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 with traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Krause does not address the asymmetric aspect claimed. This is not found persuasive because claim 18 does not include the asymmetric aspect claimed so based solely on the common technical features between claim 1 and 18, so special technical feature exists. In regards to the common technical feature between claim 1 and claims 22-23, it is noted that hollow fiber membranes are either symmetric or asymmetric. As such, one skilled in the art would find that given the finite options, the asymmetric nature would either be an implied choice between to known options, or no inventive step is needed in order for the membrane to asymmetric. This is further supported by Ge et al. (US 2023/0017950) teaching the known membranes used for similar uses as taught in Krause would historically be asymmetric, or there are very clear benefits associated with asymmetric membranes as applied to the Krause membrane ([0035]). Therefore, no special technical feature exists between claim 1 and either of the other groups of invention. It is further noted that below rejection provides a basis as to how all aspects of the claimed membrane are unpatentable according to US law, which would also be applicable to unity of invention analysis.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause et al. (US 2006/0138044 in IDS) in view of Herczeg (US 2003/0141238).
Regarding claim 1, Krause teaches a hollow-fiber membrane; the hollow-fiber membrane made from a polymeric blend comprising an aromatic sulfone polymer and a polyoxazoline; wherein the hollow-fiber membrane comprises an inner surface facing towards its lumen, an outer surface facing outwards and an intermediate wall having a wall thickness ([0020]-[0021]).
It is noted that Krause is silent on whether the membrane produced is symmetric or asymmetric. However, there are only 2 options when classifying a membrane as symmetric or asymmetric. As such, one skilled in the art would consider that that Krause membrane would be either one of the types (see MPEP 2144.08 for when the genus (hollow fiber membranes) has limited predictable options (2 options)). Further, many prior art detail that hollow fiber membranes could be chosen from either configuration with a reasonable expectation of success (see Herczeg [0054]-[0067]). Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found that Krause encompasses asymmetric membranes, or it would have been obvious to choose an asymmetric style membrane as such membranes are known and used in the art and provide efficiency and flow rate benefits.
Regarding claims 2-3, Krause teaches the membranes are formed from preferred polymers of polyethersulfones and polyethyloxazolines (poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazoline) ([0021] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 4, Krause teaches the molecular weight of the polyoxazoline is 500,000 (500 kg/mol) ([0084]).
Regarding claims 5-8, Krause does not detail the pore structures as claimed. However, Herczeg teaches that there are many options for asymmetric membranes depending on the desired flow pattern, such as larger pores on the inner surface and smaller pores on the outer surface, or smaller pores on the inner surface and larger pores on the outer surface, or smaller pores on both surfaces with macrovoids between the pores ([0050]-[0067]). Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Krause membrane in a variety of different configurations as taught in Herczeg as such configurations are known and used in the art and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claims 9-10, Krause teaches the membrane is employed for various uses (hemofiltration, ultrafiltration) (abstract) but fails to teach the pore size associated with said uses. Herczeg teaches that ultrafiltration hollow fiber membranes typically have a size of 0.05 microns (50 nm) ([0063]). Therefore, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious for the membrane to have pores in the range claimed in order to achieve the ultrafiltration use.
Regarding claims 11-14, Krause teaches that the polymeric blend also includes hydrophilic polymers, such as polyvinylpyrrolidone or polyacrylic acid ([0021]) and a solvent, such as 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) ([0084]), which is considered to be polar and aprotic.
Regarding claims 15-16, Krause teaches that the polymeric blend does not include polyvinylpyrrolidone, which would be considered less than 3 wt % ([0084]).
Regarding claim 17, Krause merely teaches that the hollow fiber membrane has pores but fails to teach the specifics of the pores structure, such as tortuous structures extending from the inner to outer surfaces. Herczeg teaches that hollow fiber membranes of the asymmetric or can have a variety of structure and sizes where large intrusions or macrovoids are formed ([0034] and [0053]). It is submitted that the tortuous structures claimed would be considered under the broad teachings in Herczeg about any variety of pore structure and the intrusions/macrovoids formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights