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 without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 19MAY2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK (KR 20220083902).
Regarding claim 1, PARK teaches a method of fabricating thin-film composite membrane with interlayer structure and its applications (title) including a composite filtration membrane comprising a sulfonated polyethersulfone (SPES; par. [0014]) and MXenes (par. [0013]).
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et. al. 2017 “Preparation of a new 2D MXene/PES composite membrane with excellent hydrophilicity and high flux” in view of QIAO et. al. 2022 “An adsorptive sulfonated polyethersulfone/ functionalized graphene ultrafiltration membrane for hardness removal”.
Regarding claim 1, HAN teaches preparation of a new 2D MXene/PES composite membrane with excellent hydrophilicity and high flux (title) including a composite filtration membrane (title, abstract) comprising polyethersulfone (PES) and MXenes (abstract).
HAN does not teach a sulfonated polyethersulfone (SPES). However, QIAO teaches an adsorptive sulfonated polyethersulfone/ functionalized graphene ultrafiltration membrane for hardness removal” (title), where a polyethersulfone membrane is sulfonated (SPES), which allows the membrane to form hydrogen bonds and improve the uniformity of a membrane modified with 2D materials (abstract; see also P4/left C).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of HAN to be SPES in order to improve the uniformity of 2D MXene in the membrane. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of membrane separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Regarding claims 2-3, HAN teaches the MXenes follow the formula: Mn+1XnTx, where M is e.g. Ti; X is e.g. C; Tx is e.g. OH; and n is e.g. 2, which is Ti3C2Tx (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, HAN teaches the MXenes include titanium (abstract) and
a weight percentage of e.g. 0.25 (M4; TABLE 1), which anticipates the claimed range of from about 0.2 wt.% to about 20 wt.%.
Regarding claim 5, both HAN and QIAO teach the composite filtration membrane is an ultrafiltration membrane (abstract) and therefore HAN’s modified membrane is expected to have a pore size of e.g. 25-33 nm (QIAO TABLE 1), which anticipates the claimed range of about 1 nm to about 100 nm.
Cited Art
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ALANSARI et. al. “MXene-Enhanced Electromembrane Systems for Advanced Water Applications: A Review”.
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, VICKIE KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights