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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,5 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claim 1 is objected to because the recitations for Triton X-100 and Tween 80 Lines 15-16) state numerical ranges without concentration units. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to identify whether each range is, for example, w/v, v/v, or w/w.
(ii) Claim 5 recites “one or more ethanol and acetone (line 2). It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “one or more of ethanol and acetone”.
(iii) Claim 20 recites “2.39 LMH/bar or higher (up to 6.86 LMH/bar)”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “2.39-6-86 LMH/bar”.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 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.
(i) Claim 1 recites “support surface” (line 18) it is indefinite because it has no antecedent basis.
(ii) Claim 1 recites “0.01-0.2% w/v surfactant (0.01-0.2% w/v sodium dodecyl sulfate, 0.01-0.5 Triton x-100 (C14-H22O(C21H4O)n), or 0.01-0.5 Tween 80 (C64H124O26))” (lines 15-16) and Triton X-100 and Tween 80 extends to 0.5. It is unclear whether the general 0.01-0.2% range controls every surfactant or whether each listed surfactant has its own range.
(iii) Claim 1 recites Triton X-100 and Tween 80. These limitations are both trademarks used to identify a particular material. A trademark identifies the source of goods rather than the material itself which makes it uncertain. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation by replacing the trademark with the appropriate chemical name, composition or other objective material description. See MPEP 2173.05(u).
(iv) Claim 6 and 8 is objected to since the event to be carried out is unclear. The event from which the 30-180 seconds (claim 6) and 30-90 seconds (claim 8) interval begins needs to be identified.
(v) Claim 11 is indefinite because “green lignin” lacks objective boundaries. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to replace the “green” with an objectively defined structural, compositional, source-based, or process-based limitation.
(vi) Claim 19 recites “flux decline…”is unclear because it doesn’t identify the initial or normalized reference flux or the equation used to calculate flux decline. For the examining purposed only the recitation “flux decline” is interpreted as “the reference baseline in normalized flux monitoring is the permeate flow or permeability measured under either initial clean membrane conditions, or post-replacement steady-state conditions, corrected for temperature, operating pressure, feedwater quality, and recovery. This baseline enables operators to assess whether the membrane is exhibiting normal aging/fouling or signals early signs of irreversible deterioration” in view of the Specification (¶¶ [0064-0066]) of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter and Allowed Claims
Claims 1-21 are allowed if previously presented objections to claims 1, 5 and 20, and 35 U.S.C 112 (b) rejections to claims 1-21 are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. A thorough search for pertinent art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 1-21. The concept of a method of making a high-performance thin-film composite (TFC) membrane, the method comprising: (i) preparing a polysulfone (PSf) support membrane by (c) casting the solution on a 90-110-micron thick nonwoven polyester support while maintaining a cast thickness at about 0.12 microns to form a cast film; (e) removing the one or more solvents, and thereafter treating the formed support membrane with ethanol followed by hexane, specifically, and the integrated sequential preparation of a method of making a high-performance thin-film composite membrane of claim 1 as a whole, is considered novel.
A closest prior art to Reddy et. al., (US 10,384, 171 B2, hereinafter as “Reddy”) discloses manufacturing a polysulfone (PSf)-supported polyamide thin-film composite reverse osmosis membrane. Reddy teaches a PSf support on polyester fabric, an aqueous MPD (m-phenylene diamine) containing dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), TMC (trimesyl chloride)-based interfacial polymerization, curing and washing. But Reddy does not disclose the claimed process as an integrated sequence, particularly: (c) a PSf/PVP (polyvinylpyrrolidone) cast film having a literal 0.12 microns on a 90-100 µm non-woven polyester support; (d) immediately immersing the cast film in a water precipitation bath; (e) conditioning that formed PSf support with ethanol followed by hexane before forming the selective layer; and performing the specifically recited aqueous-diamine and organic phase processing conditions in steps ii-vi of claim 1.
Other pertinent prior art to Revanur et al., (US 8,920,654 B2, hereinafter as “Revanur”) discloses a PVP-containing porous support formulations, aqueous phase inversion, and conventional polyamide TFC formation. Revanur does not teach the claimed 0.12 microns PSf/PVP cast film on the claimed non-woven polyester backing or the claimed ethanol-followed-hexane conditioning of the reinforced ultra-thin support.
Other pertinent prior art to Hasbullah et al. (Cysteine-modified copper oxide nanoparticle doped in polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane for protein removal and treatment of poultry wastewater, Research Square, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2082833/v1, pp. 1-46, hereinafter as “Hasbullah”) discloses a PSf/PVP dope cast at a stated thickness of approximately 0.12 microns. Hasbullah, however, casts an ultrafiltration membrane on glass and does not teach the claimed 90-100-micron non-woven polyester reinforcement, the sequential ethanol/hexane treatment, or subsequent formation of the claimed MPD/TMC TFC layer.
Other pertinent prior art to Mansoor et al. (Development of low-pressure reverse osmosis membrane for desalination process, MOJ Ecology & Environmental Sciences, 2019, vol. 4, (3), pp. 133-139, hereinafter as “Mansoor”) discloses a sequential ethanol and n-hexane treatment of a phase inverted PSf/PVP desalination membrane. Mansoor does not teach the claimed 0.12 microns reinforced PSf/PVP film or the use of that solvent-conditioned film as the support for the subsequent recited polyamide-supporting process.
The cited prior art, alone or in combination do not teach or suggest an integrated and sequential method of making a high-performance thin-film composite membrane, the method comprising:(i) preparing a polysulfone (PSf) support membrane by:(a) dissolving PSf in dimethylformamide (DMF) so as to form a uniform solution;(b) maintaining a concentration of polyvinylpyrrolidone in the uniform solution at a range of 0.5-3.0 wt % by adding one or more solvents;(c) degassing the solution, and thereafter casting the solution on a 90-110-micron thick nonwoven polyester support while maintaining a cast thickness at about 0.12 microns to form a cast film;(d) immediately immersing the cast film in a water precipitation bath and initiating phase separation;(e) removing the one or more solvents, and thereafter treating the formed support membrane with ethanol followed by hexane;(ii) contacting the formed support membrane with an aqueous diamine solution comprising 1-3% w/v MPD, 0.5-5% w/v dimethyl sulfoxide, 0.5-2% v/v triethylamine, 0.5-2% w/v camphor sulfonic acid, and 0.01-0.2% w/v surfactant (0.01-0.2% w/v sodium dodecyl sulfate, 0.01-0.5 Triton x-100 (C14-H22O(C21H4O)n), or 0.01-0.5 Tween 80 (C64H124O26)), for a time period of about 120 seconds;(iii) removing excess aqueous diamine solution from the support surface;(iv) gently pouring an organic solution containing 0.15% w/v TMC and 5-15% v/v co-solvent in hexane on the support surface and initiating an interfacial polymerization reaction;(v) draining the organic solution from the support surface, and heating the support surface and membrane formed thereon at about 800C for about 5 minutes; and (vi) washing the formed membrane, as recited in claim 1 of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights