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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/11/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hendren et al (US 11,845,041).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hendren teaches an electrically conductive nanocomposite membrane in the background section, giving reference to de Lannoy et al, further explained in rejection 2 below.. Membrane has a porous structure with a porous thin-film polyamide, an underlying microporous structure and a fabric (see col. 4, lines 44-57.) Membrane surface has an electrically conductive layer of carbon nanotubes (CNTs), same as or similar to that in applicant’s disclosure. See col. 8, lines 35-52. The conductive layer is connected to electrodes. Id. The membrane is in a housing in spiral wound form. See the figures. Housing or container for the membrane – see 830, fig. 8. See also container or pressure vessel 482 in fig. 4. AC power source – col. 12, lines 15-25. Thus, Hendren anticipates claim 1.
Claim 2: the CNT conductive layer is a percolating or permeating layer.
Claims 3, 4: nanostructure comprises CNTs – Id. See also claim 5 of Hendren.
Claims 5, 7: the filtration membrane is polyamide over microfiltration layer – col 4, lines 44-57.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendren et al (US 11,845,041) in view of de Lannoy et al., Aquatic Biofouling Prevention by Electrically Charged Nanocomposite Polymer Thin Film Membranes, Environ. 55 Sci. Technol. (2013).
These claims recite the nanostructure as crosslinked; the membrane thickness; and conductivity. While silent on these limitations, Hendren cites the de Lannoy reference as teaching the membrane Hendren uses, apparently, in the “Background.” De Lannoy teaches the CNT layer as about 400 nm thick, and the filamentous upper layer as 100 nm thick; and conductivity as about 400 S/m. (de Lannoy, section 3.1.2.); crosslinking – de Lannoy, introduction. For claim 10, the conductivity being 500 S/m or greater, de Lannoy teaches that the conductivity of 400 S/m is more than sufficient for water treatment, which means it can be further optimized to suit the intended purpose of the membrane. Since CNT’s are the conducting part of the membrane, conductivity can be optimized based on the amount of CNT’s, the thickness of the CNT layer (higher thickness means higher conductivity at a lower water flux) and cost (see MPEP 2144.05-II, Routine optimization). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain the missing information in Hendren from the relevant reference(s) Hendren cited for the purpose of designing the membrane for the desired use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 could be made allowable if amended to sufficiently include the details from example 2 of the disclosure, particularly, that the layer is of crosslinked CNTs, and its conductivity is in the range 3400-4000 S/m. The examiner calculated this range form the conductivity in example 2 at 3707 S/m, adding and subtracting the variation of 284, and then rounding off the results. This range is deemed allowable since the conductivity is way higher than the teaching of de Lannoy.
Conclusion
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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
Prosecution Insights