DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 13-15 are amended.
Claim 10 is canceled.
This Action is Made Final.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 11-15 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previously cited prior art and further in view of Meyer et al (US 2017/0304803). The applicant argues that Zhou does not teach that the organic polymer is a polyamine selected from the group consisting of polyalkylamine, polvallylamine, polyvinylamine, polvethyleneimine, and polylysine. The applicant is correct that Zhou does not teach this limitation. However this limitation is disclosed by Meyer, which teaches an organic polymer selected from polyalkylamine, polvallylamine, polyvinylamine, polvethyleneimine, and polylysine (see Meyer para. 0036). It would have been obvious to replace the polymer of Zhou with the polymer of Meyer because Zhou teaches the membrane can be used is various separation methods (see Zhou para. 0034) and Meyer teaches that the disclosed polyamines have advantages over other polymers (see Meyer para. 0028) and have a high metal binding capacity (see para. 0030).
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 2, 4-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) in view of Meyer et al (US 2017/0304803).
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.
Zhou does not teach that the organic polymer is a polyamine selected from the group consisting of polyalkylamine, polvallylamine, polyvinylamine, polvethyleneimine, and polylysine.
Meyer teaches a composite material comprising an organic polymer selected from polyalkylamine, polvallylamine, polyvinylamine, polvethyleneimine, and polylysine (see Meyer para. 0036).
Zhou and Meyer are analogous inventions in the art of selective membranes.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of het invention to replace the polymer of Zhou with the polymer of Meyer because it is the simple substitution of one known polymer for the selective removal of one material from another with another known polymer for the selective removal of one material from another, obviously resulting in a membrane that has improved metal removal (see Meyer para, 0028). 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.). Further Zhou teaches the membrane can be used is various separation methods (see Zhou para. 0034) and Meyer teaches that the disclosed polyamines have advantages over other polymers (see Meyer para. 0028) and have a high metal binding capacity (see para. 0030). One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to select the organic polymer dependent on the type of material desired to be separated and it is known to be desirable to removal heavy metals from solution (see Meyer para. 0003).
Regarding Claim 2:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the organic polymer is an absorption polymer (more permeable liquid is absorbed, related to sorbents) (see Zhou para. 0137, Meyer para. 0002).
Regarding Claim 4:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the polyamine further contains organic radicals in the side chain (see Meyer para. 0022).
Regarding Claim 5:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the polyamine is bound to the composite material by crosslinking (see para. 0083) and/or covalent bonding, adsorptive bonding and/or ionic bonding.
Regarding Claim 6:
Zhou, as modified, 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 Zhou 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.
Regarding Claim 7:
Zhou, as modified, 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, as modified, teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the layered material is composed of one or more layers (three layers) which are independently selected from an organic polymer and an inorganic material (see Zhou para. 0040).
Regarding Claim 9:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the composite material according to claim 1, wherein the layered material is in the form of organic or inorganic monoliths (such as a ceramic porous substrate) (see Zhou para. 0052).
Regarding Claim 11:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the filtration membrane comprising a composite material according to claim 1 (see Zhou para. 0052).
Regarding Claim 12:
Zhou, as modified, 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 Zhou para. 0052).
Regarding Claim 13:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the method for purification of liquids and/or for the separation of substances from liquids , the method comprising passing a liquid comprising at least one substance to be separated from the liquid through the filtration membrane according to claim 11 (see Zhou para. 0008).
Regarding Claim 14:
Zhou, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein at least one substrate to be separated is selected from the group consisting of metals/metal compounds and/or organic substances (removal of organic compound from aqueous solutions) (see Zhou para. 0124).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) and Meyer et al (US 2017/0304803) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mika et al (USPN 6,258,276).
Regarding Claim 3:
Zhou, as modified, 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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (US 2018/0154311) and Meyer et al (US 2017/0304803) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Childs et al (WO 2004/073843).
Regarding Claim 15:
Zhou, as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
Zhou, as modified, does not teach the substances are bacteria or 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Ramdhanie Bobby 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights