DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 03/18/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 8 and 15-20 are canceled. Claims 21-24 are new. Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 21-24 are pending.
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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that references Song and Deng do not teach an additive component including a first component and a second component, wherein the first component includes functionalized activated carbon having an amine group and the second component includes a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component, and wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge - as recited by independent claim 1 of the present application (pg. 2-4). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no motivation to combine Song and Deng because graphene oxide is different from activated carbon (pg. 4-5), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Graphene oxide and activated carbon are both carbonaceous materials (Song, [0054]).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pg. 4-5), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, graphene oxide and activated carbon are both carbonaceous materials (Song, [0054]) and functionalization with polyethylenimine introduces polarity to the polymer, which can be beneficial for membrane performance (Deng, [0109]).
The Applicant argues that reference Mohd does not teach an additive component including a first component and a second component, wherein the first component includes functionalized activated carbon having an amine group and the second component includes a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component, and wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge - as recited by independent claim 1 of the present application (pg. 5-6). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no motivation to combine Song and Mohd because zeolites are different from activated carbon (pg. 5-6), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pg. 5-6), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Song and Mohd relate to composite adsorbent materials (Song, abstract and Mohd, abstract).
The Applicant argues that reference Gao does not teach an additive component including a first component and a second component, wherein the first component includes functionalized activated carbon having an amine group and the second component includes a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component, and wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge - as recited by independent claim 1 of the present application (pg. 6-7). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Response to Amendment
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.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180065105A1 (‘Song’) in view of Publication Hexavalent chromium adsorption on impregnated palm shell activated carbon with polyethyleneimine (‘Owlad’, Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 5098–5103) and in further view of Publication Synthesis and Application of a Novel Sorbent (Tannic Acid-Grafted-Polyethyleneimine Encapsulated in Alginate Beads) for Heavy Metal Removal (‘Bertagnolli’, Separation Science and Technology, 2015, 50 (18, SI), pp.2897-2906) and in further view of Publication Asymmetrical ultrafiltration membranes based on polylactic acid for the removal of organic substances from wastewater (‘Khalil’, Journal of Water Process Engineering 45 (2022) 102510).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a composition.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9, Song teaches a composite polymeric membrane (abstract), comprising:
polylactic acid polymer ([0041]); and
an additive component ([0030]) including a first component and a second component ([0047] and [0054], combinations of sorbents), wherein the first component includes activated carbon ([0054]).
Song does not teach that the activated carbon is functionalized activated carbon having an amine group, the second component including a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component, wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge, and wherein the composite polymeric membrane exhibits an average water contact angle ranging from 60 degrees to 80 degrees.
Owlad also relates to water treatment (abstract), including functionalized activated carbon having an amine group (abstract and section 3.3. Mechanism of Cr(VI) adsorption).
Bertagnolli also relates to water treatment (section Introduction), including that the second component includes a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group (section Introduction, Pr2 and Scheme 1), wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component (section Introduction, last Pr and section Sorbent Synthesis, Pr1), and wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge (section Effect of pH on Metal Sorption Using Composite Beads).
Khalil also relates to water treatment (abstract), wherein the membrane exhibits an average water contact angle ranging from 60 degrees to 80 degrees (Fig. 3).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: a porosity of the composite polymeric membrane is greater than 75% (Khalil, Fig. 3).
Claim 4: the functionalized activated carbon is positively charged (Owlad, pg. 5101, right column, last Pr).
Claim 5: the weight percentage of the additive component in the composite membrane ranges from about 1 wt.% to about 15 wt.% (Song, [0031-0032]).
Claim 6: the weight percentage of the additive component in the composite membrane ranges from about 2 wt.% to about 6 wt.% (Song, [0031-0032]).
Claim 7: the additive component is homogeneously distributed within the polylactic acid polymer (Song, [0077]), and wherein pores of the membrane are sufficient for ultrafiltration (Song, [0078]).
Claim 9: a mean pore diameter of the composite polymeric membrane ranges from about 0.1 μm to about 0.6 μm (Song, [0078]).
Regarding Claims 21-23, Song teaches a composite polymeric membrane (abstract), comprising:
polylactic acid polymer ([0041]); and
an additive component ([0030]) including a first component and a second component ([0047] and [0054], combinations of sorbents), wherein the first component includes activated carbon ([0054]),
wherein a weight percentage of the additive component in the composite membrane ranges from about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% ([0031-0032]), wherein the composite polymeric membrane exhibits a porosity of greater than 85% ([0078]).
Song does not teach that the activated carbon is functionalized activated carbon having an amine group, the second component including a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component, wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge, and wherein the composite polymeric membrane exhibits an average water contact angle ranging from 60 degrees to 80 degrees.
Owlad also relates to water treatment (abstract), including functionalized activated carbon having an amine group (abstract and section 3.3. Mechanism of Cr(VI) adsorption).
Bertagnolli also relates to water treatment (section Introduction), including that the second component includes a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group (section Introduction, Pr2 and Scheme 1), wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component (section Introduction, last Pr and section Sorbent Synthesis, Pr1), and wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge (section Effect of pH on Metal Sorption Using Composite Beads).
Khalil also relates to water treatment (abstract), wherein the membrane exhibits an average water contact angle ranging from 60 degrees to 80 degrees (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the activated carbon of Song to be a functionalized activated carbon having an amine group, as demonstrated by Owlad, to provide a suitable adsorbent for Cr(VI) removal (Owlad, section 4. Conclusion) as the main mechanism of Cr(VI) adsorption on the modified activated carbon is through an interaction between the Cr(VI) anionic species and the protonated amine groups (Owlad, section 3.3. Mechanism of Cr(VI) adsorption). It would have been obvious for the second component of Song and Owlad to include a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein the first component is in electrostatic interaction with the second component, as demonstrated by Bertagnolli, because the interaction between the first component and second component provides an effective sorbent for removal of heavy metals (Bertagnolli, section Conclusions) as amino groups and hydroxyl groups contribute to heavy metal adsorption (Bertagnolli, section Sorption Isoterms, last Pr). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composite membrane of Song, Owlad and Bertagnolli can exhibit an average water contact angle ranging from 60 degrees to 80 degrees, as demonstrated by Khalil, depending on polymer concentration (Khalil, pg. 6, left column, Pr2).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 22: the composite polymeric membrane exhibits a mean pore diameter ranging from about 0.1 μm to about 0.6 μm (Song, [0078]).
Claim 23: the average water contact angle of the composite polymeric membrane ranges from 65 degrees to about 75 degrees (Khalil, Fig. 3).
Claims 3 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180065105A1 (‘Song’), Publication Hexavalent chromium adsorption on impregnated palm shell activated carbon with polyethyleneimine (‘Owlad’, Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 5098–5103), Publication Synthesis and Application of a Novel Sorbent (Tannic Acid-Grafted-Polyethyleneimine Encapsulated in Alginate Beads) for Heavy Metal Removal (‘Bertagnolli’, Separation Science and Technology, 2015, 50 (18, SI), pp.2897-2906) and Publication Asymmetrical ultrafiltration membranes based on polylactic acid for the removal of organic substances from wastewater (‘Khalil’, Journal of Water Process Engineering 45 (2022) 102510) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Publication Eco-Physiological Responses of Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh. to Trace Metals Pollution via Intensifying Antioxidant and Secondary Metabolite Contents (‘Alharbi’, Metabolites 2023, 13, 808).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards a composition.
Regarding Claims 3 and 24, the combination of Song, Owlad, Bertagnolli and Khalil teaches the composite polymeric membranes of Claims 1 and 24, except that the second component includes Avicennia marina mangrove leaf particles.
Alharbi teaches that Avicennia marina mangrove leaves accumulate heavy metals (abstract) and contain tannins (pg. 12 of 17, Pr1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second component of the combination of Song, Owlad, Bertagnolli and Khalil to include the Avicennia marina mangrove leaves of Alharbi because such mangrove leaves contain tannins and other phenolic compounds that have high tendency to chelate metals (Alharbi, pg. 12 of 17, Pr1), and because the interaction between amine groups from the first component and the hydroxyl groups from tannic acid provide an effective sorbent for removal of heavy metals (Bertagnolli, section Conclusions).
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 BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
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.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights