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 without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US 2015/0079392).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches a porous composite membrane comprising a fluorine based polymer of the chemical formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Rf represents a perfluoroalkyl group, such as a perfluoropropyl --C3F7 having 3 carbon atoms and m is 20 thereby having a ratio of 20:1, and the fluorine based polymer is blended/mixed with an organic substance (a different PTFE) ([0048]-[0057] and claims 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi teaches that the organic substance is a PTFE (claims 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 7, it is submitted that the porous composite membrane of Hayashi is capable of being used as claimed. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hayashi et al. (US 2015/0079392).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches the organic substance is PTFE but teaches the same chemical cited by Applicant for the organic substance (PTFE) and one skilled I in the art would expect similar properties, such as the same/similar degradation temperature, or it would have been obvious to choose similar PTFE organic substances similar to Applicant’s choice in order to have the same/similar degradation temperature.
Regarding claim 5, it is submitted that the concentration range claimed is extremely broad and would include every integer based concentration ratio possible. As such, one skilled in the art would expect the concentration ranges of the two substances to either be in the broad range claimed, or choose a value in the range claimed as it is merely finding workable ranges.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2015/0079392) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2023/0055555).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi teaches that the membrane is formed from different components but fails to teach one of the components being a polyamide or polycarbonate as claimed. Fujii teaches that for membranes comprising fluororesins/PTFE, an additional components, such as polyamides, may be added ([0123]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to include additional membrane components that are already known and used with fluororesins/PTFEs with a reasonable expectation of success as it is merely adding another, equivalent, known membrane component.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2015/0079392) in view of Koguma et al. (US 2006/0016748).
Regarding claim 6, the Hayashi membrane would inherently have a porosity but Hayashi fails to teach the porosity in the range claimed. Koguma teaches that for membranes, porosity is a results effective variable that can be optimized according to desired conditions, such as desired filtration rate, strength of membrane, and contaminant removal efficiency ([0028]). Further, Koguma teaches that the most preferred porosity range is 40-80%, which overlaps the range claimed. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a membrane in the porosity range claimed in order to achieve desired filtration rates, removal efficiency, and membrane strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights