DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 08/03/2023 and having an Effective Filing Date of 08/03/2023, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03 AUGUST 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “BPA” in line 3. This conflicts with the previous “BPA” in the preamble and should be corrected to “the BPA”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the polyimide polymer is a polycondensate of 4,4'-(hexafluoroisopropylidene)diphthalic anhydride (6FDA) and 3,5-diaminobenzoic acid (DABA) (poly (6FDA-DABA)) and a polycondensate of 6FDA and 3,5-diamino-2,4,6- trimethylbenzoic acid (TrMCA) (poly(6FDA-TrMCA)). However, this is two different polymers, therefore it is not clear if the polymer is a mixture of the two polymers, or chosen between the two polymers. Either will be used for interpretation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “polymerizing monomers of 6FDA, DABA, and TrMCA” in line 6. This conflicts with the previous “monomers of 6FDA, DABA, and TrMCA” and should be corrected to “the monomers of 6FDA, DABA, and TrMCA”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim.
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 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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L. Cseri, et al., Electrospun Adsorptive Nanofibrous Membranes from Ion Exchange Polymers to Snare Textile Dyes from Wastewater. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2021, 6, 2000955. (hereinafter “Cseri”) in view of Shiyuan Zhou, et al., Preparation of new triptycene- and pentiptycene-based crosslinked polymers and their adsorption behavior towards aqueous dyes and phenolic organic pollutants, Separation and Purification Technology, Volume 278, 2021, 119495 (hereinafter “Zhou”) and US20070151921A1 (hereinafter “Nakano”).
Regarding Claim 1 Cseri discloses a method for separating textile dyes from wastewater (i.e. an aqueous solution) with an adsorbent nanofiber membrane, comprising:
contacting an aqueous solution containing the textile dyes (including safranin O (SO), rhodamine B (RH), methyl red (MR), methyl orange (MO), rose bengal (RB), Congo red (CR), direct red 80 (DR), and methylene blue (MB)) with a polyimide polymer nanofiber membrane; and
adsorbing the dyes from the wastewater onto the polyimide; and
wherein the polyimide polymer may be 6FDA-DABA or 6FDA-TrMCA, i.e. both of which comprise reacted units of a fluorinated phthalic monomer (6FDA) and one or more amino carboxyl aryl monomers (DABA or TrMCA), see Fig. 2, Sec. 2. Results and Discussion.
While it is not specifically disclosed that the water was passed though the membrane to form a purified water permeate and a contaminant residue retentate, residue retentate is present as a layer on an outside surface of the polyimide polymer; as it disclosed to be a membrane, it would have been obvious to pass water though the membrane, to thus provide a purified water permeate and a contaminant residue retentate, wherein the residue retentate would inherently be present as a layer on an outside surface of the polyimide polymer since it is an adsorbent disclosed to adsorb the contaminates.
Cseri does not disclose (1) separating bisphenol a (BPA) from an aqueous solution, or (2) the polyimide polymer is on a porous support.
However, with regard to filtering BPA, Zhou discloses a similar method of separating dyes and phenolic organic pollutants for water using an adsorptive polymer, wherein the dyes include methylene blue (MB) and methyl orange (MO) and the phenolic organic pollutants include phenol (Pol) and bisphenol A (BPA); Abstract, Introduction, 3.2., 3.3.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri by substituting the textile dyes for phenolic organic pollutants include phenol (Pol) and bisphenol A (BPA), i.e. using the membrane of Cseri to separate BPA from wastewater, because Zhou discloses similar polymer adsorbents for textile dyes are also effective for adsorbing phenolic organic pollutants such as BPA, and therefore it would have been obvious to try using the membrane for removing BPA with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to a support, Nakano discloses silica, titania or zirconia are known to be suitable supports for nanofiber filtration membranes; [0019]-[0021].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri by using a silica, titania or zirconia (i.e. ceramic) support for the nanofibers layer as disclosed by Nakano because this involves the use of a known suitable support for a nanofiber filter, and in order to provide further mechanical strength to the membranes, such as need for high pressure or high flow filtrations.
Regarding Claim 2 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the porous support is a ceramic support, supra.
Regarding Claim 3 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the porous support is a ceramic support selected from the group consisting of a zirconia support, and a titania support, supra.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the polyimide polymer has a number average molecular weight (Mₙ) of of 44-114 kg/mol; Sec. 2. Results and Discussion. The weight average molecular weight is not disclosed; however it would have been obvious to provide a narrow/uniform molecular weight distribution, i.e. a polydispersity index of 1, i.e. such that the number average and weight average molecular weight would to be the same, in order to more precisely control membrane properties associated with molecular weight, such as morphology of the nanofibers (Cseri pg. 2000955, left column).
Regarding Claim 5 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the polyimide polymer is a polycondensate of 4,4'-(hexafluoroisopropylidene)diphthalic anhydride (6FDA) and 3,5-diaminobenzoic acid (DABA) (poly (6FDA-DABA)), or a polycondensate of 6FDA and 3,5-diamino-2,4,6- trimethylbenzoic acid (TrMCA) (poly(6FDA-TrMCA)); see Fig. 2, Sec. 2. Results and Discussion.
Regarding Claim 8 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the membrane of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the BPA is present in the aqueous solution at a concentration of 0.5 to 5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) based on a total volume of the aqueous solution.
However, Zhou discloses testing the polymers using 10 ppm (i.e. 10 mg/L) of BPA; Sec. 3.2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano by treating water having up to at least 10 ppm (i.e. the BPA is present in the aqueous solution at a concentration of up to 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) based on a total volume of the aqueous solution) as disclosed by Zhou because similar polymers where shown to be useful for treating water having 10 ppm BPA and therefore the polymer of the combined invention would have been obvious to use of filtering water having that amount or less, as less would be expected to provide similar desirable results.
Regarding Claim 9 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the polyimide polymer has a water contact angle of 75 to 105 degrees.
However Cseri discloses hydrophilicity effects the adsorption properties of the membrane (pg. 2000955, right column). The membranes degree of hydrophilicity is thus a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 10 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the polyimide polymer has a specific surface area of 30 to 300 square meters per gram (m² g⁻¹).
However Zhou discloses their polymer, used for adsorbing BPA, has a specific surface area of 14.46-97.95 m2/g, Sec. 3.1.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano by providing the polyimide polymer with a specific surface area of 14.46-97.95 m2/g as disclosed by Zhou because this is a specific surface area known to provide BPA filtration in similar polymer adsorbent and would therefore provide a reasonable expectation of success in the combined invention of Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano further in view of Wulin Qiu, et al.; Sub-Tg Cross-Linking of a Polyimide Membrane for Enhanced CO2 Plasticization Resistance for Natural Gas Separation. Macromolecules 9 August 2011; 44 (15): 6046–6056. (hereinafter “Qiu”).
Regarding Claims 7 Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the polyimide polymer is a polycondensate of 6FDA, DABA and TrMCA (poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA), and wherein a monomer ratio of the DABA to the TrMCA is in a range of 1:10 to 1:1.
However, Qiu discloses 6FDA-DAM/DABA, i.e. 6FDA polymerized with a mixture of both DAM and DABA monomers, wherein it is disclosed that each monomer (i.e. DAM and DABA) provides different properties to the resulting polymer membrane “the introduction of DAM backbone provides high gas permeability for the membrane, while the DABA backbone provides reactive acid sites that are useful for cross-linking and/or modification” (1st para. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION). Where Cseri discloses separate embodiments of the polyimide (Fig. 2), including based on 6FDA-TrMCA (P3, CEP3 and AEP3) and based on 6FDA-DABA (P2, CEP2, AEP2), where the different polyimides are shown to result in different adsorption properties (Figs. 5, 7).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri in view of Zhou and Nakano by using a polyimide that is a combination of 6FDA with both TrMCA and DABA (i.e. poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA)) in order to provide a combination of the properties of both polymers to the resulting membrane as discleod by Qiu, including in order to adjust adsorption properties, permeability, and degree of crosslink ability.
Wherein, as each monomer provides different properties, the monomer ratio of the DABA to the TrMCA is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, starting with at least a equimolar (1:1) ratio, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cseri in view of Qiu and Mahmoud A. Abdulhamid, et al.; Plasticization-Resistant Carboxyl-Functionalized 6FDA-Polyimide of Intrinsic Microporosity (PIM–PI) for Membrane-Based Gas Separation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 25 March 2020; 59 (12): 5247–5256. (hereinafter “Abdulhamid”).
Regarding Claim 11 Cseri discloses a method of making a polyimide membrane comprising a polyimide polymer, comprising:
mixing monomers of 6FDA and either DABA or TrMCA and a first solvent (m-cresol) in the presence of a base (isoquinoline) to form a reaction mixture;
heating the reaction mixture at a temperature of 200 °C thereby polymerizing monomers of 6FDA and DABA, or 6FDA and TrMCA to form the poly(6FDA-DABA) or poly(6FDA-TrMCA) in the reaction mixture; 2. Results and Discussion.
Cseri does not disclose mixing all 3 monomers (6FDA, DABA, TrMCA) to form poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA), or adding a second solvent to the reaction mixture to precipitate the poly(6FDA- DABA/TrMCA); and removing the poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA) from the reaction mixture in the form a precipitate, washing and drying.
However, with regard to poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA), Qiu discloses 6FDA-DAM/DABA, i.e. 6FDA polymerized with a mixture of both DAM and DABA monomers, wherein it is disclosed that each monomer (i.e. DAM and DABA) provides different properties to the resulting polymer membrane “the introduction of DAM backbone provides high gas permeability for the membrane, while the DABA backbone provides reactive acid sites that are useful for cross-linking and/or modification” (1st para. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION). Where Cseri discloses separate embodiments of the polyimide (Fig. 2), including based on 6FDA-TrMCA (P3, CEP3 and AEP3) and based on 6FDA-DABA (P2, CEP2, AEP2), where the different polyimides are shown to result in different adsorption properties (Figs. 5, 7).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri by using a polyimide that is a combination of 6FDA with both TrMCA and DABA (i.e. poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA)) in order to provide a combination of the properties of both polymers to the resulting membrane as disclosed by Qiu, including in order to adjust adsorption properties, permeability, and degree of crosslink ability.
With regard to a second solvent and precipitation the formed polyimide, Abdulhamid discloses a method of forming a similar polyimide comprises 6FDA and TrMCA, wherein the polyimide is formed by mixing the monomers and polymerizing the monomers in solution via heating, then further:
adding a second solvent (methanol) to the reaction mixture to precipitate the polyimide; and removing the polyimide from the reaction mixture in the form a precipitate, washing and drying; Abstract, General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri in view of Qiu by, after polymerizing the monomers in solution, adding a second solvent (methanol) to the reaction mixture to precipitate the polyimide; and removing the polyimide from the reaction mixture in the form a precipitate, washing and drying as disclosed by Abdulhamid in order provide the polymer as a purified solid for further processing.
Regarding Claim 12 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the method of claim 11, wherein, as each monomer provides different properties is thus the monomer ratio of the DABA to the TrMCA is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, starting with at least a equimolar (1:1) ratio, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 13 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the method of claim 11, wherein in Cseri, the mixture of monomers is an equimolar mix of the two monomers (2. Results and Discussion). Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use either equimolar of all three monomers (i.e. a ratio of the 6FDA monomer to a total monomers of the DABA and the TrMCA is 1:2), or use 50% 6FDA with remainder the other two monomers (i.e. a ratio of the 6FDA monomer to a total monomers of the DABA and the TrMCA is 1:2).
Regarding Claim 14 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of m-cresol. Cseri 2. Results and Discussion.
Regarding Claim 15 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the base is at least one selected from the group consisting of isoquinoline. Cseri 2. Results and Discussion.
Regarding Claim 16 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the second solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of methanol; Abdulhamid General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid further in view of Zhou.
Regarding Claim 19 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the polyimide membrane comprising a polyimide polymer prepared by the method of claim 11, and further Cseri discloses a water treatment method, comprising:
contacting a contaminated aqueous composition containing textile dyes from wastewater, with a polyimide membrane comprising a polyimide polymer to adsorb the textile dyes on the polyimide membrane and form a purified aqueous composition; see Fig. 2, Sec. 2. Results and Discussion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri by using the membrane prepared by the method of claim 11 of Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid because this involves the simple substitution of similar polyimides membranes to obtain the predictable result of a successful water treatment.
Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid does not disclose the aqueous composition contains bisphenol A (BPA), or thus to adsorb the BPA on the polyimide membrane.
However, with regard to filtering BPA, Zhou discloses a similar method of separating dyes and phenolic organic pollutants for water using an adsorptive polymer, wherein the dyes include methylene blue (MB) and methyl orange (MO) and the phenolic organic pollutants include phenol (Pol) and bisphenol A (BPA); Abstract, Introduction, 3.2., 3.3.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cseri by substituting the textile dyes for phenolic organic pollutants include phenol (Pol) and bisphenol A (BPA), i.e. using the membrane of Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid to separate BPA from wastewater, because Zhou discloses similar polymer adsorbents for textile dyes are also effective for adsorbing phenolic organic pollutants such as BPA, and therefore it would have been obvious to try using the membrane for removing BPA with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wherein, it is expected to be inherent that the BPA will adsorb on the polyimide membrane, since the membrane is disclosed to adsorb the dye contaminants. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 20 Cseri in view of Qiu and Abdulhamid discloses the method of claim 19, wherein it would have been expected and/or obvious for the membrane would be expected to remove at least some of the BPA, and thus this overlaps the range of “a BPA removal efficiency of up to 90% based on an initial concentration of the BPA in the contaminated aqueous composition” because there is no lower bound to the range.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoud A. Abdulhamid, et al.; Plasticization-Resistant Carboxyl-Functionalized 6FDA-Polyimide of Intrinsic Microporosity (PIM–PI) for Membrane-Based Gas Separation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 25 March 2020; 59 (12): 5247–5256. (hereinafter “Abdulhamid”) in view of Qiu.
Regarding Claim 11 Abdulhamid discloses a method of making a polyimide membrane comprising a polyimide polymer, comprising:
mixing monomers of 6FDA and TrMCA and a first solvent (m-cresol) in the presence of a base (isoquinoline) to form a reaction mixture;
heating the reaction mixture at a temperature of 200 °C thereby polymerizing monomers of 6FDA and TrMCA to form the poly(6FDA-TrMCA) in the reaction mixture;
adding a second solvent to the reaction mixture to precipitate the poly(6FDA-TrMCA); and removing the poly(6FDA-TrMCA) from the reaction mixture in the form a precipitate, washing and drying; pg. 5249, General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides.
Abdulhamid does not disclose the mixture of monomers also includes DABA to form poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA).
However, with regard to poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA), Qiu discloses 6FDA-DAM/DABA, i.e. 6FDA polymerized with a mixture of both DAM and DABA monomers, wherein it is disclosed that each monomer (i.e. DAM and DABA) provides different properties to the resulting polymer membrane “the introduction of DAM backbone provides high gas permeability for the membrane, while the DABA backbone provides reactive acid sites that are useful for cross-linking and/or modification” (1st para. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION).
Where Abdulhamid discloses that 6FDA when combined with various other monomers into different polyimides, including 6FDA-TrMPD:DABA, provide different permeabilities and selectivities for different gasses; Pure-Gas Sorption and Permeation, Table 3.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abdulhamid by using polyimides of various combinations of 6FDA with other monomers, including at least two other monomers and including at least the monomers disclosed in Abdulhamid, thus including poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA, in order to provide a combination of the properties of both polymers to the resulting membrane as disclosed by Qiu, including in order to adjust gas permeability and selectivity properties, and degree of crosslink ability.
Regarding Claim 12 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu discloses the method of claim 11, wherein, as each monomer provides different properties, the monomer ratio of the DABA to the TrMCA is a variable which achieves a recognized result, and it would therefore have been obvious for one of skill in the art to optimize this variable through routine experimentation, starting with at least a equimolar (1:1) ratio, by using values including those within the scope of the present claims, so as to produce desired end results. See MPEP § 2144.05 (B).
Regarding Claim 13 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu discloses the method of claim 11, wherein in Abdulhamid, the mixture of monomers is an equimolar mix of the two monomers (General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides). Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art use either equimolar of all three monomers (i.e. a ratio of the 6FDA monomer to a total monomers of the DABA and the TrMCA is 1:2), or use 50% 6FDA with remainder the other two monomers (i.e. a ratio of the 6FDA monomer to a total monomers of the DABA and the TrMCA is 1:2).
Regarding Claim 14 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of m-cresol; Abdulhamid General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides
Regarding Claim 15 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the base is at least one selected from the group consisting of isoquinoline; Abdulhamid General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides
Regarding Claim 16 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the second solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of methanol; Abdulhamid General Procedure for Synthesis of Polyimides
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoud A. Abdulhamid, et al.; Plasticization-Resistant Carboxyl-Functionalized 6FDA-Polyimide of Intrinsic Microporosity (PIM–PI) for Membrane-Based Gas Separation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 25 March 2020; 59 (12): 5247–5256. (hereinafter “Abdulhamid”) in view of Qiu and further in view of Escorihuela, S., et al.; Gas Separation Properties of Polyimide Thin Films on Ceramic Supports for High Temperature Applications. Membranes 2018, 8, 16. (hereinafter “Escorihuela”).
Regarding Claim 17 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
mixing and dissolving the polyimide in a third solvent to form a polymer solution;
applying the polymer solution onto a surface of a flat glass petri dish to form a polymer layer in a liquid form on the flat glass petri dish and drying to form the polyimide membrane;
wherein the polymer layer after the drying has an average thickness of 85 micrometers (µm); Abdulhamid Dense Film Preparation
Where in the combined invention of Abdulhamid in view of Qiu, the polyimide would be poly(6FDA-DABA/TrMCA).
Abdulhamid does not disclose a porous support to which the polymer solution is applied to form the polyimide polymer layer.
However, with regard to a porous support, Escorihuela discloses that it is known to support polyimide gas separation membranes on porous ceramic supports; Title, Abstract, 2.1. Materials.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Abdulhamid by using a ceramic support for the polyimide layer as disclosed by Escorihuela because this involves the use of a known suitable support for a polyimide gas separation filtration membrane, and in order to provide further mechanical strength to the membranes, such as need for high temperature, high pressure or high flow filtrations.
Regarding Claim 18 Abdulhamid in view of Qiu and Escorihuela discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the third solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of dimethylformamide (DMF); Abdulhamid Dense Film Preparation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights