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 of group I, specie 2 and B in the reply filed on 6/8/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, 9 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said polymethacrylate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 7 is assumed to depend from claim 3.
Claim 9 recites a water contact angle of a pristine polymeric membrane. It is unclear what a water contact angle of a pristine polymeric membrane would be as the claim does not provide a definition of what the polymeric membrane actually is. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the precise metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites a flux recovery ratio of at about 99%. However, the claim does not specify what the foulant is or the concentration of the foulant to determine how the flux recovery ratio is being calculated. Therefore, the precise metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pakizeh et al. “Preparation and characterization of polyzwitterionic hydrogel coated polyamide-based mixed matrix membrane for heavy metal ions removal”.
Claims 1 and 3, Pakizeh teaches a membrane comprising a polymeric membrane (polyamide and polyethersulfone) in contact with a coating layer comprising a plurality of crystalline framework structures (COF nanoparticles) and a hydrogel comprising a cross-linked hydrophilic polymer, the membrane is water permeable and the cross-linked hydrophilic polymer is grafted to an outer surface of the polymeric membrane (fig. 3, abstract, pg. 1-3).
Claim 2, Pakizeh further teaches the cross-linked hydrophilic polymer is a zwitterionic polymer polymethacrylate (pg. 5, section 2.4, pg. 8, section 3.2).
Claim 11, Pakizeh further teaches the membrane is a nanofiltration membrane (abstract). The recitation of the pure water flux and the flux recovery ratio is a recitation of a property of the membrane. Pakizeh teaches all of the structural limitations of the membrane of claim 1 and therefore, is assumed to have the recited properties of claim 11.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. “Enhanced flus and fouling resistance forward osmosis membrane based on a hydrogel/MOF hybrid selective layer”.
Claims 1 and 3 , Fu teaches a membrane comprising a polymeric membrane (polyethersulfone) in contact with a coating layer comprising a plurality of crystalline framework structures (MOF nanoparticles) and a hydrogel (crosslinked PVA) comprising a cross-linked hydrophilic polymer, the membrane is water permeable and the cross-linked hydrophilic polymer is grafted to an outer surface of the polymeric membrane (fig. 6, abstract, par 1.2).
Claim 9, Fu further teaches the membrane has a water contact angle of less than 51 degrees (par 3.2.3).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. WO 2021/240150.
Claims 1 and 3 , Liu teaches a membrane comprising a polymeric membrane (par 36) in contact with a coating layer comprising a plurality of crystalline framework structures (MOF nanoparticles) (par 69, 71) and a hydrogel (par 100-109) comprising a cross-linked hydrophilic polymer, the membrane is water permeable and the cross-linked hydrophilic polymer is grafted to an outer surface of the polymeric membrane (par 54-56, 77).
Claims 2, 5 and 9, Liu further teaches the cross-linked hydrophilic polymer is a zwitterionic polymethacrylate (par 102-108); the outer surface of the polymeric membrane is chemically modified by a plurality of carboxy groups (par 54); and the membrane has a water contact angle of less than 51 degrees (par 64).
Claim 11, Liu further teaches the membrane is a microfiltration, nanofiltration membrane or ultrafiltration membrane (par 47). The recitation of the pure water flux and the flux recovery ratio is a recitation of a property of the membrane. Liu teaches all of the structural limitations of the membrane of claim 1 and therefore, is assumed to have the recited properties of claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pakizeh et al. “Preparation and characterization of polyzwitterionic hydrogel coated polyamide-based mixed matrix membrane for heavy metal ions removal”.
Claim 7, Pakizeh teaches the polymethacrylate is poly(sulfobetainmethylmethacrylate-co-2methacryloyl-methylmethacrylate) but does not teach the recited polymethacrylate. The recited polymethacrylate appears to be a known type of polymethacrylate and the specification does not provide any particular unexpected result or reason to choose the recited polymethacrylate. In the absence of any showing of a particular reason to use the recited polymethacrylate the claim is considered obvious as it merely involves the substitution of one type of polymethacrylate for another. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. WO 2021/240150.
Claim 7, Liu teaches various types of polymethacrylates can be used but does not teach the recited polymethacrylate. The recited polymethacrylate appears to be a known type of polymethacrylate and the specification does not provide any particular unexpected result or reason to choose the recited polymethacrylate. In the absence of any showing of a particular reason to use the recited polymethacrylate the claim is considered obvious as it merely involves the substitution of one type of polymethacrylate for another. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pakizeh et al. “Preparation and characterization of polyzwitterionic hydrogel coated polyamide-based mixed matrix membrane for heavy metal ions removal” or Liu et al. WO 2021/240150 in view of Qin et al. “Superior antifouling capability of hydrogel forward osmosis membrane for treating wastewaters with high concentration of organic foulants”.
Pakizeh and Liu teach membrane of claim 1 but do not teach the recited degree of cross-linking.
The prior art to Qin teaches a membrane comprising a polymer layer and a hydrogel (cross linked PVA hydrophilic polymer) layer and clearly indicates the crosslinking degree is a result effective variable (fig. 2-5). Therefore, the recited crosslinking degree appears to be an optimization of the crosslinking degree to achieve a desired flux or water contact angle. [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, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights