DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 9 and 12 are amended.
This Action is Made Final.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of Wang and Yang does not teach the claimed invention because Wang requires the presence of phospholipids which are not part of the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive because phospholipids are not excluded from the claimed invention. The claims use the “comprising” transitional phrase and are therefore open to additional features. Wang teaches all the claimed features of the aqueous solution and organic solution, the additional phospholipids are not excluded by the claims. The applicant has not provided any arguments regarding why one of skill in the art would not have replaced the membrane (thin film substrate) of Wang with the thin film comprising ANFs as disclosed by Yang.
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).
The 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2021/201783) in view of Yang e al, the article “Fabrication, Applications, and Prospects of Aramid Nanofiber”.
Regarding Claim 1:
Wang teaches the method for preparing a thin film composite nanofiltration (TFC-NF) membrane comprising: providing a thin film (porous membrane substrate) (see pg. 9 lines 29-31); providing an aqueous solution (step a) impregnating…with an aqueous suspension) comprising a di- and/or poly-amine (at least one polyamine) (see pg. 9 lines 5-6); combining (impregnating) the thin film with the aqueous solution to form an amine absorbed film (see pg. 9 lines 5-6); providing an organic solution (step b) contacting…with an organic phase) (see pg. 9 lines 7-8) comprising a di-, tri, and/or poly acid chloride in a water immiscible polar organic solvent (organic phase my comprise at least one crosslinker…the crosslinker selected from trimesoyl chloride) (see pg. 17 lines 1-2 and 30); adding the organic solution to the amine absorbed film to form a thin film composite (TFC) of a polyamide (PA) on the thin film and an acid chloride depleted organic solution (interfacial polymerization occurs on the surface) (see pg. 18 lines 4-10); removing the depleted organic solution (contacting step has a set duration, therefore the depleted solution is inherently removed after said duration) (see pg. 16 lines 23-24); and drying (membrane is dried) the TFC of the PA on the thin film to form the TFC membrane (see pg. 21 lines 29-30).
Wang does not teach providing a dispersion comprising aramid nanofibers (ANFs) in a water miscible polar organic solvent; forming a thin film comprising the ANFs or that the thin film is an aramid nanofiber film. Wang further teaches that the porous membrane substrate can be an inorganic material (see pg. 9 lines 30-31).
Yang teaches providing a dispersion comprising aramid nanofibers (ANFs) in a water miscible polar organic solvent (ANFs/DMSO dispersion) (see pg. 11 section 3.1); forming a thin film comprising the ANFs (achieving an ultrathin ANF film) (see pg. 12, left column first paragraph). Yang further teaches that the ANF thin film can be used in filtration (see pg. 18, table 2).
Wang and Yang are analogous inventions in the art of thin film membranes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the porous membrane substrate of Wang with the thin film comprising ANFs made by providing a dispersion comprising aramid nanofibers (ANFs) in a water miscible polar organic solvent; forming a thin film comprising the ANFs, as disclosed by Yang because aramid nanofiber thin films provide a dense structure with ultralow porosity with is beneficial in filtration applications (see Yang pg. 22 section 4.5). Further it is the simple substitution of one known substrate layer able to be functionalized with another substrate layer able to be functionalized, obviously resulting in a thin film composite nanofiltration membrane, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the water miscible polar organic solvent is selected from dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) (ANFs/DMSO dispersion) (see Yang pg. 11 section 3.1), 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (NMP), dimethylformamide (DMF), and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 4:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein forming a thin film is via an automatic film applicator (spin-coating device, the type of automatic film applicator is not limited) on a plate (glass plate) (see Yang pg. 11 section 3.1-pg. 12, left column first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dispersion further comprises a base (KOH) (see Yang, pg. 13 Figure 10, left column first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the base is selected from sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide (KOH) (see Yang, pg. 13 Figure 10, left column first paragraph), cesium hydroxide, and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 8:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the di- and/or poly-amine is selected from piperazine (PIP) (see Wang pg. 12 lines 15-17), ethylenediamine, linear and branched polyethyleneimine, and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 9:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the acid chloride is selected from trimesoyl chloride (TMC) (see Wang pg. 17 line 30), isophthaloyl chloride, and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 10:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the water immiscible organic solvent is selected from dichloromethane (DCM) (see Wang pg. 16 lines 17-18), chloroform (TCM), 1,2-dichloroethane (DCE), 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (TCE), benzene (PhH), fluorobenzene (PhF), 1,2-dichlorobenzene (ODCB), 1,2-difluorobenzene (ODFB), butyl acetate, iso-butyl acetate, ethyl butanoate, and any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 12:
Wang, as modified, teaches the thin film composite nanofiltration (TFC-NF) membrane formed by the method according to claim 1 (see claim mapping for claim 1 above), wherein the TFC-NF membrane is characterized by a homogeneous surface morphology comprising a dense (dense structure) (see Yang pg. 22, section 4.5) of about 100 or more nanobubbles per µm with a high actual surface area of about 16 times or more greater than a smooth flat surface (higher specific surface area) (see Yang pg. 26 left column).
Regarding Claim 13:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method of water purification, comprising passing the water through a thin film composite nanofiltration (TFC-NF) membrane (used to filter wastewater, there is a water flux therefore water passed though the membrane) (see Wang pg. 20 lines 14-20) according to claim 12 (see claim mapping of claim 12 above).
Regarding Claim 14:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the plate is a steel plate or a glass plate (glass plate) (see Yang pg. 12, left column first paragraph)
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2021/201783) in view of Yang e al, the article “Fabrication, Applications, and Prospects of Aramid Nanofiber” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al (USPN 9,382,381).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
Wang, as modified, does not teach forming a thin film comprises spreading a film of a plate with a doctor blade.
Maeda teaches forming a thin film comprises spreading a film of a plate (quartz substrate) with a doctor blade (see col. 38 lines 20-23).
Wang, as modified, and Maeda are analogous inventions in the art of thin films. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to replace the thin film forming method of Wang (as modified) with the doctor blade, as disclosed by Maeda because it is the simple substitution of one thin film forming method with another known this film forming method, obviously resulting in a thin film with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 5:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the plate is a steel plate or a glass (quartz substrate) plate (see Maeda col. 38 lines 20-23).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2021/201783) in view of Yang e al, the article “Fabrication, Applications, and Prospects of Aramid Nanofiber” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2021/0031151.
Regarding Claim 11:
Wang, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising activating the TFC of a PA on ANFs by contacting with the water immiscible organic solvent (see Wang pg. 16 lines 23-25).
Wang, as modified does not teach that the contacting is for at least 12 hours. Wang further teaches that the length of contacting controls the thickness of the polyamide layer (see Wang pg. 16 lines 23-25).
Lee teaches activating (solvent activation process) of equal to or less than 24 hours (see para. 0079). Given that the prior art range of less than or equal to 24 hours overlaps the claimed range of at least 12 hours a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use an activating time of at least 12 hours (see MPEP 2144.05).
Wang, as modified, and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of thin film composite membranes. It would have been obvious to use an activating time of at least 12 hours, as disclosed by Lee in the organic solvent contacting step of Wang because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found an appropriate amount of time for the contacting step and at least 12 hours is within the range known in the art to be effective. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
2143, D.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 7/26/2026
Prosecution Insights