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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jeon et al. (US 9,724,651).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon teaches processes for preparing TFC membranes by preparing an aqueous phase and an organic phase comprising a polyfunctional acid halide, contacting the phases, and thereby causing interfacial polymerization to form a discrimination layer and a TFC/RO membrane (Jeon, col. 5, lines. 38–65). Jeon further teaches that the flux-enhancing inclusion complex may be present in the aqueous phase and that the host component of the inclusion complex may be a crown ether (Jeon, col. 6, lines. 1–8; col. 9, lines. 25–40). Exemplary crown ethers include 12-crown-4, 15-crown-5, 18-crown-6, 20-crown-6, 21-crown-7, and 24-crown-8 (Jeon, col. 9, lines. 25–40). Thus, Jeon teaches an aqueous solution comprising a claimed crown-ether macrocycle and an organic solution comprising an acid-halide monomer, wherein contact between the solutions initiates interfacial polymerization forming the TFC membrane. Jeon expressly identifies water as the preferred solvent for the aqueous phase and an organic phase for the acid halide (Jeon, col. 5, lines. 38–55).
Regarding claim 8, Jeon teaches suitable nonpolar organic liquids including pentanes and hexanes for dissolving the acid-halide monomer (Jeon, col. 25, lines. 1–16). Jeon additionally identifies tetrahydrofuran, diethyl ether, dichloromethane and acetone as suitable co-solvents (Jeon, col. 6, lines. 51–65). Thus, Jeon teaches organic solvents expressly recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Jeon teaches that the organic-phase monomer may be a polyfunctional acid halide, including trimesoyl chloride, trimellitic acid chloride, isophthaloyl chloride, and terephthaloyl chloride (Jeon, col. 6, lines. 15-20; col. 24, lines. 54-65). Regarding claims 10-13, Jeon teaches that a TFC membrane comprises a porous support layer and a discrimination layer formed thereon, wherein the discrimination layer may comprise polyamide formed by interfacial polymerization (Jeon, col. 22, lines. 13–38). Thus, Jeon teaches multiple membrane layers, a polyamide TFC membrane, formation on a support, and a porous support. Regarding claim 14, Jeon teaches porous support layers comprising polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and polyacrylonitrile (Jeon, col. 21, lines. 1–30). Regarding claim 15, Jeon teaches contacting the porous support with the aqueous phase before application of the organic phase, including by floating, casting, spraying, or immersing the support in the aqueous phase (Jeon, col. 24, lines. 65–67 through col. 25, lines. 1–15). Jeon further teaches embodiments in which the crown-ether-containing inclusion complex is present in the aqueous phase. Accordingly, the support is conditioned by contact with the aqueous solution comprising the macrocycle. Regarding claim 16, Jeon teaches that the support may be treated with the aqueous phase for a time ranging from about 1 second to about 24 hours or longer (Jeon, col. 24, lines. 15-26), which encompasses the claimed 1-60 minute range.
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 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.
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 9,724,651).
Regarding claim 4, Jeon teaches crown ethers having defined molecular cavities and expressly teaches selecting a crown ether whose cavity accommodates the guest component (Jeon, col. 9, lines. 25–40). Jeon identifies numerous crown ethers differing in ring/cavity size. It would have been obvious to select a known crown ether having a cavity within the claimed 1-10 Å range according to the desired molecular or ionic size to be accommodated, because Jeon expressly teaches cavity size as the selection criterion.
Regarding claim 5, Jeon teaches that the discrimination layer forming the TFC membrane is a very thin polyamide layer produced by interfacial polymerization (Jeon, col. 22, lines. 13–38; col. 24, lines. 43–58). Selection of a thickness within the claimed 1-1000 nm range would have been an obvious optimization of the thin selective layer to balance permeability and solute rejection.
Regarding claim 7, Jeon does not expressly disclose that the polymerization reaction occurs for 1 minute to 30 minutes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the interfacial polymerization of Jeon for an effective period of time sufficient to form the desired TFC discrimination layer, including a time within the claimed range of 1-30 minutes. The duration of contact/polymerization is a conventional process parameter that necessarily would have been selected and optimized by the skilled artisan to obtain the desired membrane layer. Determining an effective reaction time within the claimed range would have involved no more than routine experimentation and optimization of a known process parameter.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al., as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Singh et al. “Pillar [5]arene/Matrimid™ materials for high-performance methane purification membrane” Journal of Membrane Science. 539 (2017) 224–228).
The process of Jeon is as discussed above. Jeon teaches forming a TFC membrane by interfacial polymerization in the presence of a macrocyclic crown ether, but does not teach that the macrocycle comprises a pillar[4]arene, pillar[5]arene, pillar[6]arene, pillar[7]arene, or pillar[8]arene.
Singh et al. teaches pillar[5]arene (P5-SOF) as a microporous component of a polymer separation membrane (Singh, Abstract; p. 225, §2.1). Specifically, Singh teaches blending P5-SOF with Matrimid-5218 to produce mixed-matrix membranes and reports that the resulting membranes exhibit high gas-separation selectivity. Singh further teaches selecting P5-SOF based on its pore-aperture sizes and selective transport properties and demonstrates preparation of P5-SOF-containing polymer membranes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the pillar[5]arene taught by Singh as the macrocyclic membrane component in Jeon's membrane, because Singh establishes that pillar[5]arene was a known microporous membrane material providing molecular-size-selective transport pathways, thereby providing a known alternative macrocyclic porous material for modifying membrane separation/selectivity.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as
applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Liu et al. "Effect of Polymer Surface
Modification Polymer-Protein Interaction via Hydrophilic Polymer Grafting" Journal of Food
and science Vol. 73 Nov. 3, 2008 and Delplanquea et al. "UV/ozone surface treatment increases
hydrophilicity and enhances functionality of SU-8 photoresist polymer" Applied Surface Science
vol. 314, Sept 30, 2014, pages 280-285.
The process and support of Jeon are as discussed above. In particular, Jeon teaches a TFC membrane formed on a porous polymer support and specifically identifies polysulfone and polyethersulfone supports (Jeon, col. 21, lines. 1-30; col. 22, lines. 13-20).
Jeon does not disclose irradiating the support with UV light in an ozone atmosphere.
Liu teaches UV/ozone treatment of polyethersulfone membrane surfaces to activate/modify the surface prior to subsequent membrane processing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified process of Lui by applying Liu's UV/ozone treatment to Jeon's polymer support to improve surface hydrophilicity and promote formation/adhesion of the subsequently formed membrane layer.
Delplanque teaches a UV/ozone exposure time falling within the claimed 10-second to 30-minute range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Jeon/Liu by utilizing an UV/ozone exposure time falling within the claimed 10-second to 30-minute range as suggested by Delphanque because such exposure times are known to be effective.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights