DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 1-5, 8-9, 11-19, and 26-30
Cancelled Claims: 6-7, 10, and 20-25
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 23 MARCH 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claims 1, 8-9, 16, 19, and 28, the addition of new claims 29-30, and the cancellation of claims 6 and 10 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment of claims 8-9 and the cancellation of claim 10, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claims 6 and 10, the rejections of claim 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claims 1, 16, and 19, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 23 MARCH 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claims 1, 16, and 19, that the prior art does not address the newly amended limitation of the polymer coating extending within the pores of the expanded polyparaxylylene membrane. Therefore, instant claims 1, 16, and 19 are allowable (Arguments filed 23 MARCH 2026, Page 7 to Page 10, Paragraph 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claims 1, 16, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims of instant claims 1, 16, and 19 are allowable because instant claims 1, 16, and 19 are allowable (Arguments filed 23 MARCH 2026, Page 9, Paragraph 6).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claims 1, 16, and 19 are not allowable and so their dependent claims are also not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-19, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sbriglia US Patent Application No. 20160032069 A1 (hereinafter Sbriglia) in view of McManaway et al US Patent Application No. 20170137461 A1 (hereinafter McManaway) in view of Wang et al Chinese Patent Application No. CN 110652889 A (hereinafter Wang) in view of Mutsumi Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2018131520 A (hereinafter Mutsumi).
Regarding Claim 1, Sbriglia teaches a polyparaxylylene polymer article that can be expanded to form a porous article (i.e., one expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX) membrane; Abstract) that has a node (Fig. 7A, #10) and fibril (Fig. 7a, #20) structure (i.e., said ePPX membrane having a microstructure comprising nodes, fibrils and pores; Paragraph 0001) and shows spaces between connected nodes and fibrils (i.e., said nodes being interconnected by said fibrils and said pores being a void space between said nodes and fibrils; Fig. 7A; Paragraph 0074). Sbriglia further teaches that a thin polyparaxylylene polymer film may be applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene substrate to from a composite structure (i.e., a composite membrane) and that the different microstructures can be measured by a difference in porosity (i.e., coupled on one side to at least one additional porous substrate; Paragraph 0044).
Sbriglia does not teach the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating on a surface thereof and wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores.
However, McManaway teaches a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032) where one of the polymer membranes is an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane and may include vinyl alcohol (i.e., the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating on a surface thereof; Paragraphs 0036-0037) and the polymer membrane may also be formed of the polyparaxylylene as taught by Sbriglia (i.e., composite ePPX membrane comprising the ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0039). McManaway further teaches that the polymer membranes may be co-expanded or integrated together (Paragraph 0033) and that the stacked membrane would be reusable (Paragraph 0003). The different membranes are not designed to have the exact same porosity/pore pattern and thus the stacked materials will necessarily lead to partial occlusion of pores between layers (i.e., wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores).
McManaway is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a polymeric separation membrane (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane taught by Sbriglia with the additional expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layers as taught by McManaway because the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layer would make the membrane reusable.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway does not teach wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores.
However, Wang teaches the use of a release layer made of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) on a filter membrane with a parylene layer on its surface (Paragraphs 0007-00011, Machine Translation) wherein the release layer is adhered by soaking, filtering, spin coating or spraying and the PVA release layer forms inside the pores (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores; Paragraph 0046, Machine Translation) with the benefit of making membrane re-release target particles more easily (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to microporous filtration membranes with a release layer (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway with the release layer in the pores of the membrane as taught by Wang because the release layer would allow for the membrane to release particles that are attached to the membrane surface more easily.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the organic solvent nanofiltration membrane has an average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, Mutsumi teaches that it is known to utilize a pore size of 0.1 to 10 nm for a parylene membrane because the membrane is capable of separating solutes that are larger than the pore size from a solvent that is smaller than the pore size (Paragraphs 0013 and 0015, Machine Translation).
Mutsumi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a parylene separation membrane (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang with the pore size as taught by Mutsumi because the pore size would enable the separation of solvents from solutes.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi does not teach the explicit average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected the pore size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang further teaches immersion adhesion method of the membrane to apply the release layer (i.e., wherein the polymer coating is on one or both sides of the ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0015, Machine Translation) which would apply the coating to all sides of the membrane.
McManaway further teaches a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (i.e., wherein the polymer coating is on one or both sides of the ePPX membrane; Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 3, Sbriglia further teaches that the article has a node and fibril structure (Paragraph 0001) and that a thin polyparaxylylene polymer film may be applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene substrate to from a composite structure (Paragraph 0044).
Wang further teaches immersion adhesion method of the membrane to apply the release layer (i.e., wherein the nodes and fibrils are at least partially coated with said polymer coating; Paragraph 0015, Machine Translation) which would apply the coating to all sides of the membrane and naturally to the nodes and fibrils.
McManaway further teaches a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (i.e., wherein the polymer coating is on one or both sides of the ePPX membrane; Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032). The nodes and fibrils must be at least partially coated as they constitute the structure of the polymer (i.e., wherein the nodes and fibrils are at least partially coated with said polymer coating).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang further teaches that the degree of PVA hydrolysis is above 70%, which results in stronger hydrogen bonds between PVA molecules, which is a physical form of cross-linking, making the PVA coating more difficult to dissolve (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating is cross-linked; Paragraph 0021, Machine Translation).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang further teaches the use of PVA as a release layer (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating comprises at least one of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA); Paragraph 0008, Machine Translation).
McManaway further teaches that the fluoropolymer membrane may include vinylidene fluoride, vinyl alcohol, and perfluorosulfonyl vinyl ether (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating comprises at least one of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), and an amorphous perfluoropolymer; Paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 8, Sbriglia further teaches that the polymer substrate may be an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (i.e., wherein the additional porous substrate is a porous polyolefin; Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 9, Sbriglia further teaches that the polymer substrate may be an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (i.e., wherein the additional porous substrate comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE); Paragraph 0011).
Regarding Claim 11, Sbriglia further teaches that a thin polyparaxylylene polymer film may be applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene substrate to from a composite structure (Paragraph 0044) and that the substrate may be an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (i.e., wherein the organic solvent nanofiltration membrane is a polymer coated ePPX-ePTFE composite membrane; Paragraph 0006).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang further teaches the use of PVA as a release layer (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating includes a different polymer than polyparaxylylene; Paragraph 0008, Machine Translation).
McManaway further teaches a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032) and that the fluoropolymer membrane may include vinylidene fluoride, vinyl alcohol, and perfluorosulfonyl vinyl ether (i.e., wherein said at least one polymer coating includes a different polymer than polyparaxylylene; Paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 13, Sbriglia further teaches that polyparaxylylene (PPX) polymers include PPX-N, PPX-AF4, PPX-VT4, and combination thereof (i.e., wherein the ePPX membrane comprises a polyparaxylylene polymer selected from PPX-N, PPX-AF4, PPX-VT4, or any combination thereof; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 14, McManaway further teaches that the device may further include a porous frit (i.e., further comprising at least one porous support; Fig. 1, #40; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 15, McManaway further teaches that the porous frit may be formed of a metallic material, polypropylene, polyethylene, or other polyolefin (i.e., wherein the at least one porous support is a stainless steel mesh or a membrane; Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 16, Sbriglia teaches a polyparaxylylene polymer article that can be expanded to form a porous article (i.e., one expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX) membrane; Abstract) that has a node (Fig. 7A, #10) and fibril (Fig. 7a, #20) structure (i.e., said ePPX membrane having a microstructure comprising nodes, fibrils and pores; Paragraph 0001) and shows spaces between connected nodes and fibrils (i.e., said nodes being interconnected by said fibrils and said pores being a void space between said nodes and fibrils; Fig. 7A; Paragraph 0074). Sbriglia further teaches that a thin polyparaxylylene polymer film may be applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene substrate to from a composite structure (i.e., a composite membrane) and that the different microstructures can be measured by a difference in porosity (i.e., coupled on one side to at least one additional porous substrate; Paragraph 0044).
Sbriglia does not teach the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating thereon and wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores.
However, McManaway teaches a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032) where one of the polymer membranes is an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (i.e., the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating thereon; Paragraph 0036) and the polymer membrane may also be formed of the polyparaxylylene as taught by Sbriglia (i.e., composite ePPX membrane comprising the ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0039). McManaway further teaches that the polymer membranes may be co-expanded or integrated together (Paragraph 0033) and that the stacked membrane would be reusable (Paragraph 0003). The different membranes are not designed to have the exact same porosity/pore pattern and thus the stacked materials will necessarily lead to partial occlusion of pores between layers (i.e., wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores).
McManaway is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a polymeric separation membrane (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane taught by Sbriglia with the additional expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layers as taught by McManaway because the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layer would make the membrane reusable.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway does not teach wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores.
However, Wang teaches the use of a release layer made of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) on a filter membrane with a parylene layer on its surface (Paragraphs 0007-00011, Machine Translation) wherein the release layer is adhered by soaking, filtering, spin coating or spraying and the PVA release layer forms inside the pores (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores; Paragraph 0046, Machine Translation) with the benefit of making membrane re-release target particles more easily (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to microporous filtration membranes with a release layer (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway with the release layer in the pores of the membrane as taught by Wang because the release layer would allow for the membrane to release particles that are attached to the membrane surface more easily.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the organic solvent nanofiltration membrane has an average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, Mutsumi teaches that it is known to utilize a pore size of 0.1 to 10 nm for a parylene membrane because the membrane is capable of separating solutes that are larger than the pore size from a solvent that is smaller than the pore size (Paragraphs 0013 and 0015, Machine Translation).
Mutsumi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a parylene separation membrane (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang with the pore size as taught by Mutsumi because the pore size would enable the separation of solvents from solutes.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi does not teach the explicit average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected the pore size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi.
Furthermore, the limitation “a solution to be passed through (a) comprising at least one solute having a first molecular weight and at least one organic solvent having a second molecular weight, wherein the second molecular weight is less than the first molecular weight” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “wherein the solute is a pharmaceutical molecule, a petrochemical molecule, a plant extract, a vegetable oil, an animal extract, a cellular extract, a protein, an enzyme, a lipid, an organic catalyst or an inorganic catalyst” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 18, Sbriglia further teaches a polyparaxylylene polymer article (i.e., an article comprising) that can be expanded to form a porous article (i.e., one expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX) membrane; Abstract) that has a node (Fig. 7A, #10) and fibril (Fig. 7a, #20) structure (i.e., said ePPX membrane having a microstructure comprising nodes, fibrils and pores; Paragraph 0001).
Regarding Claim 19, Sbriglia teaches a polyparaxylylene polymer article that can be expanded to form a porous article (i.e., one expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX) membrane; Abstract) that has a node (Fig. 7A, #10) and fibril (Fig. 7a, #20) structure (i.e., said ePPX membrane having a microstructure comprising nodes, fibrils and pores; Paragraph 0001) and shows spaces between connected nodes and fibrils (i.e., said nodes being interconnected by said fibrils and said pores being a void space between said nodes and fibrils; Fig. 7A; Paragraph 0074). Sbriglia further teaches that a thin polyparaxylylene polymer film may be applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene substrate to from a composite structure (i.e., a composite membrane) and that the different microstructures can be measured by a difference in porosity (i.e., coupled on one side to at least one additional porous substrate; Paragraph 0044).
Sbriglia does not teach a filtration device comprising: a filtration housing comprising: at least one fluid inlet configured to direct a feed fluid into the filtration housing; and at least one fluid outlet configured to direct a filtrate from the filtration housing, the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating thereon, and wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores.
However, McManaway teaches a chromatography device (i.e., a filtration device comprising) that includes a housing (i.e., a filtration housing comprising; Fig. 4, #50) an inlet (i.e., at least one fluid inlet configured to direct a feed fluid into the filtration housing; Fig. 4, #80), an outlet (i.e., and at least one fluid outlet configured to direct a filtrate from the filtration housing; Fig. 4, #85; Paragraphs 0004 and 0043) and a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032) where one of the polymer membranes is an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (i.e., the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating thereon; Paragraph 0036) and the polymer membrane may also be formed of the polyparaxylylene as taught by Sbriglia (i.e., composite ePPX membrane comprising the ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0039). McManaway further teaches that the polymer membranes may be co-expanded or integrated together (Paragraph 0033) and that the stacked membrane would be reusable (Paragraph 0003). The different membranes are not designed to have the exact same porosity/pore pattern and thus the stacked materials will necessarily lead to partial occlusion of pores between layers (i.e., wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores).
McManaway is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a polymeric separation membrane (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane taught by Sbriglia with the additional expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layers as taught by McManaway because the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layer would make the membrane reusable.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway does not teach wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores.
However, Wang teaches the use of a release layer made of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) on a filter membrane with a parylene layer on its surface (Paragraphs 0007-00011, Machine Translation) wherein the release layer is adhered by soaking, filtering, spin coating or spraying and the PVA release layer forms inside the pores (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores; Paragraph 0046, Machine Translation) with the benefit of making membrane re-release target particles more easily (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to microporous filtration membranes with a release layer (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway with the release layer in the pores of the membrane as taught by Wang because the release layer would allow for the membrane to release particles that are attached to the membrane surface more easily.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the organic solvent nanofiltration membrane has an average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, Mutsumi teaches that it is known to utilize a pore size of 0.1 to 10 nm for a parylene membrane because the membrane is capable of separating solutes that are larger than the pore size from a solvent that is smaller than the pore size (Paragraphs 0013 and 0015, Machine Translation).
Mutsumi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a parylene separation membrane (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang with the pore size as taught by Mutsumi because the pore size would enable the separation of solvents from solutes.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi does not teach the explicit average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected the pore size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi.
Regarding Claim 26, McManaway further teaches that the first (i.e., the at least one ePPX membrane applied to a surface of the additional porous substrate) and second polymer membranes (i.e., the at least one polymer coating applied to the surface of the at least one ePPX membrane) may be stacked such that either one is outside or facing the initial flow direction (i.e., wherein the at least one ePPX membrane is applied to a surface of the additional porous substrate, and the at least one polymer coating is an outermost layer applied to at least a portion of the surface of the at least on ePPX membrane; Fig. 2, #5; Paragraph 0029 and 0032).
Wang further teaches immersion adhesion method of the membrane to apply the release layer (i.e., the at least one polymer coating is an outermost layer applied to at least a portion of the surface of the at least on ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0015, Machine Translation) which would apply the coating to all sides of the membrane so the PVA release layer will always be on an outermost layer.
Regarding Claim 27, Sbriglia further teaches an example of a PPX-AF4 film having a nominal thickness of 10 µm (i.e., wherein the at least one ePPX membrane has a thickness of about 1 µm to about 50 µm; Paragraph 0068).
McManaway further teaches that the polymer membranes in the stacked assembly may have a thickness from about 1 micron to about 10,000 microns (i.e., and the at least one polymer coating has a thickness of about 100 nm to about 5 µm; Paragraph 0041).
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi does not teach the explicit thickness of the polymer coating of about 100 nm to about 5 µm in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected the thickness that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi.
Regarding Claim 28, McManaway further teaches that the different polymer membrane layers may be integrated together (Paragraph 0033).
Wang further teaches the use of a release layer made of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) on a filter membrane with a parylene layer on its surface (Paragraphs 0007-00011, Machine Translation) wherein the release layer is adhered by soaking, filtering, spin coating or spraying and the PVA release layer forms inside the pores (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating fills a portion of the pores of the at least one ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0046, Machine Translation) with the benefit of making membrane re-release target particles more easily (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Mutsumi further teaches that it is known to utilize a pore size of 0.1 to 10 nm for a parylene membrane because the membrane is capable of separating solutes that are larger than the pore size from a solvent that is smaller than the pore size (i.e., such that an initial size of the pores is reduced to the average pore size of 0.1 nm to 5 nm; Paragraphs 0013 and 0015, Machine Translation).
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi does not teach the explicit average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected the pore size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi.
Regarding Claim 29, Mutsumi further teaches that it is known to utilize a pore size of 0.1 to 10 nm for a parylene membrane because the membrane is capable of separating solutes that are larger than the pore size from a solvent that is smaller than the pore size (i.e., wherein a level of occlusion of the pores is at least partially dependent on a size of the at least one solute; Paragraphs 0013 and 0015, Machine Translation).
Claims 16-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi in view of Dietz US Patent Application No. 20130090488 A1 (hereinafter Dietz).
Regarding Claim 16, Sbriglia teaches a polyparaxylylene polymer article that can be expanded to form a porous article (i.e., one expanded polyparaxylylene (ePPX) membrane; Abstract) that has a node (Fig. 7A, #10) and fibril (Fig. 7a, #20) structure (i.e., said ePPX membrane having a microstructure comprising nodes, fibrils and pores; Paragraph 0001) and shows spaces between connected nodes and fibrils (i.e., said nodes being interconnected by said fibrils and said pores being a void space between said nodes and fibrils; Fig. 7A; Paragraph 0074). Sbriglia further teaches that a thin polyparaxylylene polymer film may be applied to a polytetrafluoroethylene substrate to from a composite structure (i.e., a composite membrane) and that the different microstructures can be measured by a difference in porosity (i.e., coupled on one side to at least one additional porous substrate; Paragraph 0044).
Sbriglia does not teach the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating thereon and wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores.
However, McManaway teaches a stacked membrane assembly (Fig. 2, #10; Abstract) including a first polymer membrane (Fig. 2, #20) and a second polymer membrane with alternating layers (Fig. 2, #30; Paragraph 0032) where one of the polymer membranes is an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane (i.e., the at least one ePPX membrane having at least one polymer coating thereon; Paragraph 0036) and the polymer membrane may also be formed of the polyparaxylylene as taught by Sbriglia (i.e., composite ePPX membrane comprising the ePPX membrane; Paragraph 0039). McManaway further teaches that the polymer membranes may be co-expanded or integrated together (Paragraph 0033) and that the stacked membrane would be reusable (Paragraph 0003). The different membranes are not designed to have the exact same porosity/pore pattern and thus the stacked materials will necessarily lead to partial occlusion of pores between layers (i.e., wherein said at least one polymer coating partially occludes said pores).
McManaway is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a polymeric separation membrane (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane taught by Sbriglia with the additional expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layers as taught by McManaway because the expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membrane layer would make the membrane reusable.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway does not teach wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores.
However, Wang teaches the use of a release layer made of poly vinyl alcohol (PVA) on a filter membrane with a parylene layer on its surface (Paragraphs 0007-00011, Machine Translation) wherein the release layer is adhered by soaking, filtering, spin coating or spraying and the PVA release layer forms inside the pores (i.e., wherein the at least one polymer coating extends within the pores; Paragraph 0046, Machine Translation) with the benefit of making membrane re-release target particles more easily (Paragraph 0007, Machine Translation).
Wang is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to microporous filtration membranes with a release layer (Paragraph 0002, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway with the release layer in the pores of the membrane as taught by Wang because the release layer would allow for the membrane to release particles that are attached to the membrane surface more easily.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the organic solvent nanofiltration membrane has an average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, Mutsumi teaches that it is known to utilize a pore size of 0.1 to 10 nm for a parylene membrane because the membrane is capable of separating solutes that are larger than the pore size from a solvent that is smaller than the pore size (Paragraphs 0013 and 0015, Machine Translation).
Mutsumi is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a parylene separation membrane (Paragraph 0001, Machine Translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the composite membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang with the pore size as taught by Mutsumi because the pore size would enable the separation of solvents from solutes.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi does not teach a solution to be passed through (a) comprising at least one solute having a first molecular weight and at least one organic solvent having a second molecular weight, wherein the second molecular weight is less than the first molecular weight.
However, Dietz teaches the removal of solubilized carboxylic acids (i.e., at least one solute) from oils (i.e., a solution) during pharmaceutical, chemical or industrial processing (Paragraph 0370) with the carboxylic acid being tetracosanoic acid, molecular weight of 368.63 gram/mol, (i.e., having a first molecular weight; Paragraphs 0010-0011) and the oil being gasoline, molecular weight 100.2 gram/mol, (i.e., at least one organic solvent having a second molecular weight, wherein the second molecular weight is less than the first molecular weight; Paragraph 0047) where the polymer poly-p-xylylene (i.e., PPX) is suitable for use in the separation membrane (Paragraph 0451) with the benefit of providing a simple, quick, and biocompatible separation of fatty acids from organic media (Paragraph 0006).
Dietz is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a method for separating carboxylic acids from organic solutions including passing the solution along a separation membrane (Paragraphs 0112-0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to use the membrane made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi for the separation of carboxylic acids as taught by Dietz because the membrane in the filtration device would provide a simple, quick, and biocompatible separation of fatty acids from organic media.
Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi in view of Dietz does not teach the explicit average pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 5 nm in the instant claim. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for claimed ranges that overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976))(See MPEP 2144.05(I)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to have selected the pore size that corresponds to the claimed range while experimenting with the range made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi in view of Dietz.
Furthermore, the limitation “a solution to be passed through (a) comprising at least one solute having a first molecular weight and at least one organic solvent having a second molecular weight, wherein the second molecular weight is less than the first molecular weight” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Regarding Claim 17, Dietz further teaches that the carboxylic acids are fatty acids (i.e. wherein the solute is a lipid; Paragraph 0022).
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the solute is a pharmaceutical molecule, a petrochemical molecule, a plant extract, a vegetable oil, an animal extract, a cellular extract, a protein, an enzyme, a lipid, an organic catalyst or an inorganic catalyst” is directed toward materials or articles worked upon by the claimed invention and is therefore not subject to patentability. The inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) and thus holds no patentable weight. See MPEP §2115.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Dietz.
Regarding Claim 30, Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi do not teach wherein the at least one fluid outlet includes a first fluid outlet and a second fluid outlet and the at least one OSN membrane is positioned between the first and second fluid outlets.
However, Dietz teaches that it is known to use a separation membrane composed pf poly-(p-xylylene) (Paragraph 0451) in a dialyzer utilizing a cross-flow configuration in which a material flows across both sides of the membrane, with two inlets and two outlets for each side for the purpose of completely removing solubilized fatty acids (i.e., wherein the at least one fluid outlet includes a first fluid outlet and a second fluid outlet and the at least one OSN membrane is positioned between the first and second fluid outlets; Fig. 2; Paragraph 0195).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention to modify the filtration device made obvious by Sbriglia in view of McManaway in view of Wang in view of Mutsumi to be in a cross-flow configuration as taught by Dietz because the device would be able to completely remove solubilized materials in the liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Linder et al US Patent No. 5028337 A (hereinafter Linder) pertains to composite membranes comprising and underlying membrane consisting of ultrafiltration membranes (Abstract). Linder teaches that the membrane coating for ultrafiltration membranes (Abstract) should contain a solution of polyaromatic cross-linkable polymers (Col. 2, Lines 36-40) and that the coating is crosslinked after being applied to the underlying membrane (Col. 8, Lines 7-16) with the benefits of being oxidation and solvent resistant and readily sterilizable (Col. 1, Lines 46-51). Linder further teaches that the coating may be coated on one external surface of the underlying membrane with partial penetration into the internal pores for the purpose of modifying the rejection and flux properties of the underlying membrane (Col. 2, Lines 21-27).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights