DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on August 17, 2023, and any subsequent filings.
Claims 13-16 and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-12 and 17-19 stand rejected. Claims 1-20 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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim1-12; 17-19, drawn to filtration membrane, classified in C02 F 1/444 and B01D 71/34.
II. Claim13-16; 20, drawn to process of making a filtration membrane, classified in B01D 67/00933 and B01D 69/12.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group and Group I. are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case Group l. can be used in a desalination process, rather than oil-water separation.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group l. and Group ll. are a search burden due to the different classification areas between the apparatus and process of making the apparatus.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Stefan U. Koschmieder on October 9, 2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group l., claims 1-12; 17-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-16; 20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 is interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where an acceptable rate of flux and pressure are defined within the meets and bounds of the range given.
Claim 17 is interpreted using the BRI where the claimed invention is a product by process claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), and further in view of “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang").
Applicant’s claims are directed towards a filtration membrane.
Regarding claim 1, Kangheng discloses a filtration membrane that separates oil from water (Kangheng, Pr 10) where a layer of the membrane is a polyester terephthalate (Kangheng, Pr 32) nonwoven fabric (Kangheng, Pr 31). Kangheng teaches the filtration membrane can have multiple active layers that comprise of hydrophilic layers and superhydrophilic layers depending on the configuration (Kangheng, Pr 12). Kangheng does not specifically teach about a polyvinylidene fluoride matrix doped with a polyvinylpyrrolidone and titanium dioxide or a polypyrrole polymer layer.
Gayatri is directed to a filtration membrane comprising a polyvinylidene fluoride matrix doped with a polyvinylpyrrolidone and titanium dioxide (Gayatri, section 2.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the filtration membrane of Kangheng and add the polyvinylidene fluoride matrix doped with a polyvinylpyrrolidone and titanium dioxide layer of Gayatri because Gayatri teaches that adding the polyvinylidene fluoride matrix doped with a polyvinylpyrrolidone and titanium dioxide layer can improve the hydrophilic and antifouling properties of the membrane. In addition, Gayatri further discloses that adding the titanium dioxide nanoparticles to the membrane can improve hydrophilic, self-cleaning, antifouling, and antibacterial properties of the membrane. Gayatri also teaches that adding polyvinylpyrrolidone to the membrane layer can function as pore-forming agents to increase membrane hydrophilicity and pore interconnectivity (Gayatri, introduction, Pr 4).
Zhang teaches filtration membrane with a similar embodiment that contains a polypyrrole polymer layer (Zhang, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng and Gayatri, and add a final layer polypyrrole polymer of Zhang because adding a polypyrrole polymer layer to a filtration membrane can effectively improve the absorption efficiency of incident light (Zhang, section 3.1, Pr 2, Figure 2c and 2f) and increase the photothermal ability (Zhang, section 3.4, Pr 1).
Regarding claim 2, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action, Kangheng further discloses a filtration membrane where one or more amine groups bonded to the polypyrrole polyer (Kangheng, functional group, Pr 45) is bonded to one or more oxygen atom of the titanium dioxide nanaoparticles (Kangheng, Pr 47).
Regarding claim 3, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action, Kangheng teaches about a filtration membrane where the membrane is a porous structure with pores from 0.5 to 10 micrometers in diameter (Kangheng, Pr 41).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang"), and further in view of “Evaluation of chemical synthesis of polypyrrole particles.” Kausaite-Minkstimiene, et al ("Kausaite-Minkstimiene").
Regarding claim 4, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action, the combination of references does teach polypyrrole layer. The combination of references does not teach polypyrrole layer in the form of globules where the globules have an average diameter of 0.5 to 3 micrometers. Kausaite-Minkstimiene further discloses a filtration membrane where the third polypyrrole layer is in the form of globules where the globules have an average diameter of 0.5 to 3 micrometers (Kausaite-Minkstimiene, pg 228, column 2, Pr 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, with the inclusion of the third polypyrrole layer in the form of globules where the globules have an average diameter of 0.5 to 3 micrometers of Kausaite-Minkstimiene because the third polypyrrole layer can increase the biocompatibility, good environmental, and thermal stability of the filtration membrane (Kausaite-Minkstimiene, Intoroduction, Pr 4). In addition, the polypyrrole layer in the form of globules can be prepared with chemical oxidative polymerization methods (Kausaite-Minkstimiene, Intoroduction, Pr 4).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), and further in view of “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang").
Regarding claim 5, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references teaches a rate of flux from 20 to 300 liters per square meter per hour (L m-2h-1) at a pressure from 0.5 bar to 5 bar (Gayatri, section 3.2.1., Figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references further discloses a filtration membrane where the membrane has an average surface roughness of 80 to 90 nanometers (Kangheng, Pr 43). Kangheng teaches increasing surface roughness can advantageously lead to better contact between the layers of the membrane for improved mechanical and structural integrity of layers. The increased roughness can also contribute to improved oleophobic or hydrophilic properties of the membrane. (Kangheng, Pr 43).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang"), and further in view of “Tailoring the Effects of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) and Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) in the Separation and Antifouling Performance of Thin-Film Composite Polyvinylidene Fluoride (PVDF) Membrane.” Sakarkar, et al ("Sakarkar").
Regarding claim 7, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references does not teach a root mean square roughness of 110 to 120 nm.
Sakarkar discloses a filtration membrane, where the membrane has a root mean square roughness of 110 to 120 nm (Sakarkar, section 3.2., Table 3).
Regarding claim 8, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references does not teach a teach about a membrane with a water contact angle of 50° to 60°.
Sakarkar discloses a filtration membrane, where the membrane has a teach about a membrane with a water contact angle of 50° to 60° (Sakarkar, section 3.3., Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the reference of the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, with the inclusion of a root mean square roughness of 110 to 120 nm and water contact angle of 50° to 60° of Sakarkar because the incorporation of titanium dioxide improves photodegradation performance due to the election-hole separation when irradiated by UV light with an energy equal to or greater than the bandgap energy of the of titanium dioxide nanoparticles and improves the physio-chemical properties of the membrane (Sakarkar, Introduction, Pr 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang"), “An Intelligent Superwetting PVDF Membrane Showing Switchable Transport Performance for Oil/Water Separation.” Tao, et al ("Tao"), and further in view of “The Role of Electrospun Nanomaterials in the Future of Energy.” Baghali, et al ("Baghali").
Regarding claim 9, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references does not teach about a filtration membrane that has an oil contact angle in air of about 0° and an oil contact angle in water of at least 160°.
Regarding claim 9, Tao discloses a filtration membrane containing a polyvinylidene fluoride layer (Tao, Abstract, Pr 1), where membrane has an oil contact angle in air of about 0° (Tao, pg 2944, Figure 2a). However, Tao does not teach about an oil contact angle in water of at least 160°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the reference of the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, with an oil contact angle in air of about 0° of Tao because the polyvinylidene fluoride layer increases the capability of the membrane to deal with both oil-in-water and water-in-oil emulsions without any post treatment. In addition, the polyvinylidene fluoride layer increases the permeability and fouling resistance (Tao, pg 2943, Column 2, Pr 4).
Baghali further discloses an oil contact angle in water of 160° (Baghali, pg 14, section 4.1.1.). The applicant discloses in the specification the polyvinylidene fluoride matrix doped with a polyvinylpyrrolidone and titanium dioxide nanoparticles layer has superoleophobicity properties that leads to the rejection of oil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the reference of the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, oil contact angle in air of about 0° of Tao, with an oil contact angle in water of 160° of Baghali because composite polymeric nanofibrous materials can be improved or modified by incorporation of other materials into polymeric nanofibrous structure which will result in mechanical properties, surface wettability, surface roughness, energy, and surface to-volume ratio improvements to the filtration membrane (Baghali, Pg 14, section 4.1.2). In addition, adding an oil contact angle in water of 160° can increase the ability to repel water molecules while allowing oil to be passed or absorbed into their porous structures resulting in a Superhydrophobic super oleophilic materials (Baghali, Pg 14, section 4.1.1.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang"), and further in view of “Facile preparation of halloysite nanotube-modified polyvinylidene fluoride composite membranes for highly efficient oil/water emulsion separation.” Wang, et al ("Wang").
Regarding claim 10, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references does not teach about a filtration membrane containing a rejection profile of oils of at least 99% by weight.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses a filtration membrane containing a rejection profile of oils of at least 99% by weight (Wang, pg 8341, Oil/water separation section, Figure 7a(c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the reference of the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, with a rejection profile of oils of at least 99% by weight of Wang because adding a polyvinylidene fluoride layer with nanostructure to the membrane will improve the hydrophilicity and roughness of membrane(Wang, Introduction, pg 8333, Pr 4), which will result in improving antifouling performance of membrane (Wang, pg 8342, Pr 3)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang"), and further in view of “Preparation and characterization of a novel photocatalytic self-cleaning PES nanofiltration membrane by embedding a visible-driven photocatalyst boron doped-TiO2single bondSiO2/CoFe2O4 nanoparticles.” Zangeneh, et al ("Zangeneh ").
Regarding claim 11 and 12, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references does not teach about a filtration membrane where the membrane is self-cleaning under visible light irradiation conditions or visible light irradiation occurs for at least a time of 1 hour.
Zangeneh discloses a filtration membrane where the membrane is self-cleaning under visible light irradiation conditions (Zangeneh, pg 771, Pr 3, Figure 6(a)) and visible light irradiation occurs for at least a time of 1 hour (Zangeneh, pg 766, section 2.4, Pr 3). Zangeneh further discloses a filtration membrane with a polyvinylpyrrolidone layer in the membrane that also has titanium dioxide doped in the membrane layer (Zangeneh, pg 766, section 2.3). The self-cleaning properties are attributed to the titanium dioxide layer (Zangeneh, pg 767, section 3.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the reference of the filtration membrane layer of Kangheng, Gayatri, and self-cleaning under visible light irradiation conditions visible light irradiation occurs for at least a time of 1 hour of Zangeneh because adding nanoparticles improves the filtration membrane resulting in higher roughness of the surface and increases the specific surface contact area to the superhydrophilic layer (Kang, Pr60).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangheng, et al., International Publication No. WO2021/240149 A1 ("Kangheng"), “Preparation and Characterization of PVDF–TiO2 Mixed-Matrix Membrane with PVP and PEG as Pore-Forming Agents for BSA Rejection.” Gayatri, et al ("Gayatri"), and further in view of “A Simple Polypyrrole/Polyvinylidene Fluoride Membrane with Hydrophobic and Self-Floating Ability for Solar Water Evaporation.” Zhang, et al ("Zhang").
Regarding claim 17, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references disclose that hydrophilic material may be pre-blended into membrane substrate materials. The hydrophilic material may be incorporated using methods such as phase inversion, extrusion or interfacial polymerization (Kangheng, Pr 50). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles that are incorporated into the polyvinylidene matrix are hydrophilic.
Regarding claim 19, using the combination of the filtration membrane layers from Kangheng, Gayatri, and Zhang, and motivation for combining the references outlined in paragraphs 16-22 of this office action achieves the invention of claim 1. The combination of references discloses that the polypyrrole polymer is deposited on the titanium dioxide nanoparticles in a chemical oxidation process to form a polymeric active layer of the polypyrrole polymer on the titanium dioxide nanoparticles (Kangheng, Pr 130-Pr131).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DeMarkus Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm Pacific Time.
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.
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/patentcenter 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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779