DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 27, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baig et al. (Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2021, Vol. 15) and CN111068526A ("Jing"), hereinafter “Baig” and “Jing”. Jing has been claim mapped to the provided EPO machine translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
241
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (Baig)
With respect to claims 1-5, Baig teaches a multilayered thin film composite membrane for water filtration (See abstract). Baig further teaches that the membrane has a polyester terephthalate thermoplastic substrate that has a layer of polysulfone cast on top to fabricate a PSf/PET membrane base (Page 3/Section 2.3). Baig also teaches that the membrane has a second layer on the PSf/PET base wherein the second layer is an active polyamide layer and is formed through the reaction of a tetramine with terephthaloyl chloride to form a PA@PSf/PET filtration membrane (Page 3/Section 2.4). Figure 3 from Baig shows the structure of the polyamide layer with a nanosheet additive and is provided in the office action to show the structure of the second layer in the PA@PSf/PET filtration membrane as it is prepared the same but without the added nanosheets. Figure 3 (shown above) from Baig also shows the tetramine in the polyamide structure to be N,N'-bis(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine.
Baig does not teach the second layer having units of glucose derived polysaccharides reacted with the tetramine and phthaloyl chloride.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Jing)
Jing teaches a composite membrane with an active layer on the surface of a polysulfone base comprising the reaction product of amine monomers, di/polyacyl chlorides and cyclodextrins (Paragraph 9). Jing further teaches that cyclodextrins are polysaccharides that are composed of glucose unit and can be beta-cyclodextrin (Paragraphs 6 and 63). Figure 2 from Jing is provided above and shows the process flow of creating the polyamide layer, where cyclodextrin reacts and bonds to the di/polyacyl chloride of the polyamide (Paragraphs 72 and 73) where the di/polyacyl chloride can be terephthaloyl chloride (Paragraph 11).
With respect to claims 7, 18, and 19, Baig teaches that the membrane has a polyester terephthalate thermoplastic substrate that has a layer of polysulfone cast on top to fabricate a PSf/PET membrane base (Page 3/Section 2.3). Baig also teaches the PA@PSf/PET membrane to have a water contact angle of 74˚ (Page 6/Section 3.2). Baig also teaches that the membrane has a second layer on the PSf/PET base wherein the base is places in an aqueous solution containing the tetramine and nanosheet additive for 10 minutes (Page 3/Section 2.4). The PSf/PET base is removed from the aqueous solution and dipped in the cross-linker solution for 60 seconds to complete the interfacial polymerization on the surface of porous PSf/PET membrane support (Page 3/Section 2.4). Baig further teaches the crosslinker solution to comprise terephthaloyl chloride and n-hexane and after the crosslinker solution the filtration membrane is dried in an oven (Page 3/Section 2.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was effectively filed to modify the PA@PSf/PET filter membrane of Baig with the beta-cyclodextrin additive of Jing to make modified Baig because, both pertain to filtration membranes with a polyamide active layer on a polysulfone layer and according to Jing, “this invention applies cyclodextrin to the surface modification of polyamide desalination composite membranes, resulting in a polyamide desalination composite membrane with excellent antifouling properties, as well as high rejection rate and flux” (Paragraph 8).
With respect to claim 12, modified Baig discloses the filtration membrane of claim 1 but does not teach that the membrane comprises carbon in an amount of 65-75 wt. %, oxygen in an amount of 10-15 wt. %, sulfur in an amount of 5-10 wt. %, and nitrogen in an amount of 5-15 wt. % based on a total weight of the membrane.
However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baig et al. (Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2021, Vol. 15) and CN111068526A ("Jing") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nayak et al. (Membranes 2022, 12(5), 528), hereinafter “Baig”, “Jing”, and “Nayak”. Jing has been claim mapped to the provided EPO machine translation.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, modified Baig discloses the filtration membrane of claim 1. Modified Baig further discloses a method of wetting the filtration membrane with water, a polar solvent, for 30 minutes before use in performance measurements on flux or rejection rate (Jing Paragraphs 95-97).
Modified Baig does not teach contacting an aqueous composition with the filtration membrane wherein the aqueous composition comprises at least water and one or more pollutants, wherein the pollutants comprise one or more salts and one or more pharmaceuticals, collecting a permeate passing through the filtration membrane to obtain a purified composition having a reduced amount of the pollutants. Baig also does not teach the removal percentages by weight of the pollutants in the aqueous composition at 15 bars.
Nayak teaches contacting the polyamide active layer/polysulfone base(See Table 1) filtration membrane of AFC 40 with an aqueous salt solution of sodium chloride (Page 7/Section 3.2). The AFC 40 membrane has a salt rejection rate of ~75% by weight at 15 bar (See Figure 3). Nayak also teaches contacting the AFC 40 membrane with an aqueous solution of caffeine, which is a pharmaceutically active compound (Page 7/Section 3.2). The AFC 40 membrane has a caffeine rejection rate of ~87% by weight at 15 bar (See Figure 5(c)). Nayak also teaches contacting the AFC 40 membrane with an aqueous solution of caffeine and sodium chloride, the membrane has a rejection percentage of about ~82% based on caffeine (Figure 6(a)). Nayak also teaches that the permeate, which has a lowered concentration of solutes, is collected and analyzed (Page 5/Section 2.4.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize to the modified Baig filter membrane and combine the aqueous solutions for the nanofiltration rejection method of Nayak because, both pertain to polyamide filtration membranes and removing solutes such from aqueous solutions and according to Baig, “drug residues are usually accompanied by other salts” (Page 10/Section 3.5).
With respect to claims 16, 17, and 20, Modified Baig teaches the phthaloyl chloride to be terephthaloyl chloride (See Figure 1 Baig).
Modified Baig does not teach an aqueous composition comprising water and one or more salts, and has a rejection percentage of 65 % to 95 % by weight based on an initial weight of the one or more salts at a pressure of 15 bar. Modified Baig does not teach an aqueous composition comprising water and one or more pharmaceuticals, and has a rejection percentage of 65 to 95 % by weight based on an initial weight of the one or more pharmaceuticals at a pressure of 15 bar. Modified Baig does not teach the membrane having a rejection percentage of 80 % to 95 % by weight based on an initial weight of the one or more pollutants at a pressure of 15 bar.
Nayak teaches contacting the polyamide active layer/polysulfone base(See Table 1) filtration membrane of AFC 40 with an aqueous salt solution of 1g/dm3 of sodium chloride (Page 5/Paragraph 2 and Page 7/Section 3.2). The AFC 40 membrane has a salt rejection rate of ~75% by weight at 15 bar (See Figure 3). Nayak also teaches contacting the AFC 40 membrane with an aqueous solution of 20mg/dm3 caffeine, which is a pharmaceutically active compound (Page 7/Section 3.2 and Page 5/Section 2.4.2). The AFC 40 membrane has a caffeine rejection rate of ~87% by weight at 15 bar (See Figure 5(c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize to the modified Baig filter membrane in the nanofiltration rejection method of Nayak with a reasonable expectation of success because, modified Baig is an improvement on polyamide filtration membranes and both have methods of removing pollutants from aqueous solutions for potable water as according to Baig, “Various membrane-based technologies including ultrafiltration, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis have been applied for production of potable water” (Page 2/Paragraph 1).
Claims 6, 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baig et al. (Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2021, Vol. 15) and Bai et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 11178−11187), hereinafter “Baig” and “Bai”.
With respect to claims 6, 8, and 15, Baig teaches a multilayered thin film composite membrane for water filtration (See abstract). Baig further teaches that the membrane has a polyester terephthalate thermoplastic substrate that has a layer of polysulfone cast on top to fabricate a PSf/PET membrane base (Page 3/Section 2.3). Baig also teaches that the membrane has a second layer on the PSf/PET base wherein the second layer is an active polyamide layer and is formed through the reaction of a tetramine with terephthaloyl chloride to form a PA@PSf/PET filtration membrane (Page 3/Section 2.4).
Baig does not teach the second layer having units of glucose-derived polysaccharides reacted with the tetramine and phthaloyl chloride. Baig also does not teach the membrane having an average surface roughness of 5 to 45 nm or the second layer is in the form of nanoparticles with a diameter of 2-50 nm. Baig does not teach a reacted hydroxyl group of the glucose-derived polysaccharide is cross-linked to a reacted secondary amine of the reacted units of the tetramine in the polyamide through a reacted unit the phthaloyl chloride.
PNG
media_image3.png
283
555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 1(Bai)
In figure 1 of Bai (shown above), Bai teaches that the cellulose nanocrystals, which is a polysaccharide comprising glucose units, are incorporated into the polyamide structure through one of the hydroxyl groups reacting with the phthaloyl chloride wherein the phthaloyl crosslinks a secondary amine of the amine units and the polysaccharide. Bai also teaches that the polyamide layer incorporating the cellulose nanocrystals has an average surface roughness of ~5.7-7.8 nm depending on the quantity of cellulose nanocrystals (See Figure 3). Bai teaches the cellulose nanocrystals changed the surface of the polyamide active layer due to reacting with the phthaloyl chloride and causing agglomeration (Page 5/ Middle of Morphological Characterizations on the right). Bai also teaches the filtration membrane having a water permeability of 10.3-16.45 L/(m² h bar) which corresponds to a water permeate flux of 51.5-82.25 L/(m² h) at 5 bars (Page 7/Section Permeability and Separation Performance of the CNC-TFC Membranes).
With respect to claim 9, Baig does not teach the second layer of the filtration membrane is in the form of nanoparticles with a diameter of 2-50 nm.
Bai teaches the cellulose nanocrystals changed the surface of the polyamide active layer due to reacting with the phthaloyl chloride and causing agglomeration (Page 5/ Middle of Morphological Characterizations on the right) where the cellulose nanocrystals take the form of rod-like nanoparticles with a diameter of 15-30nm (Page 4/Paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the PA@PSf/PET filter membrane of Baig with the cellulose nanocrystals of Bai to make Bai-modified Baig because, both pertain to filtration membranes with a hydrophilic additive to the polyamide active layer on a polysulfone layer and according to Bai, “The monovalent ion rejection tended to increase as the CNC content increased” and “The CNC-TFC membranes showed enhanced hydrophilicity and increased permeability” (See abstract).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baig et al. (Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 2021, Vol. 15) and Bai et al. (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 11178−11187) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (Environ. Sci.: Nano, 2020, 7, 803), hereinafter “Baig”, “Bai”, and “Xu”.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Baig does not teach the second layer of the membrane being porous with pores 100-1000 nm in diameter or with ridges 1 µm to 3 µm in width and 1 µm to 20 µm in length and valleys 0.2 µm to 2 µm in width and 1 µm to 20 µm in length.
Bai does not teach the second layer of the membrane being porous with pores 100-1000 nm in diameter or with ridges 1 µm to 3 µm in width and 1 µm to 20 µm in length and valleys 0.2 µm to 2 µm in width and 1 µm to 20 µm in length.
Xu teaches the polyamide layer to comprise cellulose, a polysaccharide of glucose, nanoparticles (Page 3/Section 2.2.2) where the nanoparticles are rods with a diameter of 5-20 nm (Page 5/Section 3.1). Xu also teaches the polyamide layer of the filtration membrane to comprise cellulose nanoparticles with ridges 1-3 µm in width and 1-20 µm in length and valleys 0.2-2 µm in width and 1-20 µm in length (See figure 3(g) and figure 4(b)). Xu further teaches using cellulose/silver composite nanoparticles in place of cellulose nanoparticles which improve the water flux of the membrane and had a high salt rejection rate (Page 9/Paragraph 2). Xu teaches the polyamide layer containing 0.005% by weight cellulose/silver composite nanoparticles that resulted in a porous surface with pores 100-1000 nm in diameter (See figure 3(c) and figure 4(c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the cellulose nanoparticle teachings of Xu to modify the Bai-modified Baig filter membrane because, both pertain to filtration membranes with a cellulose nanoparticle additive to the polyamide active layer on a polysulfone layer and according to Xu, “With the incorporation of only 0.01 wt% CNC/Ag nanocomposites, a high pure water permeability (25.4 L m-2 h-1 bar-1) and a high rejection rate of Na2SO4 (99.1%) of the CNC/Ag TFN NF membrane can be achieved, respectively.” (See abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jack Pecinovsky whose telephone number is (571)272-9027. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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. 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.
/JACK WELLIK PECINOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights