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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 5/22/2024 and 8/31/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 24 recites “The use of a polyarylether copolymer (P)” without setting forth any steps involved in the process of use which renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret a membrane formed from a copolymer which meets the limitations of claim 16 as meeting the limitation of claim 24. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the polyarylether polymer (P)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the claims from which claim 30 depends do not introduce a polyarylether polymer (P), rather they recite a polyarylether copolymer (P) (emphasis added). Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21-25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al., US 2017/0240708 (“Lim”)
Regarding claims 16-18, Lim discloses a copolymer and process of making said copolymer wherein the copolymer is formed from a diol component comprising a sugar alcohol and a dihalogenated sulfone component [abstract, 0009, 0015]. Lim teaches an example of a process of preparing a polyarylene ether copolymer comprising a step of polymerizing a reaction mixture [abstract, 0028, 0041, Table 1 – Example 5]. The reaction mixture comprises 0.5 moles of isosorbide, 1.0 moles of 4,4’-dichlorodiphenyl sulfone (DCDPS) and 0.5 moles of bisphenol A (BPA) [0041].
The DCDPS reads on the claimed 4,4’-dihalodiphenylsulfone (A1). Since no other dihalodiphenylsulfones are present in the reaction mixture the dihalodiphenylsulfone component of the reaction mixture consists of 4,4’dihalodiphenylsulfone. The isosorbide and BPA components of the reaction mixture respectively correspond to the claimed sugar alcohol (B1) and aromatic dihydroxyl components (B2). The relative amounts of the isosorbide and BPA components taught by Lim falls within the range of amounts recited in claims 16-18.
Regarding claims 19 and 22, Lim teaches that the reaction mixture comprises N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) and potassium carbonate [0041] which respectively correspond to the at least one aprotic polar solvent and at least one carbonate component recited in claim 19. Additionally, the NMP of the disclosed reaction mixture reads on the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone recited in claim 22.
Regarding claim 21, the 4,4’-dichlorodiphenylsulfone of the disclosed reaction mixture reads on the claimed 4,4’-dichlorodiphenylsulfone.
Regarding claim 23, the copolymer product of the disclosed process reads on the claimed polyarylene ether copolymer.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Lim teaches forming a film for the copolymer product of the disclosed process [0056, Table 4 – Example 5] which corresponds to the claimed membrane.
Regarding claim 28, Lim teaches forming the disclosed film by providing a solution comprising the copolymer reaction product in a solvent, and then desolventizing in a methanol bath [0056].
Regarding claim 29, the NMP of the disclosed reaction mixture reads on the N-methylpyrrolidone recited in claim 29.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 20, while in the example (Example 5) of Lim described above utilizes BPA as an aromatic diol component, Lim teaches that the aromatic diol component may be, inter alia, 4,4’-biphenol (i.e., 4,4’-dihydroxybipenyl) [0019]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have substituted the BPA utilized in Lim’s Example 5 with 4,4’-dihydroxybipenyl as Lim teaches that they are equivalent as an aromatic diol components (see MPEP 2144.06).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claims 16 and 23 above, and further in view of Röttger et al., US 5,919,370 (“Röttger”).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, as is described above, Lim discloses a process for the preparation of a copolymer and copolymer product which respectively meet the limitations of claims 16 and 23. The disclosed copolymer is a polyether sulfone [0028]. Lim also teaches that the disclosed copolymer is eco-friendly, has improved chemical and heat resistance and is useful for making dialysis membranes for blood (i.e., hemodialysis membranes) [abstract, 0001, 0009, 0033]. Lim is silent regarding a dense, porous, or asymmetric membrane.
Röttger discloses an asymmetric hemodialysis membrane comprising a porous separating layer A, a support layer B, and a layer C (abstract, col. 3 lines 16-40). Röttger teaches that it is particularly advantageous for the membrane to consists of at least 80 wt% of polyether sulfone (col. 4 lines 1-3).
Lim and Röttger are both directed towards hemodialysis membranes formed from a polyether sulfone resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized the copolymer of Lim to form the hemodialysis membrane of Röttger in order to take advantage of the copolymers eco-friendliness and improved resistance to chemicals and heat. The resulting membrane would have read on the membrane of claim 25 and the asymmetric membrane of claim 27. Additionally, since the membrane would have comprised a porous separating layer A it would have also read on the porous membrane of claim 26.
Claims 25, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claims 16 and 23 above, and further in view of Mabuchi et al., JP 2005/342411 (“Mabuchi”)(machine translation provided herewith).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, as is described above, Lim discloses a process for the preparation of a copolymer and copolymer product which respectively meet the limitations of claims 16 and 23. The disclosed copolymer is a polyether sulfone [0028]. Lim also teaches that the disclosed copolymer is eco-friendly, has improved chemical and heat resistance and is useful for making dialysis membranes for blood [abstract, 0001, 0009, 0033]. Lim is silent regarding a porous membrane.
Mabuchi discloses a polysulfone-based selectively permeable hollow fiber membrane blood dialysis [0001, 0022-0025]. The membrane is formed from a composition comprising a polysulfone resin and a hydrophilic polymer [0017]. The disclosed membrane has an outer surface having a porosity of 8 to 25% [0058].
Lim and Mubachi are both directed towards blood dialysis membranes formed from a polyether sulfone resin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized the copolymer of Lim to form the membrane of Mabuchi in order to take advantage of the copolymers eco-friendliness and improved resistance to chemicals and heat. The resulting membrane would have read on the membrane of claim 25. Additionally, since the membrane would have comprised a porous outer layer A it would have also read on the porous membrane of claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, Mabuchi teaches forming the disclosed membrane from a solution comprising a polyether sulfone resin and the solvent, dimethylacetamide [0092] which corresponds to the claimed providing a solution comprising a polyarylether copolymer and a solvent. The solution was then exposed to an aqueous solution of dimethylacetamide which serves as an internal solidification agent resulting in the formation of a hollow fiber membrane [0092]. The resulting hollow fiber membrane is then passed through water to remove the solvent [0092] which corresponds to the claimed separating the at least one solvent from the solution.
Regarding claim 29, the dimethylacetamide of the solution taught by Mabuchi reads on the claimed N-dimethylacetamide.
Regarding claim 30, Mabuchi teaches that the solution from which the hollow fiber membrane was formed comprises 17.6 mass percent of the polyethersulfone relative to the total weight of the components of the solution [0092].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/LEE E SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights