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 Group I (claims 51-66) and Species 2 (claims 56-64) in the reply filed on 4/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 67-70 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/1/2026.
Claims 53-56 have been canceled. New claims 71-73 depend on claim 62, 64 and 51 respectively.
Claims 51-52, 57-66 and 71-73 are examined in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 57 and 62 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 57, Line 4: “polyDADMAC” should be spelled out as “poly(diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (polyDADMAC)”.
-Claim 62, Line 3: “Cationic” should be corrected to “cationic”.
-Claim 62, Line 4: “polyDADMAC” should be spelled out as “poly(diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (polyDADMAC)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 62 depends on claim 51 which recites a cationic polymer that includes at least one quaternary nitrogen atom. Claim 62 is indefinite as claimed cationic polyacrylamide, cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose or Cationic guar does not include at least one quaternary nitrogen atom.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 51-52, 57, 59-63, 65-66, 71 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2021/0162353 A1 to Zheng et al. (hereinafter “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 51, Zheng discloses a filter including a porous substrate and a graphene oxide membrane on the porous substrate, wherein the graphene oxide (GO) membrane includes a crosslinking additive between graphene oxide sheets which reduces degradation of the graphene oxide membrane by chlorine species wherein the crosslinking additive comprises a cationic polymer that includes at least one quaternary nitrogen atom (see paragraphs [0007], [0025]: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA)). Recitation of “which reduces degradation of the graphene oxide membranes by a chlorine species” is fulfilled as it implicitly results from the crosslinking of the graphene oxide with a cationic polymer that includes at least one quaternary nitrogen atom.
"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 52, 57, 59 and 63, Zheng discloses PDADMA which includes a quaternary ammonium group (see paragraphs [0007], [0025]: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA)).
Regarding claims 60-61 and 65, Zheng discloses that the filter includes an adhesive additive for adhering the graphene oxide membrane to the porous substrate, and wherein the adhesive additive is resistant to chlorine degradation, and wherein the adhesive additive includes cationic functionality provided by a quaternary nitrogen atom including PDADMA (see paragraphs [0007], [0025]: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA); paragraph [0051]: “The moieties of the GO and the crosslinker may be bonded. The bonding may be chemical or physical. The bonding can be direct or indirect; such as in physical communication through at least one other moiety” suggests that the crosslinkers works as an adhesive additive.)
Regarding claim 62, Zehng discloses the crosslinking additive is cationic polyDADMAC (see paragraphs [0007], [0025]: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA). Recitation of “when exposed to 10,000 ppm·h of chlorine, the filter has rejection values from 90% to 98.5% under alkaline conditions when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus” is considered to be met as the filter of Zehng is substantially identical to the claimed filter in composition.
Regarding claim 66, Zehng discloses a polymeric substrate (see paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 71, Zehng discloses the crosslinking additive is cationic polyDADMAC (see paragraphs [0007], [0025]: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA). Recitation of “the filter has permeance values ranging from 13.7 to 29.8 (L/m2/h/bar) when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus, and the filter has rejection value ranging from 86.9% to 99.2% under acid conditions when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus” is considered to be met as the filter of Zehng is substantially identical to the claimed filter in composition.
Regarding claim 73, Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Claimed chlorine species does not impart patentability to the claims of the filter.
Claims 51-52, 57-66 and 71-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2019/246390 A1 to Nitto Denko Corporation (hereinafter “Nitto”).
Regarding claim 51, Nitto discloses a filter including a porous substrate and a graphene oxide membrane on the porous substrate, wherein the graphene oxide (GO) membrane includes a crosslinking additive between graphene oxide sheets which reduces degradation of the graphene oxide membrane by chlorine species wherein the crosslinking additive comprises a cationic polymer that includes at least one quaternary nitrogen atom (see abstract; page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5; page 11, lines 6-9; page 12, lines 21-22: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)). Recitation of “which reduces degradation of the graphene oxide membranes by a chlorine species” is fulfilled as it implicitly results from the crosslinking of the graphene oxide with a cationic polymer that includes at least one quaternary nitrogen atom.
"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 52, 57, 59 and 63, Nitto discloses PDADMA which includes a quaternary ammonium group (see page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA)).
Regarding claim 58, Nitto discloses that the cationic polymer is a modified polyvinyl alcohol incorporating one or more quaternary ammonium groups (see abstract; page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5; page 11, lines 6-9; page 12, lines 21-22: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) which is a modified polyvinyl alcohol incorporating one or more quaternary ammonium groups).
Regarding claims 60-61 and 65, Nitto discloses that the filter includes an adhesive additive for adhering the graphene oxide membrane to the porous substrate, and wherein the adhesive additive is resistant to chlorine degradation, and wherein the adhesive additive includes cationic functionality provided by a quaternary nitrogen atom including PDADMA see page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA)).
Regarding claim 62, Nitto discloses the crosslinking additive is cationic polyDADMAC (see page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA)).
Recitation of “when exposed to 10,000 ppm·h of chlorine, the filter has rejection values from 90% to 98.5% under alkaline conditions when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus” is considered to be met as the filter of Nitto is substantially identical to the claimed filter in composition.
Regarding claim 64, Nitto discloses that the filter has a crosslinking additive including a cationic polymer and an adhesive additive including a cationic polyvinyl alcohol (see abstract; page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5; page 11, lines 6-9; page 12, lines 21-22: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) which is a cationic polyvinyl alcohol incorporating one or more quaternary ammonium groups). Recitation of “when exposed to 10,000 ppm·h of chlorine, the filter has a permeance value of from 13.7 L/m2/h/bar to 29.8 L/m2/h/bar and a rejection value ranging from 90.7% to 98.5% under alkaline conditions when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus” is considered to be met as the filter of Nitto is substantially identical to the claimed filter in composition.
Regarding claim 66, Nitto discloses a polymeric substrate (see page 7, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 71, Nitto discloses the crosslinking additive is cationic polyDADMAC (see page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA)).
Recitation of “the filter has permeance values ranging from 13.7 to 29.8 (L/m2/h/bar) when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus, and the filter has rejection value ranging from 86.9% to 99.2% under acid conditions when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus” is considered to be met as the filter of Nitto is substantially identical to the claimed filter in composition.
Regarding claim 72, Nitto discloses that the filter has a crosslinking additive including a cationic polymer and an adhesive additive including a cationic polyvinyl alcohol (see abstract; page 7, line 29 – page 8, line 5; page 11, lines 6-9; page 12, lines 21-22: crosslinker includes a poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride (PDADMA) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) which is a cationic polyvinyl alcohol incorporating one or more quaternary ammonium groups). Recitation of “the filter has a permeance value ranging from 11.0 to 23.8 L/m2/h/bar and a rejection value ranging from 86.6% to 99.5% under acidic conditions when measured using the probe molecule Rose Bengal in the cross-flow apparatus” is considered to be met as the filter of Nitto is substantially identical to the claimed filter in composition.
Regarding claim 73, Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Claimed chlorine species does not impart patentability to the claims of the filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1142. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, IN SUK BULLOCK can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/John Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
JK
5/20/26
Prosecution Insights