DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an application filed with the US on 06/28/2024 and having an Effective Filing Date of 06/28/2024, in which claims 1-10 are pending and ready for examination.
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 statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01 OCTOBER 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “gradually”. The term “gradually” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yafei Li, et al.; Antifouling, High-Flux Nanofiltration Membranes Enabled by Dual Functional Polydopamine. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 23 April 2014; 6 (8): 5548–5557. (hereinafter “Li”) in view of Chongdan Luo, Qingxia Liu; Oxidant-Induced High-Efficient Mussel-Inspired Modification on PVDF Membrane with Superhydrophilicity and Underwater Superoleophobicity Characteristics for Oil/Water Separation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8 March 2017; 9 (9): 8297–8307. (hereinafter “Luo”).
Regarding Claim 1 Li discloses a nanofiltration membrane comprising:
a porous membrane that comprises a polymer (Polyethersulfone (PES) ultrafiltration membrane support);
a derivatized polydopamine layer disposed on one side of the porous membrane; where the derivatized polydopamine layer is disposed on the porous membrane (PDA layer is further modified by grafting fluorinated polyamine); see Abstract, Scheme 1, Preparation and Modification of the Composite Membrane.
Li does not disclose the derivatized polydopamine layer is disposed on the porous membrane in the presence of an oxidizing agent.
However Luo discloses adding oxidant to the PDA polymerization solution is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties. (Abstract, Introduction, 2.2. Fabrication of Modified Membranes, Conclusions.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li by depositing/polymerizing the PDA in the presence of an oxidizing agent as disclosed by Luo because including an oxidant is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties.
Regarding Claim 2 Li in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, where the polydopamine layer is derivatized with an amine, supra
Regarding Claim 4 Li in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, where the porous membrane has a pore size of 10-20 nm (Li Surface Morphologies of the Composite Membranes) and is thus seen to have a nominal pore size in the range of 10-20 nm.
Regarding Claim 7 Li in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, where the oxidizing agent comprises a periodate; Luo Abstract, Abstract, Introduction, 2.2. Fabrication of Modified Membranes,
Regarding Claim 9 Li discloses a method of coating a porous membrane, comprising:
disposing a porous membrane in a solution comprising a dopamine monomer, a buffer (Tris-HCl), and a solvent (i.e. water), in a container (i.e. inherently) which may be considered a reactor; where the dopamine monomer and the buffer are added to the reactor;
forming a polydopamine layer on the porous membrane; and
derivatizing the polydopamine layer with an amine (i.e. further modified by grafting fluorinated polyamine); see Abstract, Scheme 1, Preparation and Modification of the Composite Membrane.
Li does not disclose an oxidizing agent, which is added to the reactor along with the dopamine monomer and the buffer to form the polydopamine layer.
However Luo discloses adding oxidant to the PDA polymerization solution (i.e. added to a reactor along with a dopamine monomer and a buffer to form the polydopamine layer) is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties. (Abstract, Introduction, 2.2. Fabrication of Modified Membranes, Conclusions.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li by depositing/polymerizing the PDA in the presence of an oxidizing agent, by adding to the reactor along with the dopamine monomer and the buffer to form the polydopamine layer as disclosed by Luo because including an oxidant is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties.
Regarding Claim 10 Li discloses a method of purifying a liquid comprising:
passing a liquid through a filtration membrane; where the filtration membrane comprises:
a porous membrane;
a derivatized polydopamine layer (PDA layer is further modified by grafting fluorinated polyamine) disposed on one side of the porous membrane; where the derivatized polydopamine layer is disposed on the porous membrane; and
removing Orange GII, Congo red, and Methylene blue, poly(ethylene glycol) (i.e. ionic and/or particulate impurities) from the liquid; See Abstract, Scheme 1, Preparation and Modification of the Composite Membrane, Separation Performance of the Composite Membrane.
Li does not appear to disclose that the Orange GII, Congo red, and Methylene blue, poly(ethylene glycol) are mixed, i.e. the experimental data only test one contaminant at a time, and does not disclose removing ionic and particulate impurities from the/one liquid.
However, Li discloses that nanofiltration membranes “can effectively retain some salts, bacteria, viruses, pesticides and other organic contaminants from groundwater and wastewater streams”, i.e. including ionic and particulate impurities (Introduction).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li by filtering any mixture of salts, bacteria, viruses, pesticides and other organic contaminants from a groundwater or wastewater stream, because this a known application for similar nanofiltration membranes.
Li does not disclose the derivatized polydopamine layer is disposed on the porous membrane in the presence of an oxidizing agent.
However Luo discloses adding oxidant to the PDA polymerization solution is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties. (Abstract, Introduction, 2.2. Fabrication of Modified Membranes, Conclusions.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li by depositing/polymerizing the PDA in the presence of an oxidizing agent as disclosed by Luo because including an oxidant is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Luo further in view of Hao-Cheng Yang, Kun-Jian Liao, He Huang, Qing-Yun Wu, Ling-Shu Wan, Zhi-Kang Xu; Mussel-inspired modification of a polymer membrane for ultra-high water permeability and oil-in-water emulsion separation. J. Mater. Chem. A 2014; 2 (26): 10225–10230. (hereinafter “Hao-Cheng”).
Regarding Claim 3 Li in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, but does not disclose where the polymer comprises a polyolefin or a fluoropolymer.
However Hao-Cheng discloses a similar polydopamine coated water filtration membrane, wherein the support is made from polypropylene; Abstract, Experimental Secs. 1. and 2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li in view of Luo by using for the polymer of the support polypropylene as disclosed by Hao-Cheng because this involves the simple substitution of known polymers used for polymer supports of a polydopamine coated water filtration membrane, to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful membrane.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Luo further in view of Rebecca A. Zangmeister, Todd A. Morris, Michael J. Tarlov; Characterization of Polydopamine Thin Films Deposited at Short Times by Autoxidation of Dopamine. Langmuir 9 July 2013; 29 (27): 8619–8628 (hereinafter “Zangmeister”).
Regarding Claim 6 Li in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, where the polydopamine layer has a thickness of < 10 nm (Chemical Structures and Compositions of the Composite Membranes) , but does not disclose a specific thickness.
However, Li notes that the thickness is in line with that reported by Zangmeister, who discloses that such a PDA layer has a thickness of ~2.5-10 (pg. 8622 left column)
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li in view of Luo such that the polydopamine layer has a thickness of 2.5-10 nm, since this is the thickness Li believes the film to be as is thus appropriate for such films.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Luo further in view of WO 2023111565 A1 (hereinafter “Fei”).
Regarding Claim 8 Li in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the periodate is sodium metaperiodate.
However Fi discloses forming a PDA layer, which is derivatized with PEI, and wherein sodium metaperiodate is used as an oxidative polymerization initiator [431].
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li in view of Luo by substituting for the periodate oxidizing agent sodium metaperiodate as disclosed by Fi because this involves the simple substitution of known oxidizing agents for polymerizing polydopamine, to obtain the predictable result of forming a successful PDA layer.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021248899A1 (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of Luo.
Regarding Claim 1 Chen discloses a filtration membrane comprising:
a porous membrane that comprises a polymer (polyethersulfone support body);
a derivatized polydopamine layer disposed on one side of the porous membrane; where the derivatized polydopamine layer is disposed on the porous membrane (a mixture of polydopamine and diethylamine are polymerized together to coat the membrane); Comparative Examples 1-3 and Examples 1-3.
Chen does not disclose the derivatized polydopamine layer is disposed on the porous membrane in the presence of an oxidizing agent.
However Luo discloses adding oxidant to the PDA polymerization solution is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties. (Abstract, Introduction, 2.2. Fabrication of Modified Membranes, Conclusions.
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Li by depositing/polymerizing dopamine in the presence of an oxidizing agent as disclosed by Luo because including an oxidant is known to shorten PDA film deposition time and provide more controlled polymerization which results in desirable water flux, trans membrane pressure and other membrane properties.
Regarding Claim 2 Chen in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, where the polydopamine layer is derivatized with an amine, supra.
Regarding Claim 7 Chen in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 1, where the oxidizing agent comprises a periodate; Luo Abstract, Abstract, Introduction, 2.2. Fabrication of Modified Membranes.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Luo and further in view of US 4,701,186 (hereinafter “Zampini”).
Regarding Claim 5 Chen in view of Luo discloses the filtration membrane of Claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the amine is dimethylamine.
However, Chen only discloses the preferred polyamine is diethylamine (though it is noted that diethylamine is a secondary amine, not a polyamine, this is likely a translation problem). Therefore, since diethylamine is only the preferred reactant, it would have been obvious to try further related secondary amines. Where Zampini discloses dimethylamine and diethylamine are related secondary amines (C6/L44-45).
Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filtration membrane of Chen in view of Luo by substituting for the diethylamine, another secondary amine such as dimethylamine, because it is structurally related secondary amine and is thus a known alternative to diethylamine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric J. McCullough whose telephone number is (571)272-8885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ERIC J MCCULLOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights