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 Status
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 19 recites the limitation "the aqueous emulsion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bansal et al. (US 2008/0241504) [hereinafter Bansal].
With respect to claim 1, Bansal discloses a porous membrane 50, as shown in Fig. 3, having: at least two membranes in series, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein a first membrane in the series is oleophobic (see paragraph 0018) and comprises: a porous substrate 52, as shown in Fig. 3; and an oleophobic coating layer 18 (see paragraph 0018) applied to at least one surface of the substrate 52, as shown in Fig. 3; and wherein a second membrane in the series is hydrophilic (see paragraph 0019).
With respect to claim 2, Bansal discloses wherein the second membrane comprises a porous substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein the porous substrate 54 of the second membrane is hydrophilic and/or the second membrane further comprises a hydrophilic coating layer 20 applied to at least one surface of the porous substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3.
With respect to claims 3 and 11, Bansal discloses wherein the porous substrate in each of the first and second membranes independently comprises a metal mesh, a perforated metal sheet, an organic or inorganic polymer mesh, or a perforated organic or inorganic polymer sheet (see paragraph 0010).
With respect to claims 4 and 12, Bansal discloses wherein the porous substrate in each of the first and second membranes demonstrates average pore sizes greater than 100 nm (see paragraph 0014).
With respect to claims 5 and 13, Bansal discloses wherein the oleophobic coating layer comprises a fluoropolymer (see paragraph 0011).
With respect to claim 10, Bansal discloses a porous membrane 50, as shown in Fig. 3, having: at least two surface-treated membranes in series, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein a first surface-treated membrane in the series is oleophobic (see paragraph 0018) and comprises: a porous substrate 52, as shown in Fig. 3; and an oleophobic coating layer 18 applied to at least one surface of the substrate 52, as shown in Fig. 3; and wherein a second surface-treated membrane in the series is hydrophilic (see paragraph 0019) and comprises: a porous substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3; and a hydrophilic coating layer 20 applied to at least one surface of the substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3.
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal (US 2008/0241504) in view of Bruening et al. (US 2002/0153322) [hereinafter Bruening].
With respect to claim 6, Bansal teaches the second membrane having a substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3, said substrate 54 can be formed from any suitable material (see paragraph 0018). Bansal lacks the specific material, i.e., wherein the second membrane comprises a glass fiber substrate.
Bruening discloses methods for removing ions species from biological solutions using a membrane including a substrate (see paragraphs 0005-0006). If the substrate is a porous or non-porous inorganic or organic particulate solid support, a preferred material is the use of glass fibers (see paragraph 0020 and 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glass fibers, as taught by Bruening, to make the substrate of the second membrane disclosed by Bansal, since glass fibers are a common material to use in forming separation media (see paragraphs 0020 and 0037 of Bruening), and since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired material according to a desired application and Bansal already suggests the use of any suitable material (see paragraph 0018 of Bansal).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal (US 2008/0241504) in view of Parrinello et al. (US 2019/0070330) [hereinafter Parrinello].
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Bansal teaches wherein the second membrane further comprises the hydrophilic coating layer 20 applied to at least one surface of the porous substrate 54 of the second membrane, as shown in Fig. 3, and the hydrophilic coating layer 20 may be any suitable coating (see paragraph 0012). Bansal lacks the hydrophilic coating layer comprising poly(methacrylamide) containing ionic functionality and zwitterionic compounds.
Parrinello discloses a microporous membrane 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a hydrophilic coating 20, as shown in Fig. 2, said hydrophilic coating 20 may include poly(methacrylamide) and zwitterionic compounds (see paragraph 0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use poly(methacrylamide) and zwitterionic compounds, as taught by Parrinello, to make the hydrophilic coating layer disclosed by Bansal, since Parrinello teaches that poly(methacrylamide) and zwitterionic are materials that my be use as a hydrophilic coating in a membrane (see paragraph 0083 of Parrinello), and since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired material according to a desired application and Bansal already suggests the use of any suitable coating (see paragraph 0012 of Bansal).
With respect to claim 8, Bansal as modified by Parrinello discloses wherein the hydrophilic coating layer demonstrates a water contact angle less than 40 degrees (see paragraph 0082 of Parrinello).
With respect to claims 9 and 15, Bansal lacks wherein the oleophobic coating layer demonstrates an oil rating of at least 5A when subjected to AATCC Test Method 118-1997, and/or an oil contact angle (via half angle method) of at least 30 degrees.
Parrinello discloses a microporous membrane 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having an oleophobic material 18, as shown in Fig. 1. Parrinello teaches that oleophobic means that the side of the membrane 12 over which the first hydrophobic/oleophobic material 18 is applied demonstrates an oil rating of at least 6, such as at least 7 or at least 8, based on AATCC test method 118-2007 (see paragraph 0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the oleophobic coating layer disclosed by Bansal with an oil rating of at least 5A, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired material according to a desired application and since Parrinello teaches that such a rating is desirable in an oleophobic coating (see paragraph 0068 of Parrinello).
With respect to claim 16, Bansal lacks wherein the hydrophilic coating layer demonstrates a water contact angle less than 40 degrees.
Parrinello discloses a microporous membrane 10, as shown in Fig. 1, having a hydrophilic coating 20, as shown in Fig. 1. Parrinello teaches that hydrophilic means that the side of the membrane 12 over which the hydrophilic coating 20 is applied demonstrates a water contact angle of less than 90° using the Kruss Drop Shape Analysis (see paragraph 0082). The side of the membrane 12 over which the hydrophilic coating is applied may demonstrate a water contact angle of less than 85°, such as less than 80°, less than 70°, less than 60°, less than 50°, less than 40°, less than 30°, less than 20°, or less than 10° (see paragraph 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the hydrophilic coating layer disclosed by Bansel with a water contact angle less than 40 degrees, as taught by Parinello, since Parinello teaches that such water contact angle is a desirable angle for a hydrophilic coating layer (see paragraph 0082 of Parinello), and since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired material according to a desired application.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bansal (US 2008/0241504) in view of Qahtan et al. (US 2019/0126210) [hereinafter Qahtan]
With respect to claim 17, Bansal discloses a porous membrane 50, as shown in Fig. 3, having: at least two surface-treated membranes in series, as shown in Fig. 3, wherein a first surface-treated membrane in the series is oleophobic (see paragraph 0018) and comprises: a porous substrate 52, as shown in Fig. 3; and an oleophobic coating layer 18 applied to at least one surface of the substrate 52, as shown in Fig. 3; and wherein a second surface-treated membrane in the series is hydrophilic (see paragraph 0019) and comprises: a porous substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3; and a hydrophilic coating layer 20 applied to at least one surface of the substrate 54, as shown in Fig. 3.
Bansal does not disclose contacting an aqueous emulsion with a surface-treated membrane separation system having the at least two surface-treated membranes in series; and allowing water in the emulsion to permeate through the membrane separation system to yield an aqueous product stream.
Qahtan discloses a method of producing a purified water product from a contaminated water mixture having an oil phase and an aqueous phase having an organic aqueous pollutant, with an oil-water separation system 26, as shown in Fig. 2. For filtering an oil-water mixture, the contaminated water mixture may enter the feed zone 32 through the feed inlet 34, and water, or a filtered water product, may exit or be rejected from the permeate zone through the water outlet (see paragraph 0109). The oil-water mixture may be in the form of an emulsion (see paragraph 0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the membranes disclosed by Bansal to separate an emulsion, as taught by Qahtan, in order to obtain purified water (see paragraph 0119 of Qahtan). Furthermore, Bansal teaches all the claimed structure of the membranes, and therefore, it is obvious that it is capable of performing the intended use, in this case, separating an aqueous solution.
With respect to claim 18, Bansal as modified by Qahtan discloses wherein either: 1) the first surface-treated membrane is upstream of the second surface-treated membrane, and the aqueous emulsion contacts the first surface-treated membrane first; or 2) the first surface-treated membrane is downstream of the second surface-treated membrane, and the aqueous emulsion contacts the second surface-treated membrane first, as shown in Fig. 3 of Bansal and Fig. 2 of Qahtan.
With respect to claim 19, Bansal as modified by Qahtan discloses wherein the aqueous emulsion is an oil-in-water emulsion comprising a wastewater stream from oil production, oil production brine, municipal sewage, pharmaceutical production process water, or poultry processing plant effluent (see paragraph 0119 of Qahtan).
With respect to claim 20, Bansal as modified by Qahtan does not disclose wherein the oil-in-water emulsion comprises 0.5 to 10 percent by weight hydrocarbon, based on the total weight of the oil-in-water emulsion. However, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose an emulsion with a desired percent by weight hydrocarbon in order to achieve a purified product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, In Suk C Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773