DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 05/15/2026, in which claims 1, 3, 24, 29, and 37 have been amended and claims 54-55 have been newly added; claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 19, 23-25, 27, 29, 32, 34-37, 39, 41 and 53-55 are pending and ready for examination.
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, 3, 5, 7, 19, 23 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0071198 A1 (hereinafter “Brozell”) in view of Kaleem Abbas Asghar, et al., 2D hexagonal mesoporous platinum films exhibiting biaxial, in-plane pore alignment, J. Mater. Chem., 2012, 22, 13311-13317 (hereinafter “Asghar”), US 2012/0208004 Al (hereinafter “Wolcott”) and Gin, D.L., Bara, J.E., Noble, R.D. and Elliott, B.J. (2008), Polymerized Lyotropic Liquid Crystal Assemblies for Membrane Applications. Macromol. Rapid Commun., 29: 367-389. (hereinafter “Gin”) and US 11,433,359 B1 (hereinafter “Qavi”).
Regarding Claim 1 and 23 Brozell discloses a method of producing a thin film composite membrane, and the thin film composite membrane thus produced, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a porous support layer [0011];
depositing a solution comprising at least one surfactant liquid crystal mesophase precursor on the porous support layer, wherein the solution has a water and/or solvent content [0011];
forming a mesophase on the porous support layer [0011];
stabilizing the mesophase precursor to form a stabilized surfactant membrane (i.e. also and film or coating) comprising cylindrical surfactant fibers at least partially ordered as hexagonal packed cylinders within the film, and present as an H1 mesophase ([0010]-[0011] and shown in Fig. 2A-D, wherein a hexagonal mesophase is known as an “H1 mesophase” and an inverse hexagonal phase in an “H2 mesophase”); and
wherein the cylinders are spatially arranged to provide channels between the cylinders for fluid flow through the thin film composite membrane; (Figs. 1B, 2A, 4, Abstract, [0010]-[0011], [0020], [0076], [0105], [0115], [0121]-[0122].
With regard to crosslinking, Brozell discloses "[s]urfactants can also be stabilized by polymerizing groups attached to the surfactants . For example, surfactants comprising epoxy groups can be crosslinked to stabilize the mesostructure" [0121].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brozell by attaching polymerizing groups to the surfactants and polymerizing them by crosslinking, in order to stabilize the mesostructure and thus forming a polymer membrane with polymer fibers.
Thus this involves using a polymerizable mesophase precursor and polymerizing and crosslinking the mesophase precursor as claimed, wherein the crosslinking would be expected to occur between all touching surfactants, which one would reasonably expect to inherently result in wherein the cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders, as claimed, because the cylinders are formed by the polymerizable surfactants. See MPEP 2112.01.
Brozell does not disclose (1) an adjacent layer which is removed, or (2) that the cylinders are aligned parallel to the film surface, or (3) the deposited solution comprises a hydrophobic crosslinker and hydrophilic crosslinker.
However, with regard to (1) an adjacent layer which is removed after forming the polymer membrane, Wolcott discloses a means of forming a composite membrane, wherein a sacrificial blocking layer is applied to a porous substrate, and then a permeable membrane layer (which may be a polymeric film) is applied on said sacrificial blocking layer, and then the sacrificial blocking layer is removed when the membrane layer has cured, wherein the sacrificial layer prevents the polymeric film of the permeable membrane layer from otherwise seeping into the pores of the substrate before the membrane layer has cured; [0020]-[0021], [0036]-[0043]; Figs. 1(a)-(d).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brozell by forming an adjacent sacrificial blocking layer on the porous support layer, and then forming the mesophase layer on the adjacent layer, then removing the adjacent layer once the mesophase layer is cured/stabilized as disclosed by Wolcott because this prevents the mesophase layer from seeping into the pores of the porous support layer before it is cured.
With regard to (2) the cylinders being aligned parallel to the film surface and present as an H1 mesophase, Asghar discloses a similar invention for hexagonally packed cylinder structures formed by liquid crystal surfactants on a substrate (Abstract), wherein the cylinders are aligned parallel to the film surface and are present as an H1 phase.(Fig 3 with caption "method of shear alignment of a hexagonal (H1) templating phase"; see Figs. 3 and 7 that shows that the cylinders are aligned parallel to the substrate). See Abstract, Introduction, pg. 13314, Conclusions.
Further, Gin discloses polymerized (i.e. crosslinked) lyotropic liquid crystal (i.e. surfactant) assemblies for membrane applications (Title, LLCs and LLC Phases: An Overview), wherein “[c]ross-linking of LLC assemblies using polymerizable analogs of LLC mesogens provides a convenient method for stabilizing LLC phases for materials applications” and discloses that it is known to use membranes with hexagonal mesophases arranged parallel to the fluid flow, where the parallel direction provided different filtration effects by impeding gas diffusion (Fig. 7, The Use of a Cross-Linked LLC Network as a Gas Separation Membrane).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and membrane of Brozell in view of Wolcott by aligning the cylinders parallel to the film surface and present as an H1 mesophase (i.e. via shear force) as disclosed by Asghar and Gin using shear force alignment as disclosed by Asghar because this is a known alternative arrangement of surfactant formed cylinders used to create pores in similar membranes and “[f]ilms with such aligned mesoporosity will advance the field of nanotechnology where the control of pore structure is paramount” (Asghar Abstract) and in order to test effects on filtration fluid flow and separation.
With regard to (3) hydrophobic and hydrophilic crosslinkers, Qavi discloses a similar polymerized liquid crystal/surfactant membrane, wherein a mesophase precursor solution comprising monomers (mesophase precursor, including CTAB), crosslinkers and thermal and/or photo initiators are polymerized on a support to form various structures/mesophases including hexagonal, wherein there may be “one or more crosslinkers” chosen from “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene”, which are included “to confer strength and resilience to the resulting membranes”; C2/L51-C3/L33, C4/L50-C6/L59.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and membrane of Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar and Gin by using at least two crosslinkers chosen from “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene” in the monomer solution which is deposited in order to crosslink the monomer/mesophase precursor as disclosed by Qavi because this involves the use of a known technique (addition of disclosed crosslinkers) to improve a similar devices (a membrane made from structured surfactants/mesophase precursors) in the same way (to confer strength and resilience to the resulting membranes); to obtain the predictable result of a crosslinked membrane.
With regard specifically to choosing a hydrophobic crosslinker and a hydrophilic crosslinker, this would have been obvious because it involves merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. from the disclosed list of crosslinkers), with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e. in crosslinking the polymerizable mesophase precursor(s); see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 3 Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the polymerizable mesophase precursor may be cetrimonium bromide (CTAB), Brozell [0117], which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
113
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, it may be modified to include a polymerizable epoxy group, which would be obvious to include on, or substitute for, one of its alky side chains, and thus said CTAB with an attached epoxy group comprises a polymerizable surfactant of the formula [Z-N+(R1)(R2)(R3)]X-, wherein Z comprises a polymerizable group; X is a salt counter anion; R1, R2, and R3 are alkyl groups which are bound to N and independently may be the same or different; and at least one ofR1, R2, and R3 is an alkyl group comprising at least IO carbon atoms, as claimed, where Z is epoxy, X is Br, R1, R2 and R3 are alkyl groups, one of which has 16 carbons.
Regarding Claim 5 Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the solution further comprises a photoinitiator.
However Gin discloses polymerized (i.e. crosslinked) lyotropic liquid crystal (i.e. surfactant) assemblies for membrane applications (Title, LLCs and LLC Phases: An Overview), wherein “[c]ross-linking of LLC assemblies using polymerizable analogs of LLC mesogens provides a convenient method for stabilizing LLC phases for materials applications” and that “photoinitiated radical polymerization is currently the preferred method[22,23] because photopolymerization allows for rapid initiation at specific temperatures that can be used to favor formation of certain LLC phases” (pg. 373, Polymerization of LLC Phases with Retention of Phase Microstructure), and where specifically a photoinitiator is used in the surfactant LLC mesophase solution (pg. 379, left column, pg. 380 right column, Tables 3-4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar, Gin and Qavi by including a photoinitiator in the mesophase precursor solution as disclosed by Gin in order to crosslink and polymer the polymerizable mesophase precursor to stabilize the membrane because photopolymerization allows for rapid initiation at specific temperatures that can be used to favor formation of certain LLC phases.
Regarding Claim 7 Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim l, wherein Gin discloses using 1.5% photoinitiator (pg. 379, Table 3), 0.9% (Table 4), and 0.6 (pg. 385), and so these would have been obvious amounts of photoinitiator to use.
Regarding Claim 19 Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the adjacent layer is a sacrificial layer (supra), and may be polyvinyl alcohol, Wolcott [0018] which is dissolve away using warm deionized water [0041].
Regarding Claim 54 Brozell in view of Wolcott, Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the crosslinkers are chosen from among “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene” (C6/L3-18); thus including the hydrophobic crosslinker (ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, EG-DMA) and hydrophilic crosslinkers (di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate; all of which are considered “oligo(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate”, i.e. OEG-DMA). With regard specifically to choosing for the hydrophobic crosslinker EG-DMA and the hydrophilic crosslinker one of the OEG-DMAs, this would have been obvious because it involves merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. from the disclosed list of crosslinkers), with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e. in crosslinking the polymerizable mesophase precursor(s); see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Claims 24-25, 27, 29, 32, 34-37, 39, 41, 53 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi.
Regarding Claim 24 and 34 Brozell discloses a thin film composite membrane comprising: (i) the polymer membrane (i.e. which can be considered a film or coating); and (ii) a porous support layer in contact with the polymer membrane;
said polymer membrane comprising
a layer having a first surface, a second surface and a film thickness therebetween, and comprising cylindrical polymer fibers at least partially ordered as hexagonal packed cylinders within the film, aligned perpendicular to the film surface, and present as an H1 mesophase (shown in Fig. 2A-D, wherein a hexagonal mesophase is known as an H1 mesophase and an inverse hexagonal phase in an H2 mesophase);
wherein the cylinders are spatially arranged to provide channels between the cylinders for fluid flow through the membrane (film or coating);
See Figs. 1B, 2A, 4, Abstract, [0010]-[0011], [0020], [0076], [0105], [0115], [0121]-[0122].
With regard to crosslinking, Brozell discloses "[s]urfactants can also be stabilized by polymerizing groups attached to the surfactants . For example, surfactants comprising epoxy groups can be crosslinked to stabilize the mesostructure" [0121].
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 Brozell by forming it by attaching polymerizing groups to the surfactants and polymerizing them by crosslinking, in order to stabilize the mesostructured.
Thus this involves using a polymerizable mesophase precursor and polymerizing and crosslinking the mesophase precursor as claimed, wherein the crosslinking would be expected to occur between all touching surfactants, which one would reasonably expect to inherently result in wherein the cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders, as claimed, because the cylinders are formed by the polymerizable surfactants. See MPEP 2112.01.
Brozell does not disclose that (1) the cylinders are aligned parallel to the film surface, or (2) the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked through a hydrophilic crosslinker within the polymer membrane, film, or coating, or the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders through a hydrophobic crosslinker.
However, with regard to (1) the cylinders being aligned parallel to the film surface and present as an H1 mesophase, Asghar discloses a similar invention for hexagonally packed cylinder structures formed by liquid crystal surfactants on a substrate (Abstract), wherein the cylinders are aligned parallel to the film surface and are present as an H1 phase.(Fig 3 with caption "method of shear alignment of a hexagonal (H1) templating phase"; see Figs. 3 and 7 that shows that the cylinders are aligned parallel to the substrate). See Abstract, Introduction, pg. 13314, Conclusions.
Further, Gin discloses polymerized (i.e. crosslinked) lyotropic liquid crystal (i.e. surfactant) assemblies for membrane applications (Title, LLCs and LLC Phases: An Overview), wherein “[c]ross-linking of LLC assemblies using polymerizable analogs of LLC mesogens provides a convenient method for stabilizing LLC phases for materials applications” and discloses that it is known to use membranes with hexagonal mesophases arranged parallel to the fluid flow, where the parallel direction provided different filtration effects by impeding gas diffusion (Fig. 7, The Use of a Cross-Linked LLC Network as a Gas Separation Membrane).
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 Brozell by aligning the cylinders parallel to the film surface and present as an H1 mesophase (i.e. via shear force) as disclosed by Asghar and Gin using shear force alignment as disclosed by Asghar because this is a known alternative arrangement of surfactant formed cylinders used to create pores in similar membranes and “[f]ilms with such aligned mesoporosity will advance the field of nanotechnology where the control of pore structure is paramount” (Asghar Abstract) and in order to test effects on filtration fluid flow and separation.
With regard to (2) hydrophobic and hydrophilic crosslinkers, Qavi discloses a similar polymerized liquid crystal/surfactant membrane, wherein a mesophase precursor solution comprising monomers (mesophase precursor, including CTAB), crosslinkers and thermal and/or photo initiators are polymerized on a support to form various structures/mesophases including hexagonal, wherein there may be “one or more crosslinkers” chosen from “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene”, which are included “to confer strength and resilience to the resulting membranes”; C2/L51-C3/L33, C4/L50-C6/L59.
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 Brozell in view of Asghar and Gin by using at least two crosslinkers chosen from “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene” in the monomer solution which is deposited in order to crosslink the monomer/mesophase precursor as disclosed by Qavi because this involves the use of a known technique (addition of disclosed crosslinkers) to improve a similar devices (a membrane made from structured surfactants/mesophase precursors) in the same way (to confer strength and resilience to the resulting membranes); to obtain the predictable result of a crosslinked membrane.
With regard specifically to choosing a hydrophobic crosslinker and a hydrophilic crosslinker, this would have been obvious because it involves merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. from the disclosed list of crosslinkers), with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e. in crosslinking the polymerizable mesophase precursor(s); see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
With regard to “the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked through a hydrophilic crosslinker within the polymer membrane, film, or coating, and the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders through a hydrophobic crosslinker”, this would inherently in the membrane of Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi as a result of the inclusion of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic crosslinkers being included in the monomer solution and then crosslinking the solution, just as occurs in the membrane disclosed by Applicants. See MPEP 2112 with regard to inherency.
Regarding Claim 25 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the polymer membrane, film or coating of claim 24 wherein the stabilized surfactant mesostructure has a pore size (i.e. considered to be a critical separation dimension, channels between the cylinders) of 0.3 Angstrom to 4 nm, Brozell [0010], i.e. for fluids or fluid/solute mixtures passing through the polymer membrane, film or coating, and wherein Brozell shows the fluid path of the molecules is between the surfactants (Figs. 2A-D, [0115]), and therefore this pore size would apply to separation distance of the between channels between the cylinders in the membrane of Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi.
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim is 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 of the disclosed range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 27 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the polymer membrane, film or coating of claim 24, wherein the cylindrical polymer fibers comprise a polymerizable surfactant which may be cetrimonium bromide (CTAB), Brozell [0117], which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
113
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 24, it may be modified to include a polymerizable epoxy group, which would be obvious to include on, or substitute for, one of its alky side chains, and thus said CTAB with an attached epoxy group comprises a polymerizable surfactant of the formula [Z-N+(R1)(R2)(R3)]X-, wherein Z comprises a polymerizable group; X is a salt counter anion; R1, R2, and R3 are alkyl groups which are bound to N and independently may be the same or different; and at least one ofR1, R2, and R3 is an alkyl group comprising at least IO carbon atoms, as claimed, where Z is epoxy, X is Br, R1, R2 and R3 are alkyl groups, one of which has 16 carbons.
Regarding Claim 29 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the polymer membrane, film or coating of claim 24, having a film thickness less than or equal to 10 microns, Brozell [0079].
Since the range disclosed overlaps the range claimed, the range recited in the claim is 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 of the disclosed range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 32 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the polymer membrane, film or coating of claim 24, wherein polymerizable groups are provided attached the surfactant then crosslinked (as discussed supra in the rejection of claim 1), therefore the crosslinking would be expected to occur between all touching surfactants, which one would reasonably expect to inherently result in wherein the cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders and wherein intercylinder crosslinking also exists to connect neighboring cylindrical polymer fibers as claimed. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 35 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the thin film composite membrane of claim 34, wherein the porous support layer is polyacrylonitrile, polyvinylidene fluoride, or polysulfone; Brozell [0015], Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 36 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the thin film composite membrane of claim 34, which may be used in separation devices (Abstract, [0013], [0115]), has a pores size of 0.3 Angstrom to 4 nm, Brozell [0010], and may comprise a nanofiltration membrane [0015]. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the thin film composite membrane of Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi (i.e. claim 34), in a nanofiltration device in order to use the thin film composite membrane for nanofiltration separations.
Regarding Claim 37 and 53 Brozell discloses a method of producing a thin film composite membrane, and the thin film composite membrane thus formed, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a porous support layer [0011];
depositing a mesophase gel on the porous support layer wherein the mesophase gel comprises a mesophase precursor, [0011], (wherein the surfactant mesophase solution may be a gel) [0097]; and
stabilizing the mesophase precursor to form a stabilized surfactant membrane (i.e. a film or coating) comprising cylindrical surfactant fibers at least partially ordered as hexagonal packed cylinders within the film, and present as an H1 mesophase (shown in Fig. 2A-D, wherein a hexagonal mesophase is known as an “H1 mesophase” and an inverse hexagonal phase in an “H2 mesophase”);
and wherein the cylinders are spatially arranged to provide channels between the cylinders for fluid flow through the thin film composite membrane;
See Figs. 1B, 2A-D, 4, Abstract, [0010]-[0011], [0020], [0076], [0105], [0115], [0121]-[0122].
With regard to crosslinking, Brozell discloses "[s]urfactants can also be stabilized by polymerizing groups attached to the surfactants . For example, surfactants comprising epoxy groups can be crosslinked to stabilize the mesostructure" [0121].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brozell by attaching polymerizing groups to the surfactants and polymerizing them by crosslinking, in order to stabilize the mesostructure and thus forming a polymer membrane with polymer fibers.
Thus this involves using a polymerizable mesophase precursor and polymerizing and crosslinking the mesophase precursor as claimed, wherein the crosslinking would be expected to occur between all touching surfactants, which one would reasonably expect to inherently result in wherein the cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders, as claimed, because the cylinders are formed by the polymerizable surfactants. See MPEP 2112.01.
Brozell does not disclose that (1) the cylinders are aligned parallel to the film surface, or (2) the deposited solution comprises a hydrophobic crosslinker and hydrophilic crosslinker, or the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked through a hydrophilic crosslinker within the polymer membrane, film, or coating, or the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders through a hydrophobic crosslinker.
With regard to (1) the cylinders being aligned parallel to the film surface and present as an H1 mesophase, Asghar discloses a similar invention for hexagonally packed cylinder structures formed by liquid crystal surfactants on a substrate (Abstract), wherein the cylinders are aligned parallel to the film surface and are present as an H1 phase.(Fig 3 with caption "method of shear alignment of a hexagonal (H1) templating phase"; see Figs. 3 and 7 that shows that the cylinders are aligned parallel to the substrate). See Abstract, Introduction, pg. 13314, Conclusions.
Further, Gin discloses polymerized (i.e. crosslinked) lyotropic liquid crystal (i.e. surfactant) assemblies for membrane applications (Title, LLCs and LLC Phases: An Overview), wherein “[c]ross-linking of LLC assemblies using polymerizable analogs of LLC mesogens provides a convenient method for stabilizing LLC phases for materials applications” and discloses that it is known to use membranes with hexagonal mesophases arranged parallel to the fluid flow, where the parallel direction provided different filtration effects by impeding gas diffusion (Fig. 7, The Use of a Cross-Linked LLC Network as a Gas Separation Membrane).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and membrane of Brozell by aligning the cylinders parallel to the film surface and present as an H1 mesophase (i.e. via shear force) as disclosed by Asghar and Gin using shear force alignment as disclosed by Asghar because this is a known alternative arrangement of surfactant formed cylinders used to create pores in similar membranes and “[f]ilms with such aligned mesoporosity will advance the field of nanotechnology where the control of pore structure is paramount” (Asghar Abstract) and in order to test effects on filtration fluid flow and separation.
With regard to (2) hydrophobic and hydrophilic crosslinkers, Qavi discloses a similar polymerized liquid crystal/surfactant membrane, wherein a mesophase precursor solution comprising monomers (mesophase precursor, including CTAB), crosslinkers and thermal and/or photo initiators are polymerized on a support to form various structures/mesophases including hexagonal, wherein there may be “one or more crosslinkers” chosen from “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene”, which are included “to confer strength and resilience to the resulting membranes”; C2/L51-C3/L33, C4/L50-C6/L59.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and membrane of Brozell in view of Asghar and Gin by using at least two crosslinkers chosen from “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene” in the monomer solution which is deposited in order to crosslink the monomer/mesophase precursor as disclosed by Qavi because this involves the use of a known technique (addition of disclosed crosslinkers) to improve a similar devices (a membrane made from structured surfactants/mesophase precursors) in the same way (to confer strength and resilience to the resulting membranes); to obtain the predictable result of a crosslinked membrane.
With regard specifically to choosing a hydrophobic crosslinker and a hydrophilic crosslinker, this would have been obvious because it involves merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. from the disclosed list of crosslinkers), with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e. in crosslinking the polymerizable mesophase precursor(s); see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
With regard to “the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked through a hydrophilic crosslinker within the polymer membrane, film, or coating, and the hexagonal packed cylinders are crosslinked internally within the cylinders through a hydrophobic crosslinker”, this would inherently in the membrane of Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi as a result of the inclusion of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic crosslinkers being included in the monomer solution and then crosslinking the solution, just as occurs in the membrane disclosed by Applicants. See MPEP 2112 with regard to inherency.
Regarding Claim 39 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 37, wherein the polymerizable mesophase precursor may be cetrimonium bromide (CTAB), Brozell [0117], which has the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
113
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, it may be modified to include a polymerizable epoxy group, which would be obvious to include on, or substitute for, one of its alky side chains, and thus said CTAB with an attached epoxy group comprises a polymerizable surfactant of the formula [Z-N+(R1)(R2)(R3)]X-, wherein Z comprises a polymerizable group; X is a salt counter anion; R1, R2, and R3 are alkyl groups which are bound to N and independently may be the same or different; and at least one ofR1, R2, and R3 is an alkyl group comprising at least IO carbon atoms, as claimed, where Z is epoxy, X is Br, R1, R2 and R3 are alkyl groups, one of which has 16 carbons.
Regarding Claim 41 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 37, but does not disclose wherein the mesophase gel further comprises a photoinitiator.
However Gin discloses polymerized (i.e. crosslinked) lyotropic liquid crystal (i.e. surfactant) assemblies for membrane applications (Title, LLCs and LLC Phases: An Overview), wherein “[c]ross-linking of LLC assemblies using polymerizable analogs of LLC mesogens provides a convenient method for stabilizing LLC phases for materials applications” and that “photoinitiated radical polymerization is currently the preferred method[22,23] because photopolymerization allows for rapid initiation at specific temperatures that can be used to favor formation of certain LLC phases” (pg. 373, Polymerization of LLC Phases with Retention of Phase Microstructure), and where specifically a photoinitiator is used in the surfactant LLC mesophase solution (pg. 379, left column, pg. 380 right column, Tables 3-4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi by including a photoinitiator in the mesophase gel as disclosed by Gin in order to crosslink and polymer the polymerizable mesophase precursor to stabilize the membrane because photopolymerization allows for rapid initiation at specific temperatures that can be used to favor formation of certain LLC phases.
Regarding Claim 55 Brozell in view of Asghar, Gin and Qavi discloses the method of claim 37, wherein the crosslinkers are chosen from among “ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, ethylene glycol diacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), di(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, tetra(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, 1,3-butanediol diacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, 1,4-butanediol diacrylate, tri(ethyleneglycol) diacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate, 1,3-butanediol dimethacrylate, 1,6-Hexanediol dimethacrylate, 1,4-butanediol dimethacrylate, and divinylbenzene” (C6/L3-18); thus including the hydrophobic crosslinker (ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, EG-DMA) and hydrophilic crosslinkers (di(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (with different ethylene glycol repeating units), tetraethylene glycol dimethacrylate; all of which are considered “oligo(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate”, i.e. OEG-DMA). With regard specifically to choosing for the hydrophobic crosslinker EG-DMA and the hydrophilic crosslinker one of the OEG-DMAs, this would have been obvious because it involves merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. from the disclosed list of crosslinkers), with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e. in crosslinking the polymerizable mesophase precursor(s); see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Response to Amendment
The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1,3,5,7,16,19,23-25,27,29,32,34-37,39,41,51 and 53 are withdrawn in view of the Applicants’ arguments and amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive with regard to the previous combination of references as they would apply to the amended claims, but they are now moot because they are directed in their entirety to grounds of rejection which are no longer cited in the current action and the new limitations of the amended claims which had not been previously addressed. See the updated rejection above citing a new combination of references to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights