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 1-8 are rejected.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on June 5, 2026, is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration because they are drawn to non-elected inventions.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carr et al. (US 2017/0050154) [hereinafter Carr].
With respect to claim 1, Carr discloses a membrane, as shown in Fig. 1, having: a membrane substrate (see paragraph 0018); and, an antifouling coating disposed on at least one surface of the membrane substrate (see paragraphs 0018 0063, 0075, 0079) wherein the antifouling coating comprises a plurality of zwitterionic molecules or moieties (see abstract and paragraphs 0010, 0036, 0054, 0057, 0058, 0081, 0082) at a density sufficient to form a hydration shell when an aqueous input composition contacts the antifouling coating and wherein the hydration shell substantially prevents fouling components in the aqueous input composition from adsorbing on the membrane substrate (see paragraphs 0018, 0063, 0075, 0079).
With respect to claim 2, Carr discloses wherein the hydration shell substantially prevents fouling components in the aqueous input composition from adsorbing on the membrane substrate while substantially permitting target permeate molecules in the aqueous input composition to flow through the membrane substrate (see paragraphs 0018, 0063, 0075, 0079).
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) 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr (US 2017/0050154).
With respect to claims 3-5 and 7, Carr does not disclose wherein the zwitterionic molecules or moieties comprise at least one zwitterionic pair of amino acid residues; wherein at least one zwitterionic molecule or moiety comprises a structure that is selected from the group consisting of: KE-8, MKE-12, and KE-12; wherein the plurality of zwitterionic molecules or moieties comprises a plurality of zwitterionic peptides having a grafting density on the surface of the membrane substrate of at least about 0.05 chains/nm2; and wherein dopamine methacrylamide is conjugated to the surface of the membrane substrate. However, Carr teaches the use of copolymeric compositions as coating material on substrates to form filtration membranes having both hydrophilic and oleophobic properties including a zwitterionic group and including different structural formulas (see paragraphs 0008-0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the membrane disclosed by Carr with the zwitterionic molecules or moieties being at least one zwitterionic pair of amino acid residues, peptides having a specific grafting density, the specific structure, and dopamine methacrylamide is conjugated to the surface of the membrane substrate, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a preferred composition according to a desired application (see MPEP 2144.07 which states as obvious “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use”; and see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
With respect to claim 6, Carr does not disclose wherein the antifouling filtration membrane adsorbs less than about 1.5 μg.sup.2 of an IgG protein/cm.sup.2 of the membrane substrate when the membrane substrate is exposed to the IgG protein. However, this limitation is related to the function of the membrane, and it is a recitation of the function of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Carr teaches all the claimed structure of the membrane and therefore, it is inherent and/or obvious that it is capable of performing the intended use.
With respect to claim 8, Carr discloses wherein the membrane substrate comprises poly(ethersulfone) (PES) (see paragraph 0067). Carr lacks wherein the plurality of zwitterionic molecules or moieties comprise KE-12 structures. However, Carr teaches the use of copolymeric compositions as coating material on substrates to form filtration membranes having both hydrophilic and oleophobic properties including a zwitterionic group and including different structural formulas (see paragraphs 0008-0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the membrane disclosed by Carr with the zwitterionic molecules or moieties comprising KE-12 structures, as claimed by applicant, since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a preferred composition according to a desired application (see MPEP 2144.07 which states as obvious “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use”; and see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
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, Benjamin 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.
/MADELINE GONZALEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights