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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are currently pending
Claims 14-23 were previously withdrawn from consideration
Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended
Claims 1-13 are currently rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOEL et al. (U.S. 2021/0322925 A1) (hereinafter “Goel”) in view of Nemser et al. (U.S. 5,051,114) (hereinafter “Nemser”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Goel teaches a method of purifying an organic solvent (Examiner’s note: FIG. 5 of Goel is very similar to FIG. 1 of the current application) (see Goel paragraphs 2, 6-8, 31-34 and 38-40), the method comprising:
introducing the organic solvent as a liquid feed into a membrane distillation system (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64), the membrane distillation system including a membrane (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64); and
performing a distillation technique on the organic solvent with the membrane distillation system using the membrane to treat and purify the organic solvent (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64);
obtaining purified organic solvent from the membrane distillation system (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Although Goel teaches countless membranes, Goel does not explicitly teach a perfluorodioxole membrane, as recited in amended, independent claim 1.
Nemser further teaches a perfluorodioxole membrane (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Goel and Nemser are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a membrane treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to substitute the membrane of Goel with a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Nemser further teaches the perfluorodioxole membrane has a dioxole content of about 65% to about 87% (see Nemser abstract).
Goel and Nemser are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a membrane treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the membrane distillation system and method of Goel to further include a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser in order to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Nemser further teaches the perfluorodioxole membrane comprises a perfluoropolymer of perfluoro-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxole copolymerized with tetrafluoroethylene membrane (see Nemser abstract) (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Goel and Nemser are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a membrane treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the membrane distillation system and method of Goel to further include a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser in order to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Goel further teaches countless membranes (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64) and Nemser also teaches various membranes including a HYFLON® AD perfluoropolymer or a CYTOP® AD perfluoropolymer (see Nemser abstract) (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Goel and Nemser are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a membrane treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the membrane distillation system and method of Goel to further include a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser in order to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 3, wherein Goel further teaches the distillation technique comprises a vacuum membrane distillation process (Examiner’s note: Goel teaches membrane distillation for purifying and treating an organic solvent. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the specific distillation technique, such as a vacuum membrane distillation process, for optimization purposes and to effectively remove unwanted contaminants) (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 3, wherein Goel further teaches the distillation technique comprises a sweep gas membrane distillation process (Examiner’s note: Goel teaches membrane distillation for purifying and treating an organic solvent. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the specific distillation technique, such as a sweep gas membrane distillation process, for optimization purposes and to effectively remove unwanted contaminants) (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 3, wherein Goel further teaches the distillation technique comprises an air gap membrane distillation process (Examiner’s note: Goel teaches membrane distillation for purifying and treating an organic solvent. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the specific distillation technique, such as an air gap membrane distillation process, for optimization purposes and to effectively remove unwanted contaminants) (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 3, wherein Goel further teaches the distillation technique comprises a direct contact membrane distillation process (Examiner’s note: Goel teaches membrane distillation for purifying and treating an organic solvent. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the specific distillation technique, such as a direct contact membrane distillation process, for optimization purposes and to effectively remove unwanted contaminants) (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Goel further teaches the organic solvent is isopropyl alcohol (see Goel paragraphs 2, 6-8, 31-34 and 38-40).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Goel further teaches the organic solvent is isopropyl alcohol, toluene, ethanol, methanol, or butanol (see Goel paragraphs 2, 6-8, 31-34 and 38-40).
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Goel further teaches performance of the distillation technique on the organic solvent results in the organic solvent being free from all non-volatile contaminants (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Nemser further teaches the perfluorodioxole membrane is a perfluorodioxole copolymer membrane (see Nemser abstract) (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Goel and Nemser are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a membrane treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the membrane distillation system and method of Goel to further include a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser in order to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Goel in view of Nemser teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Nemser further teaches the perfluorodioxole membrane includes a pore size between about 1 nanometer and about a sub-nanometer (see Nemser abstract) (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Goel and Nemser are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a membrane treatment system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the membrane distillation system and method of Goel to further include a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser in order to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
Other References Considered
Leverett et al. (U.S. 5,049,241) (hereinafter “Leverett”) teaches an extractive distillation system and method.
Barnicki (U.S. 6,353,121 B1) (hereinafter “Barnicki”) teaches separating an organic solvent from water using an extractive distillation technique.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but focus on amended claim limitations, which have been addressed above in the updated rejection (see above).
The previous 112(b) claim rejection regarding claim 1 has been considered and is now withdrawn as a result of the current claim amendment.
Applicant argues throughout pages 6-10 of the Remarks section filed on 09/16/2025 “Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination is improper…Nemser teaches a method of separating a gaseous mixture…In distinct contrast, Goel teaches use of a porous membrane for separation of a liquid feed. The two teachings are fundamentally directed to two distinct separation modalities…The two teachings could not be more different in their applications…Thus, Nemser explicitly teaches that the gases and vapors listed above are selectively rejected by the membrane…Nemser membrane-related teachings would not motivate a skilled practitioner to make the substitution proposed by the Examiner…because there would be no reason to expect that an organic solvent (like IPA) would pass through the membrane, whereas the solvent contaminants would not…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner reminds Applicant to view the rejection as a combination of references, and not individually or separately.
Goel teaches a method of purifying an organic solvent (Examiner’s note: FIG. 5 of Goel is very similar to FIG. 1 of the current application) (see Goel paragraphs 2, 6-8, 31-34 and 38-40) including a membrane distillation system (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64) further including a membrane (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64), and performing a distillation technique (see Goel paragraphs 2-3, 8, 26, 34, 38-39, 53-56 and 60-64).
Nemser is merely and solely used to teach a perfluorodioxole membrane (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
As a result, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to substitute the membrane of Goel with a perfluorodioxole membrane of Nemser for optimization purposes and to effectively and efficiently remove unwanted contaminants from the organic solvent (see Nemser col. 1 lines 8-60) (see Nemser col. 4 lines 16-38).
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 AKASH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
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, Magali Slawski can be reached at 571-270-3960. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights