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 .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 03AUG2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every 102(a)(1) rejections and specification objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 26JUN2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 03AUG2026 have been fully considered.
See updated rejection below. It is obvious to modify HAN’s MXene membrane to have the 2D material (MXene) dispersed in the SPES as taught by QIAO for the purpose of improving the uniformity and performance of the membrane, because the 2D material and the SPES are mixed before casting to a membrane.
The alleged unexpected results are a result of PES sulfonation and by the applicant’s own account is expected (par. [0095]). Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). MPEP 716.02(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification as originally filed does not describe “a composite filtration membrane comprising a single membrane layer comprising sulfonated polyethersulfone (SPES).” The specification describes the membrane as the following:
MXene is a 2D nanomaterial made up of a single layer of transition metal atoms between layers of carbon atoms. [...] The MXene(s) may be present as exfoliated, 2D nanosheets, and the MXene(s) can be homogenously distributed in the bulk of the membrane. 2D nanosheets may be a single-layer thick (par. [0046]). The composite filtration membrane may include a skin layer having small finger-like pores for high selectivity and a macro-void layer having larger pores for higher mass transfer (Par. [0049]).
Claim Interpretation
The instant membrane appears to be made of MXenes that are a single-layer thick and the MXenes are dispersed throughout a bulk of the SPES membrane (spec. par. [0046]). Thus claim 1 is interpreted as:
1. A composite filtration membrane comprising sulfonated polyethersulfone (SPES) and one or more MXenes of a single layer dispersed throughout a bulk of the SPES.
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” evidenced by LIU et al. 2020 “Two-dimensional material membranes for critical separations”, and 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 is silent as to single layer MXenes. However, it is known in the art that such 2D materials (e.g. MXenes and graphene) may be delaminated into single layers to give the desired separation properties (see HAN 2.2 membrane preparation; see also LIU abstract; P2561/left C/second paragraph-right C/first paragraph under 2. Separation mechanisms; P2563/left C/3.2 MXenes; Fig. 5).
HAN does not teach a sulfonated polyethersulfone (SPES) or a 2D material dispersed throughout a bulk of the 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). SPES also has superior chemical and physical properties coupled with good separation performance (P5/left C/L1-3). Furthermore, QIAO teaches their 2D material is dispersed throughout a bulk of the SPES (see Fig. 2, where the 2D material and the PES is mixed before casting into a membrane via a ‘one-pot’ method; P5/left C-right C/L1-2).
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 and provide the MXenes dispersed throughout a bulk of the SPES in order to improve the uniformity of 2D MXene in the membrane and provide superior chemical and physical properties coupled with good separation performance. 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.
Telephonic Inquiries
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 LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays and Thursdays ~09:00~15:00 Eastern.
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, Ben Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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 1773
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights