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 § 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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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 2: “or similar” is indefinite
Claim 4: “different concentrations, varying between…” is indefinite. Unclear if the concentration is varied during a process, or if the concentration variation is for different processes. The Markush group recited would result in an unlimited number of possibilities, and the “combinations thereof” further confounds the issue.
Claims 5, 8: The Markush group would result in unlimited possibilities (a polymer, a ceramic, a glass, derivatives of cellulose). The combinations would result in unworkable possibilities. Additionally, claim 5 depends from claim 1, which has a temperature range that goes up to 120C. Most polymers and cellulose derivatives do not withstand such high temperature. Similar issues with claim 8.
Claim 9: the Markush group is improper (no structural similarity,) and also result in unlimited combinations.
Claim 11: Improper Markush group confounded by use of and/or, and unlimited possibilities. Use of “such as” is indefinite. Claim 11 also recites uses without any tangible process steps, and appears like an omnibus claim.
General: Examiner suggest applicant reviewing MPEP 2117 for Markush group.
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(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as unpatentable over Majumder et al (US 10,835,873).
Majumder teaches making two types of GO membranes: one by shear-aligning (SAM) using doctor blade coating and the other by vacuum filtration. Both GO membranes are then reduced using hydrazine vapor to produce rGO membrane as claimed. See abstract and col. 13, lines 50-53. The TrGO is listed as optional in the claim, and therefore, not considered, but Majumder does teach application of heat in addition to the hydrazine reduction (see claim 5.) The process is carried out for 5 min at 60C, exposing the GO membrane in a sealed container to hydrazine vapor from 88% [water] solution. Supports as claimed – see col. 12, lines 33-43. Thickness – 65-365 nm on nylon support: col. 19, lines 64-65; 50 – 400 in fig. 23. For the support for fixing the membrane, see below.
Claim 7-9: Majumder teaches the process as conducted in a hermetically sealed vessel, but does not provide any details of how the membrane is supported or what would be the vessel made of. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glass or metal for this purpose (that can be heated on a hot plate.) Regarding membrane support, all it requires is a stand or wire mesh inside the container, so that the membrane is not directly in contact with the hydrazine solution. Such details would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
According to MPEP 2143, the following rationales would apply for an obviousness analysis.
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Claim 10: Majumder teaches such a membrane -see abstract, examples, and col. 1 lines 53-60. Improvement in the recited properties are also inherent. Same membrane.
Claim 11: applicant recites all possible uses for the membrane. Nanofiltration – see col. 1, line 26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights