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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12, 14 and 15 in the reply filed on 2/4/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not shown materially different uses for the membrane. This is not found persuasive because applicant claims nanofiltration of methanol, or different types of dyes. However, the nanofiltration membrane is well-known for rejecting multi-valent salts in water treatment, a different use or a materially different process. Nonetheless, claim 1 is also broader, and claims a filtration membrane, which can be different types.
Claim 13 was mistakenly identified as a process claim, is hereby rejoined with the product claims. Claims examined: 1-15.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Applicant has incorporated by reference several publications, which are improper.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6: the scope of the claim language, “in the form of nanoparticles,” is unclear. The phrase ‘in the form’ only means “shaped” of “looks like” nanoparticles. Applicant’s disclosure shows embedded or disbursed nanoparticles in/on the second layer.
Claim 7: the term vertical in claim 7 is not a structural element. The claim term, “in the form of vertical hollow tubes” is unclear and indefinite. An explanation of what the “hollow tubes” are is required. By vertical, does applicant mean perpendicular to the plane of the sheet membrane? If so, such a correction requires a proper explanation if not supported in the disclosure.
Claim 10: unclear which part or surface of the membrane has the contact angle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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) 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over KR (KR 20150134882 A.)
KR teaches a filtration membrane having a thermoplastic support/substrate (non-woven fabric made of polypropylene, etc.,) on which is coated a polysulfone membrane and soaked with polyvinylpyrrolidone and an amine of formula 1 like tetraethylenepentamine of claim 5. This amine is then crosslinked with isophthaloyl or terephthaloyl chloride.
Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: by soaking, the amine is expected to be completely dispersed in the polysulfone membrane. Claim 3 – the crosslinking between amine groups and acid groups is inherent. Claim 4 – the result is a hyperbranched structure.
Claims 7 and 8: the “vertical hollow tubes” as claimed appears to be the finger like voids in the polysulfone porous layer perpendicular to the place of the membrane, which is formed by the phase inversion process of casting the polysulfone layer, a common feature of phase-inverted asymmetric membranes. Therefore, this is not a patentable invention. For evidence, see Hoda and Vankelecom, “Understanding and guiding the phase inversion process for synthesis of solvent resistant nanofiltration membranes,” J. APPL. POL YM. SCI. 2015, DOI: 10.1002/APP.42130: Macrovoids at pages 5 and 6 or 17.
Claim 9: polyamide layer thickness is overlapping – 0.05-1 microns in KR.
Claim 10 – contact angle is inherent: same composition. Claim 11: Carbon, oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen, etc., are inherent because of the same formulation. For inherency, see MPEP 2112.
Claim 12: surface roughness is inherent – KR teaches the same membrane as in claim 1.
Claim 13 is a product by process claim and is anticipated by, or obvious over KR. See MPEP 2113-I.
Claims 14 and 15: the flux of methanol is an inherent property of the membrane, unless otherwise shown.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over KR (KR 20150134882 A) in view of Zhao et al., “ Impacts of Metal−Organic Frame-works on Structure and Performance of Polyamide Thin-Film Nanocomposite Membranes,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019,11,13724−13734
Claims 6 and 12: the second layer in the form of nanoparticles with diameter 10-500 nm, and surface roughness: while claim 6 is unclear, it is assumed that the nanoparticles are embedded COF or MOF nanoparticles. KR fails to teach such embedded nanoparticles. Zhao teaches incorporating MOF nanoparticles (particle sizes in Table 1) in TFNC membranes which improves flux by 30% without sacrificing rejection performance- see the conclusion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art incorporate the teachings of Zhao in the teaching of KR for such improved membrane. The surface roughness would have been an inherent result of such incorporation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777