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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The element, “refluxing the mineral material in a Li Cl solution having a molecular crosslinker” in claim 21 appears to be a new matter, because no support could be found for this step in the original disclosure. Original claim 5 only supports adding the crosslinker in to the LiCl solution before vacuum filtering, and does not support refluxing with it.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015210395 in view of Kun Huang – Thesis.
This DE reference teaches a method of making a phyllosilicate/vermiculite membrane [0037] after exfoliating [0018] the phyllosilicate, and crosslinked [0054].
“Restacking” is not defined in the disclosure, but assumed to be what happens when the membrane is cast of vacuum filtered, which is taught by the references.
DE does not teach the details of exfoliating. However, These details are well-known in the art as shown by Kun Huang, which teaches vermiculite exfoliation as claimed in claims 4 and 6. Particularly, thermal treatment (expanded), refluxing with NaCl solution followed by refluxing with LiCl solution as claimed. See 3.1, membrane fabrication, at page 85. Thermally expanded (subjected to thermal treatment) vermiculite was refluxed with NaCl solution and then LiCl solution and then centrifuged and sonicated, before casting into membrane. Pages 85-88.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the known arts like Kun Huang with the teachings of DE since DE does not provide the details of exfoliation. See MPEP 2143-I, rationales A-G.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4, 6, 7, 21-23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Becker et al, Epoxy Layered Silicate Nanocomposites, Adv Polym Sci (2005) 179: 29–82, DE 102015210395 and Kun Huang - Thesis,
Becker teaches a process of making cross-linked phyllosilicate composites like films (membranes) by exfoliating the phyllosilicate, and the crosslinking with epoxy and a diamine. See abstract, page 36 -section 3, page 45-section 6.1, page 49-section 6.2, and page 55. While the reference is silent on the term “membrane,” the teaching of the process steps claimed is similar to what the reference teaches. Additionally, by definition, a membrane is only a thin film (dictionary). Applicant has no other specific definition for the membrane.
Becker teaches exfoliation in presence of diamines in pages 51 and 52, but does not teach other details of exfoliation. However, These details are well-known in the art as shown by Kun Huang, which teaches vermiculite exfoliation as claimed in claims 4 and 6. Particularly, thermal treatment (expanded), refluxing with NaCl solution followed by refluxing with LiCl solution as claimed. See 3.1, membrane fabrication, at page 85. Thermally expanded (subjected to thermal treatment) vermiculite was refluxed with NaCl solution and then LiCl solution and then centrifuged and sonicated, before casting into membrane. Pages 85-88.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the known arts like Kun Huang with the teachings of Becker. See MPEP 2143-I, rationales A-G.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4, 6, 7, 21-23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Becker et al, Epoxy Layered Silicate Nanocomposites, Adv Polym Sci (2005) 179: 29–82, DE 102015210395 and Kun Huang - Thesis,
Teaching of Kun Huang is described above in rejections 1 And 2. It would have been obvious to use the teachings of DE or Krause in the teaching of Kun Huang to improve the mechanical and other properties of Kun Huang membrane by crosslinking.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and limiting to phyllosilicates or vermiculite, after overcoming any 112 issues.
None of the references teach the recited diamines as crosslinkers, and the step of adding crosslinker in the LiCl solution as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are moot, new grounds for rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777