DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 07/21/2026, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 3-6 and 21-24 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 7, 9-14 are pending. Claims 10-14 are withdrawn.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the prior art rejection in the office action mailed 04/28/2026 does not teach all of the claim features of the amended Claim 1 (pg. 4-5). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (pg. 6-9), 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).
The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Owlad to form an electrostatic interaction with negative sites of mangrove leaf particles because the desired interaction in Owlad is with Cr(VI) anionic species (pg. 7). This argument is unpersuasive because Owlad was not relied upon to teach an electrostatic interaction with negative sites of mangrove leaf particles. Furthermore, 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).
The Applicant argues that even though Bertagnolli discusses electrostatic interaction, that interaction is PEI-to-tannic acid interaction (pg. 8). This argument is unpersuasive because mangrove leaves contain tannins and other phenolic compounds that have high tendency to chelate metals (Alharbi, pg. 12 of 17, Pr1).
In response to applicant's argument that Alharbi is nonanalogous art (pg. 9-10), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Alharbi involves A. marina leaves and metal adsorption (Alharbi, pg. 12 of 17).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pg. 9-10), 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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine references Song and Alharbi because the sorbent material of Song, which may preferably comprise cellulose (Song, [0045]), may effectively remove metals in liquid streams (Song, [0047]) and A. marina leaves comprise phenolic compounds that can bind with metals (Alharbi, pg. 12 of 17).
In response to applicant's argument that Owlad and Bertagnolli use PEI in different roles, 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).
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20180065105A1 (‘Song’) in 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 Hexavalent chromium adsorption on impregnated palm shell activated carbon with polyethyleneimine (‘Owlad’, Bioresource Technology 101 (2010) 5098–5103) and in further 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) and further in view of Publication OPTIMIZATION OF BORON REMOVAL FROM AQUEOUS SOLUTION VIA ADSORPTION USING COMPOSITE BEADS OF MANGROVE BARK, ALGINATE AND ZEOLITE (‘Mohd’, Journal Chemical Engineering and Industrial Biotechnology (JCEIB), Open Access, Volume 3 pp. 1-16; March 2018) 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 an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 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]),
wherein a weight percentage of the additive component in the composite polymeric membrane ranges from about 2 wt% to about 6 wt% ([0031-0032]).
Song does not teach a cross-linked composite of the first component, wherein the first component includes polyethylenimine-functionalized activated carbon having an amine group and the second component includes A. vicennia marina mangrove leaf particles including at least one of a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, wherein positive sites of the first component is- are in electrostatic interaction with negative sites of the second component, and wherein the additive component exhibits an overall net negative charge, wherein the composite polymeric membrane exhibits an average water contact angle ranging from 60 degrees to 80 degrees.
Bertagnolli also relates to water treatment (section Introduction), including an additive component including a cross-linked composite (section Introduction, last Pr) of a first component and a second component, wherein the first component includes polyethylenimine-functionalized sorbent having an amine group (Scheme 1, PEI in alginate gel) and the second component includes at least one of a phenolic group (Scheme 1) and a hydroxyl group, wherein positive sites of the first component are in electrostatic interaction with negative sites of 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).
Owlad also relates to water treatment (abstract), including polyethyleneimide-functionalized activated carbon having an amine group (abstract and section 3.3. Mechanism of Cr(VI) adsorption).
Alharbi teaches that Avicennia marina mangrove leaves accumulate heavy metals (abstract) and contain tannins (pg. 12 of 17, Pr1).
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 additive component of Song to include a cross-linked composite of a first component and a second component, wherein the first component includes an amine group and the second component includes at least one of a phenolic group and a hydroxyl group, 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. Note that the sorbent of Song may comprise polysaccharides (Song, [0044-0045]), where alginate is a polysaccharide). It would have been obvious for the first component of Song and Bertagnolli to include polyethyleneimide-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 the combination of Song, Bertagnolli and Owlad 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). Also, mangrove is a natural, low-cost and abundant waste material with good adsorption capabilities (Mohd, pgs. 2 and 15). It would have been obvious that the composite membrane of Song, Bertagnolli, Owlad, Alharbi and Mohd and 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). Both Song and Khalil involve polylactic acid membranes for filtration (Song, [0041] and abstract, and Khalil, abstract).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: a porosity of the composite polymeric membrane is greater than 75% (Khalil, Fig. 3).
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]).
Conclusion
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
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights