DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims: Claims 1-15 are pending. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 4, 8, 10, and 13-15 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 4: The claim uses the term “may”. The term “may” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not. For the purposes of examination the limitations following “may” are interpreted as optional. Regarding Claim 8: The claim states “which may independently be…” The term “may” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the limitations that follow are required by the claim or not. Regarding Claims 10 and 13-15: Claims 10 and 13 are use claims (“using…as” and “using…for”) that contain no steps, only the intended use. It is therefore not clear what the method is limited to. Claims 14 and 15 do not add any method steps to the limitation of claim 13. 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 , 2, 4 , 5, 7 -14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) . Regarding Claim 1: Zhou teaches the composite material comprising an organic polymer (pore-filling polymer) (see para. 0086) and a layered material (porous substrate) having a pore system with open pores (see para. 0031) , wherein the open pores extend continuously through the layered material (see fig. 1) , and wherein the pores on a first side (nanoporous layer) of the layered material have a smaller average pore size than on a second side (macroporous layer) opposite the first side (porous substrate may be asymmetric) (see para. 0040, fig. 1, para. 0049) , characterized in that the organic polymer is located in the open pores (pore-filling polymer composition) (see para. 0040) , wherein the organic polymer is introduced into the pore system from homogeneous solution and subsequently immobilized. Regarding Claim 2: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the organic polymer is an absorption polymer (more permeable liquid is absorbed) (see para. 0137) . Regarding Claim 4: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1 , wherein the organic polymer is a hydroxy- or amino group-containing polymer (amine modified polyester triacrylate, polyvinyl alcohol ) which may contain further organic radicals in the side chain (see para. 0086 , 0092 ) . Regarding Claim 5: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the organic polymer is bound to the composite material by crosslinking (see para. 0083) and/or covalent bonding, adsorptive bonding and/or ionic bonding . Regarding Claim 7: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the first side has an average pore size (0.5 nm to 100 nm) (see para. 0066) , wherein the average pore size of the first side is at least 3% smaller than the average pore size of the second side (1 micron to 1000 microns is a difference of more than 3%) (see para. 0069). Regarding Claim 8: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the l ayered material is composed of one or more layers (three layers) which may independently be an organic polymer or an inorganic material (see para. 0040) . Regarding Claim 9: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the l ayered material is in the form of organic or inorganic monoliths (such as a ceramic porous substrate) (see para. 0052) . Regarding Claim 10: Zhou teaches the method of filtration comprising using a composite material according to any claim 1 as a filtration membrane (use for nanofiltration) (see para. 0052, 0124) . Regarding Claim 11: Zhou teaches the filtration membrane comprising a composite material according to claim 1 (see para. 0052). Regarding Claim 12: Zhou teaches the filtration membrane according to claim 11, which has a form ,wherein the form of the filtration membrane is a flat membrane, a tubular membrane or a hollow fiber membrane (see para. 0052). Regarding Claim 13: Zhou teaches the method for purification comprising using the filtration membrane according to claim 11 for the purification of liquids and/or for the separation of substances from liquids (see para. 0124) . Regarding Claim 14: Zhou teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the substances are metals/metal compounds and/or organic substances (removal of organic compound from aqueous solutions) (see para. 0124). 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. 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. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mika et al (USPN 6,258,276) . Regarding Claim 3: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1 . Zhou does not explicitly teach wherein the organic polymer is a hydrogel. Mika teaches a layered material with a polymer hydrogel in the pores (see Abstract). Mika further teaches that the material is suitable for pervaporation (see col. 1 lines 57-58). Zhou and Mika are analogous inventions in the art of porous membranes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the polymer material of Zhou, with the hydrogel material of Mika because it is the simple substitution of one pore filling polymer with another pore filling polymer known to be suitable for use in pervaporation membranes (pervaporation is the application of the material in Zhou) (see para. 0124). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) . Regarding Claim 6: Zhou teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the first side has an average pore size, wherein the average pore size of the pores on the first side is in the range of 0.5nm to 100nm (see para. 0066). Given that the prior art range overlaps the claimed range of 6 nm to 20,000 nm a prima facie case of obviousness exists and one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a pore side on the first side within the claimed range. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Childs et al (WO 2004/073843) . Regarding Claim 15: Zhou teaches the method according to claim 13. Zhou does not explicitly teach the substances are bacteria of viruses. Childs teaches the use of a composite materials for the removal of viruses (see pg. 41 lines 14-25). Childs further teaches that the composite material is a porous support material with a cross-linked gel filling the pores and can be in the form of a membrane (see pg. 2 lines 26-pg. 3 line 4 , pg. 4 lines 16-20 ). Zhou and Childs are analogous inventions in the art of composite materials. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the filtration membrane of Zhou for the separation of viruses, as disclosed by Childs because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate uses for a known material. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5133 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /CLAIRE A NORRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 2/23/2026