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 Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no evidence on the record that the product as claimed can be used to practice a materially different process (such as decontamination, water splitting, desalination or the like), and therefore the basis of the restriction has not been justified. This is not found persuasive because the record currently includes references from applicant’s IDS dated 9/22/2023, including two NPL references, Baig et al (Fabrication of polypyrrole-graphitic carbon nitride nanocomposite…) which is discussed more fully with the art rejections below, and Hayat et al (Visible-light enhances photocatalytic performance…), both of which support the utility of the product being independent of the claimed process. Baig discusses membrane cleaning within the context of desalination, and Hayat discusses the utility of the polypyrrole/g-C3N4 nanocomposites for use in water splitting operations.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Examiner appreciates applicant’s clarification regarding the intended dependency of claims 19 and 20, and in view of this confirmation the claims are grouped with the invention of non-elected group II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baig et al (Fabrication of polypyrrole-graphitic carbon nitride nanocomposite…, Journal of Water Process Engineering, 2022) and Zhou et al (CN 111871231 A), or over the combination of Baig et al and Zhou et al in view of Mo et al (Improved Antifouling Properties of Polyamide…, Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012).
With respect to claim 1, Baig teaches photocatalytic nanocomposite filtration membranes which include a nanocomposite of graphitic carbon nitride sheets in a polypyrrole matrix [Abs, Sec. 3, Results and Discussion, first paragraph], which is itself embedded in a polyamide network through covalent bonding (covalent crosslinking with the polyamide and the nanocomposite) [Abs, Sec. 4, Conclusion]. Baig essentially differs from the instant claimed invention in that Baig is silent to the use of an alumina support, and Baig teaches different monomers for formation of the polyamide network.
Zhou teaches a polyamide composite film modified by interfacial polymerization [Abs] which is designed to combine benefits of various materials for cost, strength, thermochemical stability, and the like [0005] by employing a modified polyamide on an alumina support [0010] (though such modification may in fact be the same material as the polyamide itself [0012]). The polyamide itself is formed by interfacial polycondensation [0021]. At least the transition layer (which may also be formed from interfacial polymerization [0022]) specifically employs piperazine as the aqueous monomer and isophthaloyl chloride (i.e. isophthaloyl dichloride) as the organic monomer [0023], although as above [0012] the active layer may also use the same monomers as the transition layer. This arrangement and specifically this transition layer helps compensate for defects and otherwise incompatibilities between the inorganic support and the membrane itself [0030, 0110]. Zhou is silent to the inclusion of a graphitic carbon nitride-based nanocomposite within the polyamide network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membranes taught by Baig to feature an inorganic support of e.g. alumina in order to improve the chemical and thermal stability of the product as suggested by Zhou and, in doing so, to employ the useful materials such as piperazine and IPC for formation of the polyamide which, as taught by Zhou, is useful for enhancing the compatibility of the layers.
Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membranes taught by Zhou to incorporate a graphitic carbon nitride/polypyrrole nanocomposite crosslinked into the polyamide network as in Baig because, as taught by Baig, this greatly improves the fouling properties of the membrane by facilitating membrane cleaning using photocatalysis.
In either combination, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, if the teachings of Zhou are not considered fully sufficient for recitation of a primary polyamide network formed from piperazine and IPC, see further Mo, which examines fouling resistance in polyamide membranes, and teaches that the combination of piperazine and IPC may be particularly beneficial in that respect due to the reduced amount of carbyl groups available from the monomers and therefore present on the resulting surface [Abs]. In view of this, the use of those two monomers for the primary active layer in the combination of Zhou and Baig would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 2-4, Baig is silent to any specific pore sizes of the materials, only teaching generally that the nanocomposite inclusion will tend to increase porosity compared to the base membrane. However, Zhou teaches employing a support with an average pore size of 0.9 microns, which lies within the claimed ranges. The specific intended use of the pores e.g. to block oil or the like does not distinguish structurally.
With respect to claim 5, Baig discusses the covalent crosslinking incorporating the composite into the polyamide matrix, which involves reaction of amino groups in the polypyrrole with acid chloride groups in the chloride monomer of the polyamide [pg. 5, first paragraph].
With respect to claim 6, absent clarification of the requirements, the nanocomposite taught by Baig is interpreted as having the same properties as that of the instant invention e.g. including at least some degree of hydrogen bonding, or at minimum render them obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; in particular, examiner notes that both the instant invention’s composite and the composite of Baig are produced by thermal polymerization of locally produced polypyrrole after wet impregnation; see e.g. [Sec. 2.2] of Baig in comparison to instant Example 2.
With respect to claim 7, the combined product of Baig and Zhou employs the same materials in the same configuration as that required by the instant claimed invention and is therefore presumed to have the same properties absent clarification of the requirements. Because the prior art has disclosed all structural limitations of the claimed product except for these specific claimed product properties, which the Examiner cannot determine whether the prior art inherently possesses, a case of prima facie obviousness has been established. The burden of proof then shifts to the Applicant to show that the prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claimed inherent properties (In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980)).
With respect to claim 8, as above the combined product of Baig and Zhou (or the combination as modified in view of Mo) employs interfacial polycondensation of PIP and IPC to form a polyamide network; the production of linear chains by such a process would be considered an inherent result of the interfacial polymerization reaction, absent clarification of the requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777