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 group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiki JP 2016144794 in view of Shimura et al. US 2015/0190759.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 8, Yoshiki teaches a composite semipermeable membrane comprising: a microporous support layer (pg. 5), and a separation functional layer provided on the microporous support layer (abstract), the separation functional layer comprises a plurality of protrusions formed of a thin membrane comprising a cross-linked fully aromatic polyamide (pg. 8-9), in arbitrary ten cross sections perpendicular to a membrane surface direction and having a length of 2.0 micron in the membrane surface direction, an average number density of the protrusions whose height with respect to a surface of the support layer as reference in 1/5 or more of a ten-point average surface roughness of the separation function layer is 12.0 protrusions/micron or more (pg. 10) and an average value of a deformation amount when the protrusions are pressed with a force of 5 nN is 1.5nm or less (pg. 10). Yoshiki does not teach specifically 13.0 protrusions/micron or more or a standard deviation of the deformation amount.
Yoshiki further teaches that 70% or more of the protrusions deform 1.5 nm or less (pg. 10). Thus, the recited standard deviation of the deformation would appear to be inherent in the disclosure of Yoshiki. However, if the recited standard deviation is not inherent it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the variation of the deformation as providing less deformation of the protrusions improves the long-term performance stability of the membrane (pg. 10).
Shimura teaches a composite semipermeable membrane comprising: a support layer and a separation functional layer provided on the support layer, wherein the separation functional layer comprises a plurality of protrusions formed of a thin membrane comprising a crosslinked polyamide (par 138), in arbitrary ten cross sections perpendicular to a membrane surface direction and having a length of 2.0 micron in the membrane surface direction, an average number density of the protrusions whose height with respect to a surface of the support layer as reference in 1/5 or more of a ten-point average surface roughness of the separation function layer is 13.0 protrusions/micron or more (abstract, par 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide 13.0 protrusions/micron or more because the membrane has an increased surface area, sufficient water permeability is obtained, the projections can be inhibited from deforming during pressurization and stable membrane performance is obtained (par 39).
Claim 3, Shimura further teaches the average density of protrusions is 13 protrusions/micron or more and thus encompasses the recited range of 15 protrusions/micron or more. Additionally, Shimura teaches that having at least 13 protrusions/micron provides the membrane with an increased surface area, sufficient water permeability is obtained, the projections can be inhibited from deforming during pressurization and stable membrane performance is obtained (par 39). Shimura further teaches the density of protrusions should be optimized between 13-30 as too many protrusions come into contact with each other and reduce the effective surface area (par 40). Thus, Shimura clearly identifies the density of protrusions as a result effective variable and the recited range of 15 protrusions/micron is a recitation of an optimization of the number of protrusions. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiki JP 2016144794 in view of Shimura et al. US 2015/0190759 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kiyohiko et al. WO 2016 136966.
Claim 5, Yoshiki in view of Shimura teaches the membrane of claim 1 but does not teach the recited relationships between amino, carboxyl and amide groups.
Kiyohiko teaches a composite semipermeable membrane comprising: a support layer and a separation functional layer provided on the support layer (abstract), the separation functional layer comprises a plurality of protrusions formed of a thin membrane comprising a cross-linked fully aromatic polyamide (abstract) and the value of x +y calculated from amounts of amino, carboxyl and amide groups of the separation functional layer is 0.8 or less (par 37). The recited range is fully encompassed with the range taught by Kiyohiko. Additionally, Kiyohiko clearly identifies the recited relationships correlate with acid resistance (par 37). Therefore, the recited range appears to be an optimization of the ratio to achieve a desired result. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claim 6, Yoshiki in view of Shimura teaches the membrane of claim 1 and Yoshiki further teaches the thickness of the separation function layer is 10-1000 nm but does not specifically teach a thickness of 10-20 nm.
Kiyohiko teaches a composite semipermeable membrane comprising: a support layer and a separation functional layer provided on the support layer (abstract), the separation functional layer comprises a plurality of protrusions formed of a thin membrane comprising a cross-linked fully aromatic polyamide (abstract) and a thickness of the thin membrane in the protrusion is 10-20 nm (par 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the recited thickness of the thin membrane because water permeability is improved (par 31).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiki JP 2016144794 in view of Shimura et al. US 2015/0190759 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. US 2017/0136422.
Yoshiki in view of Shimura teaches the membrane of claim 1 but does not teach the recited weight of the separation functional layer.
Ogawa teaches a composite semipermeable membrane comprising: a support layer and a separation functional layer provided on the support layer (abstract), the separation functional layer comprises a plurality of protrusions formed of a thin membrane comprising a cross-linked fully aromatic polyamide (abstract) and a weight of the separation functional layer is 90-120 mg/m2 (par 50) and further teaches examples 7-9 where the weight is 101, 120 and 112 mg/m2 respectively (table 1). Ogawa teaches the recited range provides high chlorine resistance and water permeability (par 50). The recited range is merely an optimization within the range taught by the prior art. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie 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.
/BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights