DETAILED ACTION18
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Osabe only teaches a drying time of 30 minutes to 72 hours.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion noting Osabe recites “there is no particular upper limit on the drying time, but in terms of work efficiency, it is preferable that it be within 72 hours” [0037]. Thus, the upper limit of drying time is not particularly limited and reads on the instant limitation of a dry heat treatment for 96 to 168 hours. While Osabe does suggest a drying time of less than 72 hours is preferrable [0037], this does not constitute a teaching away nor does it restrict the upper limit of acceptable drying times.
Examiner notes that the teaching of Osabe is not limited to the preferred embodiments. As set forth above, Osabe explicitly teaches a drying time of at least 30 minutes with no particular upper limit and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation of success using any time that falls within this stated range, including the nonpreferred embodiments. In contrast, a teaching away would be directed to any time that fall outside of suitable range taught by Osabe (e.g. any time less than 30 minutes).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (JP2018143904 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Osabe et al (JP2014012273 cited in IDS with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches a method for manufacturing a hollow fiber membrane [0001] comprising:
discharging together with a core liquid [0018] from a double-ring nozzle [0018] a spinning stock solution comprising:
10 mass% to 40 mass% of a polysulfone-based resin [0013],
1 mass% to 30 mass% of polyvinylpyrrolidone [0013], and
1 mass% to 80 mass% of N,N-dimethylformamide ([0012]-[0013]- discussing N,N-dimethylformamide as the solvent in the spinning stock; N,N-dimethylformamide comprises 20-78 mass% of the spinning stock; [0017]- Example discussing 70.5 parts by weight of N,N-dimethylformamide)
to produce a hollow fiber membrane by dry-wet spinning [0018].
Ito does not specify an after-treatment wherein the hollow fiber membrane is subjected to a dry heat treatment at a temperature of 80°C to 100°C for 96 hours to 168 hours.
Osabe teaches an alternative method of manufacturing a hollow fiber membrane [0001] from a spinning solution of polysulfone-based resin, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and N,N-dimethylformamide [0031]-[0032] wherein the hollow fiber membrane is subjected to a dry heat treatment at a temperature of 80°C to 100°C for 96 hours to 168 hours ([0037]- heat treatment for at least 30 minutes; upper limit is not particularly limited but preferable less than 72 hours) in order to control the pore size of the hollow fiber membrane while avoiding the glass transition temperature of polysulfone and sufficiently remove moisture from the hollow fiber membrane to maintain stability of the pore size of the hollow fiber membrane while maintaining work efficiency [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ito to include a dry heat treatment at a temperature of 80°C to 100°C for 96 hours to 168 hours as taught by Osabe with reasonable expectation of success to control the pore size of the hollow fiber membrane while avoiding the glass transition temperature of polysulfone and sufficiently remove moisture from the hollow fiber membrane to maintain stability of the pore size of the hollow fiber membrane while maintaining work efficiency [0037].
Regarding Claim 2, Ito further teaches the core liquid contains 30 mass% to 100 mass% of N,N- dimethylformamide ([0018]- discussing N,N- dimethylformamide as the core liquid).
Regarding Claim 3, Ito further teaches the polysulfone-based resin is a polysulfone resin [0018]. Osabe also teaches the polysulfone-based resin is a polysulfone resin [0031].
Regarding Claim 4, the instant specification discloses a concentration of N,N-dimethylformamide remaining in the hollow fiber membrane after the dry heat treatment is 10 ppm or less is achieved by the claimed method (Paragraphs [0028]; [0033]; [0052] of the instant specification). Because the method disclosed by the art is substantially the same as that disclosed in the instant specification (See above), the product necessarily and inherently achieves these properties, as evidenced by Paragraphs [0028], [0033], and [0052] of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 5, the instant specification discloses a concentration of N,N-dimethylformamide remaining in the hollow fiber membrane after the dry heat treatment is 90 ppb or less is achieved by the claimed method [0028]; [0053]; [0057]. Because the method disclosed by the art is substantially the same as that disclosed in the instant specification (See above), the product necessarily and inherently achieves these properties, as evidenced by Paragraphs [0028], [0053], and [0057] of the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 6, Ito further teaches the spun hollow fiber membrane is washed with warm water before the dry heat treatment [0018]. Osabe also teaches the spun hollow fiber membrane is washed with warm water before the dry heat treatment [0029].
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 10/29/25
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748