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 Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 112 is withdrawn by the examiner in view of the amendment filed on 2/13/2026
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.
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 1, 3-5, and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. “Preparation and characterization of anti-fouling b-cyclodextrin/polyester thin film nanofiltration composite membrane”, Journal of Membrane Science, Volume 428, 1 February 2013, Pages 301-308 in view of Kim et al. “Calix[4]azacrown Ethers in Polymeric CTA Membrane” Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 2001, Vol. 22 No. 5. pages 519-522.
Wu teaches a method of making a thin film composite (TFC) membrane via interfacial polymerization between an aqueous solution and an organic solution containing a monomer. Specifically, Wu discloses providing an aqueous solution comprising β-cyclodextrin in water, and adding an organic solution comprising trimesoyl chloride (TMC) in n-hexane to the aqueous solution to form a TFC membrane via interfacial polymerization (Wu, p. 302; Abstract; Fig. 1).
Wu does not disclose that the macrocycle comprises a pillararene, crown ether, calixarene, porphyrin, or a combination thereof.
Kim teaches that macrocycles such as calixarenes and calix-crown ethers are macrocyclic compounds used in polymeric membranes for selective transport. Specifically, Kim discloses that “calixarenes … are macrocyclic compounds … inclusion hosts for ions and specific molecules” and that such macrocycles are incorporated into polymer inclusion membranes (Kim, pp. 519–522) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cyclodextrin macrocycle of Wu with another known macrocycle such as a calixarene or crown ether as taught by Kim, since such macrocycles are known to possess similar cyclic host–guest structures and are used in membrane systems to achieve predictable results.
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.
Wu as modified by teaches forming a thin film composite membrane on a polymer support (e.g., polysulfone support) via interfacial polymerization (Wu, p. 302; Fig. 3), wherein macrocycles are incorporated into membrane systems (Kim, pp. 519–522) .
Wu and Kim, however, do not disclose irradiating the support with UV light in an atmosphere of ozone.
Liu teaches treating polymer membranes, including polyethersulfone-based membranes, with UV/ozone irradiation to modify surface properties and improve subsequent membrane formation and performance.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the UV/ozone surface treatment of Liu et al. to the polymer support of Wu et al. (as modified by Kim et al.) to improve surface hydrophilicity and adhesion of the interfacial polymerization layer, and to employ irradiation times within the claimed range of 10 seconds to 30 minutes as a matter of routine optimization.
Response to Arguments
The argument that Wu does not disclose that the macrocycle comprises a pillararene, crown ether, calixarene, porphyrin, or a combination thereof is not persuasive because of the new rejections above.
Conclusion
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 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