Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/287,515

CROSS-LINKED ZWITTERIONIC POLYMER NETWORK AND THEIR USE IN MEMBRANE FILTERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 19, 2023
Examiner
PRINCE JR, FREDDIE GARY
Art Unit
1779
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Trustees Of Tufts College
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1062 granted / 1347 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1379
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1347 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Objections Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant recites that the selective layer has a thickness of “about 10 nm to about 10 nm.” For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite the selective layer has a thickness of “about 10 nm Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2017/0266350). Per claim 1, Jiang et al. disclose a crosslinked copolymer network ([0093] In the practice of the invention, functionalized star polymers and copolymers of the invention react through their functional groups to form covalent bonds that covalently couple the polymers and copolymers (e.g., crosslink the polymer and copolymers).), comprising: a copolymer, comprising a plurality of zwitterionic repeat units (abstract, Functionalized zwitterionic and mixed charge polymers and copolymers, methods for making the polymers and copolymers, hydrogels prepared from the functionalized zwitterionic and mixed charge polymers and copolymers, methods for making and using the hydrogels, and zwitterionic and mixed charge polymers and copolymers for administration for therapeutic agents.), and a plurality of a first type of hydrophobic repeat units ([0013] Suitable other constitutional units include constitutional units that include functional groups for imparting reactivity to the copolymers, or other groups to impart desired properties to the copolymer (e.g., anionic groups, cationic groups, neutral groups, hydrophobic groups, hydrophilic groups).); a plurality of crosslinking units and a plurality of crosslinks ([0020] In certain of the hydrogel embodiments that include crosslinks formed by a crosslinking agent, it will be appreciated that the nature of crosslinking can be varied. In certain embodiments, the first and second polymers are different, have different functional groups, and are crosslinked by the crosslinking agent with suitably reactive functional groups. In other embodiments, the first and second polymers are the same, have the same functional groups, and are crosslinked by the crosslinking agent with suitably reactive functional groups.); wherein each crosslinking unit comprises a first terminal thiol moiety and a second terminal thiol moiety; each hydrophobic repeat unit comprises an alkene ([0014] In certain embodiments, the functional group is positioned at the terminus of the polymeric branch.; [0015] In certain embodiments, the functional group is a thiol. In other embodiments, the functional group is one of a reactive pair. In these embodiments, the functional group is one of a reactive pair selected from an azide and an alkyne, an azide and an alkene, a thiol and a maleimide, or a thiol and a dissulfide.). Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose each crosslink is formed from (i) the first terminal thiol moiety of a crosslinking unit and the alkene of a first hydrophobic repeat unit, and (ii) the second terminal thiol moiety of the crosslinking unit and the alkene of a second hydrophobic repeat unit. It is submitted that it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises each crosslink is formed from (i) the first terminal thiol moiety of a crosslinking unit and the alkene of a first hydrophobic repeat unit, and (ii) the second terminal thiol moiety of the crosslinking unit and the alkene of a second hydrophobic repeat unit in order to, for example, use click chemistry reactive pairs to selectively react with certain functional groups including alkenes and thiols, such use of click chemistry being a goal of Jiang et al. ([0021] In certain of the hydrogel embodiments that include crosslinks formed by a crosslinking agent, the first functional group is a thiol, the second functional group is a thiol, and the third functional group is a thiol or a dissulfide. In other of the hydrogel embodiments that include crosslinks formed by a crosslinking agent, the first and third functional groups and the second and third functional groups are click chemistry reactive pairs. In certain of these embodiments, the first and third functional groups are selected from an azide and an alkyne, an azide and an alkene, a thiol and a maleimide, or a thiol and a dissulfide. In certain of these embodiments, the second and third functional groups are selected from an azide and an alkyne, an azide and an alkene, a thiol and a maleimide, or a thiol and a dissulfide.). Per claim 2, wherein each of the zwitterionic repeat units independently comprises sulfobetaine, carboxybetaine, phosphorylcholine, imidazolium alkyl sulfonate, or pyridinium alkyl sulfonate ([0086] FIG. 6 is a schematic illustration of the release of a representative therapeutic agent from a representative star polymer of the invention having zwitterionic (polycarboxybetaine) branches. The star polymer was prepared by ATRP from the tetrafunctional core having the radical initiator groups and carboxybetaine methacrylate-therapeutic agent monomers (CH.sub.2═C(CH.sub.3)—C(═O)—CH.sub.2CH.sub.2—N(CH.sub.3).sub.2.sup.+—CH.sub.2CH.sub.2—CO.sub.2-therapeutic agent).). Per claim 3, wherein each of the zwitterionic repeat units is independently formed from sulfobetaine acrylate, sulfobetaine acrylamide, carboxybetaine acrylate, carboxybetaine methacrylate, 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine, acryloxy phosphorylcholine, phosphorylcholine acrylamide, phosphorylcholine methacrylamide, carboxybetaine acrylamide, 3-(2-vinylpyridinium- 1- yl)propane- I-sulfonate, 3-(4-vinylpyridinium-1-yl)propane- I-sulfonate, or sulfobetaine methacrylate ([0086] FIG. 6 is a schematic illustration of the release of a representative therapeutic agent from a representative star polymer of the invention having zwitterionic (polycarboxybetaine) branches. The star polymer was prepared by ATRP from the tetrafunctional core having the radical initiator groups and carboxybetaine methacrylate-therapeutic agent monomers (CH.sub.2═C(CH.sub.3)—C(═O)—CH.sub.2CH.sub.2—N(CH.sub.3).sub.2.sup.+—CH.sub.2CH.sub.2—CO.sub.2-therapeutic agent).). Per claim 4, Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein each of the hydrophobic repeat units is independently formed from a styrene, an alkyl acrylate, an alkyl methacrylate, an alkyl acrylamide, an acrylonitrile, an aryl acrylate, an aryl methacrylate, and an aryl acrylamide. It is submitted that it would have been obvious to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein each of the hydrophobic repeat units is independently formed from a styrene, an alkyl acrylate, an alkyl methacrylate, an alkyl acrylamide, an acrylonitrile, an aryl acrylate, an aryl methacrylate, and an aryl acrylamide since Jiang et al. disclose that the polymer backbone can be made of at least one of the recited polymers ([0148] [0148] In the above formulas, PB is the polymer backbone. Representative polymer backbones include vinyl backbones (e.g., —C(R′)(R″)—C(R′″)(R″″)—, where R′, R″, R′″, and R′″ are independently selected from hydrogen, alkyl, and aryl) derived from vinyl monomers (e.g., acrylate, methacrylate, acrylamide, methacrylamide, styrene). Other suitable backbones include polymer backbones that provide for pendant groups.). Further, selecting any of the recited polymers as a repeating unit would have been a routine matter of design choice as the polymers are relatively common in the art. It has been held that routine design choices are obvious and do not include an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Per claim 5, Jiang et al. disclose that the copolymer may comprise random polymers in order to, for example, form functionalized copolymers ([0325] Carboxybetaine methacrylate monomer (CBMA) is functionalized with N-hydroxysuccinimide (NHS-CBMA). This monomer is copolymerized with carboxybetaine methacrylate monomer (CBMA) (see Scheme 3). The resultant polymer is a random polymer of CBMA and NHS-CBMA.). Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the copolymer is poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)) or poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine)), poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(trifluoroethyl methacrylate )-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)) or poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(trifluoroethyl methacrylate )-random-(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine)). It is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein the copolymer is poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)) or poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine)), poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(trifluoroethyl methacrylate )-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)) or poly((allyl methacrylate )-random-(trifluoroethyl methacrylate )-random-(2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine)) in order to, for example, form functionalized polymers. Per claim 6, Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose a plurality of second hydrophobic repeat units is independently formed from an alkyl acrylate, a alkyl methacrylate, an alkyl acrylamide, an acrylonitrile, an aryl acrylate, an aryl methacrylate, and an aryl acrylamide. It is submitted that it would have been obvious to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein a plurality of second hydrophobic repeat units is independently formed from an alkyl acrylate, a alkyl methacrylate, an alkyl acrylamide, an acrylonitrile, an aryl acrylate, an aryl methacrylate, and an aryl acrylamide since Jiang et al. disclose that the polymer backbone can be made of at least one of the recited polymers ([0148] [0148] In the above formulas, PB is the polymer backbone. Representative polymer backbones include vinyl backbones (e.g., —C(R′)(R″)—C(R′″)(R″″)—, where R′, R″, R′″, and R′″ are independently selected from hydrogen, alkyl, and aryl) derived from vinyl monomers (e.g., acrylate, methacrylate, acrylamide, methacrylamide, styrene). Other suitable backbones include polymer backbones that provide for pendant groups.). Further, selecting any of the recited polymers as a second type of hydrophobic repeating unit would have been a routine matter of design choice as the polymers are relatively common in the art. It has been held that routine design choices are obvious and do not include an inventive step. See MPEP 2144. Claims 7-9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (‘350) in view of Alexiou et al. (US 2022/0220241). Per claim 7, Jiang et al. do not disclose wherein the second type of hydrophobic repeat units are formed from 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate. Alexiou et al., also directed to a copolymer network (Abstract, Disclosed are linear/random/statistical copolymers comprising three types of monomeric units: hydrophobic monomeric units, zwitterionic monomeric units, and charged or ionizable monomeric units. Also provided are thin film composite membranes whose selective layer is comprised of the copolymers disclosed herein, and the methods of use thereof.), disclose providing wherein the second type of hydrophobic repeat units are formed from 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate ([0048] Relatively hydrophobic: 2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate (TFEMA)*; other fluorinated acrylates, methacrylates, and acrylamides (e.g., pentafluoropropyl methacrylate, heptafluorobutyl methacrylate, pentafluorophenyl methacrylate); styrene; methyl methacrylate; acrylonitrile; other monomers that fit the above criteria.) in order to, for example, limit the swelling of the polymer in water and impart the polymer stability in aqueous environments ([0042] A relatively hydrophobic repeat unit, which limits the swelling of the polymer in water and imparts the polymer stability in aqueous environments.). Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein the second type of hydrophobic repeat units are formed from 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate in order to, for example, limit the swelling of the polymer in water and impart the polymer stability in aqueous environments. Per claim 8, Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the copolymer is poly(allyl methacrylate-random-trifluoroethyl methacrylate-random-2-ethacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine). It is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein the copolymer is wherein the copolymer is poly(allyl methacrylate-random-trifluoroethyl methacrylate-random-2-ethacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine)in order to, for example, form functionalized polymers. Per claim 9, Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the copolymer has a molecular weight of about 3,000 to about 10,000,000 Dalton. Alexiou et al. disclose wherein the copolymer has a molecular weight of about 3,000 to about 10,000,000 Dalton ([0067] In some embodiments, the molecular weight of the copolymer is 20,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol. In some embodiments, the molecular weight of the copolymer is 40,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol. In some embodiments, the molecular weight of the copolymer is 100,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol.) in order to, for example, facilitate producing a high-performance membrane capable of use in many aqueous separation environments ([006] Also provided are thin film composite membranes whose selective layer is comprised of these copolymers. These membranes can be used for several aqueous separations, including but not limited to water treatment, water softening, wastewater treatment, and separation and purification of organic molecules in aqueous solutions. Due to the chemical nature of these copolymers, the membranes exhibit improved resistance to chemical degradation by chlorine and strong resistance to fouling.). Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein the copolymer has a molecular weight of about 3,000 to about 10,000,000 Dalton in order to, for example, facilitate producing a high-performance membrane capable of use in many aqueous separation environments. Per claim 11, Jiang et al. do not disclose wherein the zwitterionic repeat units and the hydrophobic repeat units each constitute 20-80% by weight of the copolymer. Alexiou et al. disclose wherein the zwitterionic repeat units and the hydrophobic repeat units each constitute 20-80% by weight of the copolymer ([0068] In some embodiments, the zwitterionic monomeric units constitute 1-40 wt % of the copolymer. In some embodiments, the charged/ionizable monomeric units constitute 1-40 wt % of the copolymer. In some embodiments, the hydrophobic monomeric units constitute 30-80 wt % of the copolymer.) in order to, for example, facilitate producing a high-performance membrane capable of use in many aqueous separation environments ([006] Also provided are thin film composite membranes whose selective layer is comprised of these copolymers. These membranes can be used for several aqueous separations, including but not limited to water treatment, water softening, wastewater treatment, and separation and purification of organic molecules in aqueous solutions. Due to the chemical nature of these copolymers, the membranes exhibit improved resistance to chemical degradation by chlorine and strong resistance to fouling.). Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein the zwitterionic repeat units and the hydrophobic repeat units each constitute 20-80% by weight of the copolymer in order to, for example, facilitate producing a high-performance membrane capable of use in many aqueous separation environments. Per claim 13, Jiang et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the copolymer is poly((allyl methacrylate)-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)), the zwitterionic repeat units constitute 25-75% by weight of the copolymer, and the copolymer has a molecular weight of about 20,000 to about 100,000 Dalton. Alexiou et al. disclose the zwitterionic repeat units constitute 25-75% by weight of the copolymer ([0068] In some embodiments, the zwitterionic monomeric units constitute 1-40 wt % of the copolymer. In some embodiments, the charged/ionizable monomeric units constitute 1-40 wt % of the copolymer. In some embodiments, the hydrophobic monomeric units constitute 30-80 wt % of the copolymer.), and the copolymer has a molecular weight of about 20,000 to about 100,000 Dalton ([0067] In some embodiments, the molecular weight of the copolymer is 20,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol. In some embodiments, the molecular weight of the copolymer is 40,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol. In some embodiments, the molecular weight of the copolymer is 100,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol.) in order to, for example, facilitate producing a high-performance membrane capable of use in many aqueous separation environments ([006] Also provided are thin film composite membranes whose selective layer is comprised of these copolymers. These membranes can be used for several aqueous separations, including but not limited to water treatment, water softening, wastewater treatment, and separation and purification of organic molecules in aqueous solutions. Due to the chemical nature of these copolymers, the membranes exhibit improved resistance to chemical degradation by chlorine and strong resistance to fouling.). Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises the zwitterionic repeat units constitute 25-75% by weight of the copolymer, and the copolymer has a molecular weight of about 20,000 to about 100,000 Dalton in order to, for example, facilitate producing a high-performance membrane capable of use in many aqueous separation environments. Regarding wherein the copolymer is poly((allyl methacrylate)-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)), it is submitted that it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to modify the network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises wherein the copolymer is poly((allyl methacrylate)-random-(sulfobetaine methacrylate)) in order to, for example, form functionalized polymers. Claims 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (‘350) in view of Alexiou et al. (‘241) as applied above and further in view of Na et al. (US 2014/0217014). Per claim 40, Jiang et al. disclose the copolymer network of claim 1 as described above and further disclose a method of making the network comprising providing a copolymer comprising a plurality of zwitterionic repeat units (abstract, Functionalized zwitterionic and mixed charge polymers and copolymers, methods for making the polymers and copolymers, hydrogels prepared from the functionalized zwitterionic and mixed charge polymers and copolymers, methods for making and using the hydrogels, and zwitterionic and mixed charge polymers and copolymers for administration for therapeutic agents.), and a plurality of a first type of hydrophobic repeat units ([0013] Suitable other constitutional units include constitutional units that include functional groups for imparting reactivity to the copolymers, or other groups to impart desired properties to the copolymer (e.g., anionic groups, cationic groups, neutral groups, hydrophobic groups, hydrophilic groups).); wherein each hydrophobic repeat unit comprises an alkene ([0014] In certain embodiments, the functional group is positioned at the terminus of the polymeric branch.; [0015] In certain embodiments, the functional group is a thiol. In other embodiments, the functional group is one of a reactive pair. In these embodiments, the functional group is one of a reactive pair selected from an azide and an alkyne, an azide and an alkene, a thiol and a maleimide, or a thiol and a dissulfide.), and providing a plurality of crosslinking units; wherein each crosslinking unit comprises a first terminal thiol moiety and a second terminal thiol moiety ([0014] In certain embodiments, the functional group is positioned at the terminus of the polymeric branch.; [0015] In certain embodiments, the functional group is a thiol. In other embodiments, the functional group is one of a reactive pair. In these embodiments, the functional group is one of a reactive pair selected from an azide and an alkyne, an azide and an alkene, a thiol and a maleimide, or a thiol and a dissulfide.). Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al., do not disclose providing a photo initiator, and admixing the copolymer, the plurality of crosslinking units, and the photo initiator, thereby forming a mixture; and irradiating the mixture with UV light, thereby forming the crosslinked copolymer. Na et al. disclose providing a photo initiator ([0149] In particular, the crosslinkable polymer is formed by free radical polymerization, initiated by organic peroxides, azo compounds, persulfates, photoinitiators, and ionized radiation such as .gamma.-rays.; [0310] The mixture was stirred for 10 minutes at room temperature to ensure complete dissolution of the photoinitiator in PEGDA.), and admixing the copolymer, the plurality of crosslinking units, and the photo initiator, thereby forming a mixture ([0149] The crosslinkable polymer can be prepared using various known methods and conditions for the polymerization of vinyl monomers, in particular (meth)acrylate monomers, including but not limited to solution polymerization, suspension polymerization, and emulsion polymerization. The monomers can be polymerized batch-wise to form a random copolymer, or sequentially to generate block copolymers. In particular, the crosslinkable polymer is formed by free radical polymerization, initiated by organic peroxides, azo compounds, persulfates, photoinitiators, and ionized radiation such as .gamma.-rays.); and irradiating the mixture with UV light, thereby forming the crosslinked copolymer ([0310] The mixture was stirred for 10 minutes at room temperature to ensure complete dissolution of the photoinitiator in PEGDA. The sample was coated using a Gardco drawdown applicator with 1 mil clearance on a Sepro PSF UF membrane (PS20) and ethanol was allowed to evaporate at RT for 15 minutes. The resulting layer was crosslinked by UV radiation for 5 minutes under 312 nm UV irradiation at 3.0 mW/cm.sup.2 to form the composite membrane.) in order to, for example, form a crosslinked copolymer network having anti-fouling properties. Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al., such that it comprises a photo initiator, and admixing the copolymer, the plurality of crosslinking units, and the photo initiator, thereby forming a mixture; and irradiating the mixture with UV light, thereby forming the crosslinked copolymer in order to, for example, form a crosslinked copolymer network having anti-fouling properties. Per claim 41, Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al. and Na et al., disclose wherein the mixture further comprises a solvent (see Na et al., [0310] The sample was coated using a Gardco drawdown applicator with 1 mil clearance on a Sepro PSF UF membrane (PS20) and ethanol was allowed to evaporate at RT for 15 minutes.). Per claim 42, Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al. and Na et al., do not disclose that the solvent is a mixture of isopropanol and hexane. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process optimization to utilize solvent comprising mixture of isopropanol and hexane, depending on the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by using a mixture of hexane and isopropanol. Per claim 43, Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al. and Na et al., disclose wherein the irradiation is performed at room temperature (see Na et al. [0310] The mixture was stirred for 10 minutes at room temperature to ensure complete dissolution of the photoinitiator in PEGDA. The sample was coated using a Gardco drawdown applicator with 1 mil clearance on a Sepro PSF UF membrane (PS20) and ethanol was allowed to evaporate at RT for 15 minutes. The resulting layer was crosslinked by UV radiation for 5 minutes under 312 nm UV irradiation at 3.0 mW/cm.sup.2 to form the composite membrane.). Per claim 44, Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al. and Na et al., do not disclose wherein the photo initiator is 2- phenylacetophenone. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process optimization to utilize a photo initiator comprising 2- phenylacetophenone, depending on the results desired. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by using a photo initiator comprising 2- phenylacetophenone. Per claim 45, Jiang et al., as modified by Alexiou et al. and Na et al., disclose wherein the irradiation is performed for about 10 seconds to about 20 minutes (see Na et al. [0310] The resulting layer was crosslinked by UV radiation for 5 minutes under 312 nm UV irradiation at 3.0 mW/cm.sup.2 to form the composite membrane.). Claims 17, 18, 21, 23, 28, 34 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (‘350) in view of Na et al. (‘014). Per claim 17, Jiang et al., as described above, disclose the crosslinked copolymer network of claim 1. Jiang et al. do not disclose a thin film composite membrane, comprising a porous substrate, and a selective layer comprising the crosslinked copolymer network of claim 1, wherein an average effective pore size of the porous substrate is larger than an average effective pore size of the selective layer; and the selective layer is disposed on a surface of the porous substrate. Na et al., also directed toward a crosslinked copolymer network ([0149] The crosslinkable polymer can be prepared using various known methods and conditions for the polymerization of vinyl monomers, in particular (meth)acrylate monomers, including but not limited to solution polymerization, suspension polymerization, and emulsion polymerization. The monomers can be polymerized batch-wise to form a random copolymer, or sequentially to generate block copolymers.), disclose a thin film composite membrane (10), comprising a porous substrate (12), and a selective layer (14) comprising the crosslinked copolymer network (abstract, A method comprises disposing, on a porous support membrane, an aqueous mixture comprising a crosslinkable polymer comprising a poly(meth)acrylate and/or poly(meth)acrylamide backbone, thereby forming an initial film layer,), wherein an average effective pore size of the porous substrate is large (Figs. 1-2; [0283] The porous support membrane has an average pore diameter of about 1 to about 1000 nm, about 1 to 100 nm (0.1 micrometer), about 1 to 10 nm, about 2 to about 8 nm, and even more particularly about 3 to about 6 nm.); and the selective layer is disposed on a surface of the porous substrate (Abstract, A method comprises disposing, on a porous support membrane, an aqueous mixture comprising a crosslinkable polymer comprising a poly(meth)acrylate and/or poly(meth)acrylamide backbone, thereby forming an initial film layer, wherein the crosslinkable polymer comprises a side chain nucleophilic amine group capable of interfacially reacting with a multi-functional acid halide crosslinking agent to form a crosslinked polymer; [0007] …disposing, on a porous support membrane, an aqueous mixture comprising a crosslinkable polymer comprising a poly(meth)acrylate and/or poly(meth)acrylamide backbone, thereby forming an initial film layer,) in order to, for example, obtain product with anti-fouling properties ([0002] The present invention relates to composite filtration membranes, methods of their preparation, and uses thereof, and more specifically, to anti-fouling membranes for ultrafiltration comprising a layer of interfacially crosslinked poly(meth)acrylates and/or poly(meth)acrylamides.). Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious to modify the crosslinked copolymer network of Jiang et al. such that it comprises a thin film composite membrane, comprising a porous substrate, and a selective layer comprising the crosslinked copolymer network of claim 1, and the selective layer is disposed on a surface of the porous substrate in order to, for example, obtain product with anti-fouling properties. Regarding wherein an average effective pore size of the porous substrate is larger than an average effective pore size of the selective layer, it is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process design to provide a porous substrate having larger pores than the selective layer in order to, for example, minimize clogging of the porous substrate when both the substrate and selective layer contact similarly sized particles to be removed. Per claim 18, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., do not disclose wherein the selective layer has the average effective pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 2.0 nm. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice provide a thin film composite membrane wherein the selective layer has the average effective pore size of about 0.1 nm to about 2.0 nm, depending on anticipated contaminant loading and size and the results desired. Moreover, applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing (e.g., comparative test data) of any new and unexpected result obtained by utilizing the recited pore size range. Per claim 21, Jiang et al. do not disclose wherein the selective layer has a thickness of about 10 nm Na et al. disclose wherein the selective layer has a thickness within a range of more than 0 to 50 nm ([0279] The selective layer has a thickness greater than 0 nm and less than 50 nm.) in order to, for example, form an anti-fouling layer ([0279] A preferred method of preparing an anti-fouling composite filtration membrane comprises i) disposing on a porous support membrane an aqueous solution comprising a crosslinkable polymer, thereby forming an initial film layer, the crosslinkable polymer comprising a nucleophilic amine group capable of interfacially reacting with a multi-functional acid halide crosslinking agent to form a crosslinked polymer, ii) contacting the initial film layer with a solution comprising the multi-functional acid halide crosslinking agent and an optional accelerator dissolved in an organic non-solvent for the crosslinkable polymer, and iii) allowing the crosslinkable polymer to interfacially react with the crosslinking agent, thereby forming a composite filtration membrane comprising an anti-fouling selective layer comprising the crosslinked polymer.). Na et al. do not explicitly disclose that the thickness is about 10 nm. It is submitted that it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to provide a selective layer at a thickness of about 10 nm as a routine matter of routine design choice since Na et al. explicitly disclose that selective layer thickness of more than 0 nm to about 50 nm is desirable to form a suitable anti-fouling layer. Clearly, a thickness of about 10 nm is within the range disclosed by Na et al. Per claim 23, Jiang et al. do not disclose wherein the thin film composite membrane rejects charged solutes and salts. It is submitted that the limitation of wherein the thin film composite membrane rejects charged solutes and salts appears to be a recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose structure on the thin film composite membrane of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight. Alternatively, Na et al. disclose that wherein the thin film composite membrane rejects salts ([0318] Using the disclosed methods, the permeability, anti-fouling behavior, anti-microbial properties, salt rejection characteristics, and other properties can be tuned for a specific fluid filtration application.) in order to, for example, purify a fluid. Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the membrane of Jiang et al. such that it includes wherein the thin film composite membrane rejects charged solutes and salts in order to, for example, purify a fluid. Per claim 28, Jiang et al. do not disclose wherein the selective layer exhibits different anion rejections for salts with the same cation. It is submitted that the limitation of wherein the selective layer exhibits different anion rejections for salts with the same cation appears to be a recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose structure on the thin film composite membrane of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight. Per claim 34, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., disclose wherein the selective layer exhibits antifouling properties (see Na et al., abstract, …thereby forming a composite filtration membrane comprising an anti-fouling selective layer comprising the crosslinked polymer.). Per claim 37, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., do not disclose wherein the selective layer is stable upon exposure to chlorine bleach. It is submitted that the limitation of wherein the selective layer exhibits stability upon exposure to chlorine bleach appears to be a recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose structure on the thin film composite membrane of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight. Per claim 38, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., do not disclose wherein the selective layer exhibits size-based selectivity between uncharged organic molecules. It is submitted that the limitation of wherein the selective layer exhibits size-based selectivity between uncharged organic molecules appears to be a recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose structure on the thin film composite membrane of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight. Per claim 39, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., do not disclose wherein the selective layer exhibits rejection of > 95% or > 99% for neutral molecule with hydrated diameter of about or greater than 1.5 nm. It is submitted that the limitation of wherein the selective layer exhibits rejection of > 95% or > 99% for neutral molecule with hydrated diameter of about or greater than 1.5 nm appears to be a recitation of intended use or a process limitation that fails to impose structure on the thin film composite membrane of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al. Further, it is well settled that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the limitation is not given patentable weight. Claims 54 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (‘350) in view of Na et al. (‘014) as applied above and further in view of Maika et al. (JP 2000503898, all passages cited below refer to the machine-generated English translation provided with the instant office action). Per claim 54, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., as described above, disclose thin film composite membrane of claim 17. Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., do not explicitly disclose a method of removing a divalent ion from water, comprising: contacting the thin film composite membrane with an aqueous mixture comprising a divalent ion; and removing some or all of the divalent ion from the aqueous mixture via size- selective filtration. Maika et al., also directed to a thin film composite membrane (pages 6, Characteristics of thin film composite (TFC) nanofiltration membrane), disclose contacting the thin film composite membrane with an aqueous mixture comprising a divalent ion; and removing some or all of the divalent ion from the aqueous mixture via size- selective filtration (page 7, As can be seen from these data, this charged membrane is more calculable than sodium ion. Removes calcium and other divalent ions to a much higher degree, achieving water softening did.) in order to, for example, soften the water. Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., such that it comprises contacting the thin film composite membrane with an aqueous mixture comprising a divalent ion; and removing some or all of the divalent ion from the aqueous mixture via size- selective filtration in order to, for example, soften the water. Per claim 55, Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., as described above, disclose thin film composite membrane of claim 17. Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al. do not explicitly disclose a method of removing a divalent ion from water, comprising: contacting the thin film composite membrane with an aqueous mixture comprising an organic solute; and separating the organic solute via size- selective filtration. Maika et al., also directed to a thin film composite membrane (pages 6, Characteristics of thin film composite (TFC) nanofiltration membrane), disclose contacting the thin film composite membrane with an aqueous mixture comprising an organic solute; and separating the organic solute via size- selective filtration (page 7, The results also show that this membrane can remove charged organics (acetate).) in order to, for example, purify the water. Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Jiang et al., as modified by Na et al., such that it comprises contacting the thin film composite membrane with an aqueous mixture comprising an organic solute; and separating the organic solute via size- selective filtration in order to, for example, purify the water. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730. 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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. /FRED PRINCE/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1779
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 19, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600937
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BIOMASS GROWTH AND PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600653
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR COOPERATIVELY TREATING AQUACULTURE TAIL WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595672
Pool Skimmer Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590466
POOL FILTER PROTECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582979
MAINTAINING METHOD FOR COOLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1347 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month