane of claim 1, wherein the membrane has a thickness of 185-420 micron (Choi Figure 14); Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 12 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymeric membrane of claim 1, which is a filter (Choi Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13 Choi discloses a first porous polymeric membrane for photoresist filtration [0012] comprising
a first porous polymeric membrane (i.e. the microporous membrane, such as the ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene membrane, among other possible polymers [0064], [0070]); and
a second porous polymeric membrane (i.e. the nanofiber layer(s) or support/backing layer(s); [0012],[0032]), i.e. wherein an outer surface of the first porous polymeric membrane is in contact with an outer surface of the second porous polymeric membrane, wherein the second porous polymeric membrane is different from the first porous polymeric membrane.
wherein the first porous polymeric membrane is in the form of a sheet which may be pleated [0046]-[0047], [0083] and exhibits:
(a) a bubble point of “greater than 30 psig” [0071], 75-90, 95-110 psi, [0072]; 38.4-94.5 psi, Table 2; when measured using ethoxy- nonafluorobutane HFE 7200 at a temperature of about 22°C [0072],
(b) an isopropanol flow time of 830-6172 seconds/500 ml when measured at 14.2 psi (see Fig. 5, Table 2, [0078]), and
(c) a G25 particle retention overlapping the range claimed of about 25% to about 100% (see Figs. 3, 4, 9-13 and 17-21, Table 2, and [0097] showing a range of G25 particle retention values which overlap those claimed).
Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Choi does not disclose the UHMWPE having admixed therein greater than about 20 percent by weight and less than about 80 percent by weight of a carbonaceous material which is an activated carbon having an average particle size in a range from about 30 pm to about 60 um, and a surface area of greater than or equal to 800 m2/g.
However, with regard to carbonaceous material, Calis discloses a similar UHMWPE membrane, which may include 1-50% other component(s) blended with the UHMWPE, the other components may be added to promote desired properties, such as for example provide electrical conductivity, change colour, strength, toughness, reduce cost, increase flexibility, modify hydrophobicity, introduce hydrophilicity, or as fillers, where the other component(s) may be carbon black, activated carbon, nanotubes, and which may be pleated; Abstract, [0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi by including activated carbon blended with the UHMWPE as disclosed by Calis in order to promote desired properties, such as for example provide electrical conductivity, change colour, strength, toughness, reduce cost, increase flexibility, modify hydrophobicity, introduce hydrophilicity, or as fillers.
Choi and Calis are silent to the average particle size and surface area of the activated carbon particles.
However, activated carbon particles inherently have an average particle size and surface area, so one of skill in the art would need to look to the prior art to choose those properties. Further, Song discloses a similar polymeric membrane which comprises a matrix polymer mixed with a sorbent particle filler, wherein the matrix polymer may be UHMWPE [0040] and the sorbent particle may be activated carbon [0054], and wherein the sorbent particle may have a particle size of 1-100 µm and a BET surface area of about 0.1-5,000 m2/g [0008], [0051].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi in view of Calis by using activated carbon having an average particle size of 1-100 µm and a BET surface area of about 0.1-5,000 m2/g as disclosed by Song because this involves the use of an activated carbon average particle size and surface area that is known to provide desirable properties in a similar UHMWPE/activated carbon membrane, where the use of this size and amount of activated carbon would be expected to predictably result in formation of a successful membrane.
Regarding Claim 14 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses composite membrane of claim 13, wherein the outer surface of the first porous polymeric membrane is an output facing surface and the outer surf ace of the second porous polymeric membrane is an input facing surface; i.e. inherently because this functional limitation does not further define over the prior art because the structure disclosed by Choi in view of Calis would be capable of the noted functional limitation(s), i.e. even though the specific function is not disclosed; see MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 16 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the composite membrane of claim 13, which is a filter; [0021].
Regarding Claim 32 Choi discloses a porous polymeric membrane for photoresist filtration [0012] comprising
a polymer (nylon nanofiber layer and ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene microporous membrane support layer, among other possible polymers [0064], [0070])),
wherein the membrane is in the form of a sheet which may be pleated [0046]-[0047], [0083] and exhibits:
(a) a bubble point of “greater than 30 psig” [0071], 75-90, 95-110 psi, [0072]; 38.4-94.5 psi, Table 2; when measured using ethoxy- nonafluorobutane HFE 7200 at a temperature of about 22°C [0072],
(b) an isopropanol flow time of 830-6172 seconds/500 ml when measured at 14.2 psi (see Fig. 5, Table 2, [0078]), and
(c) a G25 particle retention of about 65% to about 80% at 5% monolayer (see Figs. 3, 4, 9-13 and 17-21, Table 2, and [0097] showing a range of G25 particle retention values which overlap those claimed, where the monolayer coverage may be 1-30% [0080], specifically 69% for 5% monolayer coverage).
Since the range(s) disclosed overlap(s) the range(s) claimed, the range(s) recited in the claim(s) is/are considered prima facie obvious. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion(s) of the disclosed range(s) that correspond(s) to the claimed range(s). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Choi does not disclose the UHMWPE having admixed therein greater than about 20 percent by weight and less than about 80 percent by weight of a carbonaceous material which is an activated carbon having an average particle size in a range from about 30 pm to about 60 um, and a surface area of greater than or equal to 800 m2/g.
However, with regard to carbonaceous material, Calis discloses a similar UHMWPE membrane, which may include 1-50% other component(s) blended with the UHMWPE, the other components may be added to promote desired properties, such as for example provide electrical conductivity, change colour, strength, toughness, reduce cost, increase flexibility, modify hydrophobicity, introduce hydrophilicity, or as fillers, where the other component(s) may be carbon black, activated carbon, nanotubes, and which may be pleated; Abstract, [0031], [0034]-[0035], [0038].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi by including activated carbon blended with the UHMWPE as disclosed by Calis in order to promote desired properties, such as for example provide electrical conductivity, change colour, strength, toughness, reduce cost, increase flexibility, modify hydrophobicity, introduce hydrophilicity, or as fillers.
Choi and Calis are silent to the average particle size and surface area of the activated carbon particles.
However, activated carbon particles inherently have an average particle size and surface area, so one of skill in the art would need to look to the prior art to choose those properties. Further, Song discloses a similar polymeric membrane which comprises a matrix polymer mixed with a sorbent particle filler, wherein the matrix polymer may be UHMWPE [0040] and the sorbent particle may be activated carbon [0054], and wherein the sorbent particle may have a particle size of 1-100 µm and a BET surface area of about 0.1-5,000 m2/g [0008], [0051].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi in view of Calis by using activated carbon having an average particle size of 1-100 µm and a BET surface area of about 0.1-5,000 m2/g as disclosed by Song because this involves the use of an activated carbon average particle size and surface area that is known to provide desirable properties in a similar UHMWPE/activated carbon membrane, where the use of this size and amount of activated carbon would be expected to predictably result in formation of a successful membrane.
Regarding Claim 33 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the porous polymer membrane of claim 1, wherein the porous polymeric membrane is a polymeric solid containing pores, wherein the pores are interconnecting passages extending from one surface of the porous polymeric membrane to the opposite surface of the porous polymeric membrane (this is seen to be true for any and all layers of Choi in view of Calis and Song as they are solid, porous and polymeric).
Regarding Claim 34 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses the composite membrane of claim 13, wherein each of the first and second porous polymeric membranes is a polymeric solid containing pores, wherein the pores are interconnecting passages extending from one surface of the membrane to the opposite surface of the membrane (this is seen to be true for any and all layers of Choi in view of Calis as they are solid, porous and polymeric).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0061314 Al (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of Calis and Song and further in view of US 20150190760 A1 (hereinafter “Singh”).
Regarding Claim 15 Choi in view of Calis and Song discloses composite membrane of claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the composite membrane is a co-cast membrane of the first porous polymeric membrane and the second porous polymeric membrane.
However, with regard to a co-cast membrane, Singh discloses a membrane that is a single porous layer but comprises two or more zones/sub-layers having different properties which are formed via co-casting multiple polymer solutions; [0004]-[0005], [0022] and thus comprises a first porous polymeric membrane zone and a second porous polymeric membrane zone, wherein an outer surface of the first porous polymeric membrane zone is in contact with an outer surface of the second porous polymeric membrane zone, wherein the second porous polymeric membrane zone is different from the first porous polymeric membrane zone (i.e. a first charge continuous zone, a neutral charge continuous zone, and a second charge continuous zone, the continuous zones each being considered a membrane, because they are formed from individual polymer casting solutions), wherein each zone/membrane has different charges; [0004], Examples. These multiple zones of different charges provide one zone which preferentially captures anions and another which preferentially captures cations, providing dual filtration capacity and allowing some anions/cations to be captured on one of the zones and provide a prefiltration function, and allowing more of the charged zone to be available for further adsorption to capacity [0026]-[0031].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Choi in view of Calis and Song by forming the microporous membrane of as a co-cast membrane having multiple zones of different charges as disclosed by Singh in order to provide dual filtration capacity and allowing some anions/cations to be captured on one of the zones and provide a prefiltration function, and allowing more of the charged zone to be available for further adsorption to capacity.
It is noted that the multi-zone membrane of Choi in view of Calis, Song and Singh is thus seen as one membrane according to how Choi uses the term “membrane” and as two membranes according to the instant claim limaitons.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants’ argument that it would not have been obvious to choose activated carbon, the claimed particle size and the claimed surface area from the combination of Choi in view of Calis; this argument is moot as Song is additionally cited with regard to activated carbon, its particle size and surface area.
In response to Applicants’ argument that the claimed invention provides unexpected results; the Examiner disagrees. Applicants argue that these unexpected result are (1) the inclusion of the activated carbon does not have a substantial negative impact of the flow properties of the filter membranes, (2) the membranes show dramatically improved particle retention, (3) the membranes achieve exceptional organic and metal ion impurity removal. However, the data provided in the instant disclosure are not sufficient to show unexpected results of the claimed invention. Specifically:
It is well settled that evidence presented to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains and that such evidence which is considerably narrower in scope than claimed subject matter is not sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See 2145 and 716.02(d) which states “[w]hether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range” and “[t]o establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range”.
1. As rejected claim 1 is significantly broader than examples in specification, which applicant cites as an example of unexpected results and which are limited to the specific materials produced through the process as described in the Examples, i.e. wherein with regard to G25 particle Retention only 5% and 20% activated caron are tested, and with regard to organic and metal ion impurity removal only 20% and 50% activated caron are tested, and wherein the particle size and surface area of the activated carbon used in the Examples is not disclosed. Thus the evidentiary showing is far from being commensurate in scope with the degree of patent protection sought.
2. Applicants have failed to show the results occur over the entire claimed range because they do not show a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range; for example, with regard to G25 particle Retention only 5% and 20% activated caron are tested, and with regard to organic and metal ion impurity removal only 20% and 50% activated caron are tested, and wherein the particle size and surface area of the activated carbon used in the Examples is not disclosed. Thus the Examples which are tested are not sufficient to show the effect of the various ranges claimed because the comparative examples are limited and show no specific criticality to the ranges recited.
3. It is not clear the results obtained are unexpectedly better. Applicants argue for instance that (1) the inclusion of the activated carbon does not have a substantial negative impact of the flow properties of the filter membranes, (2) the membranes show dramatically improved particle retention, (3) the membranes achieve exceptional organic and metal ion impurity removal. With regard to 1, there is no evidence provided to support this argument other than a statement in the specification which cannot establish what was obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of effectively filing the invention; this is nothing more than Attorney argument, which is not given weight; see MPEP 2145(I) “assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.” With regard to (2) Applicant’s argue that the membrane show dramatically improved particle retention and support this with the Examples in Table which shows 20% carbon achieves a particle retention of 74.5% and 5% monolayer compared to 12.% for the UPE control; however the claims recite the membrane may have a particle retention of 25% to 100%, and thus this is not commensurate with the claims; further activated carbon particles are well known to provide filtration properties including particle retention, and thus a change in particle retention when including a further filtering material imparting its own filtration properties would not be unexpected. With regard to (3) that the membranes achieve exceptional organic and metal ion impurity removal, again activated carbon particles are well known to provide filtration properties including organic and metal ion impurity adsorbing (see Song), and thus a change in impurity removal when including a further filtering material imparting its own filtration properties would not be unexpected
Thus the claimed invention is not seen to possess unexpected results and is obvious in view of the cited art.
In response to Applicants' argument that it would not have been obvious to reduce the amount of extractable organic compounds and/or metal ions in the polymer up to zero, because "this is not an inherent or obvious feature of filtration membranes in general, and neither Choi nor Calis teaches such a purity requirement; the Examiner disagrees. Applicants have not provided reason the motivation given by the Examiner is incorrect, and merely argued that it is not inherent or obvious, thus this argument is not convincing. As stated, as the membrane is for purification, one of skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to provide a membrane that does not further contaminate the fluid filtered through extractable organic compounds and/or metal ions in the polymer.
Applicants' request for rejoinder with be held in abeyance until such time that there are allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
