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 Interpretation regarding consideration of functional language in the claims
Independent system claim 1, as well as dependent system claim 6, recites structural limitations followed by the manner to operate said limitations with corresponding functional language, or language regarding intended system use including recitations of in the system being a “fluid activation” system in the preambles of claims 1-10.
Independent claim 1, as well as dependent claim 6 contain such intended use language concerning “in the first stage, dissolved phosphorus is reacted with a ferrous salt to precipitate vivianite”, and the second stage, having a nanofiltration membrane present, being for separation of ammonium, without recitation of any corresponding apparatus structure specific to reacting, precipitation or specifically, to separation of ammonium.
In addition, dependent claim 6 merely recites presence of the chemical of ferrous sulfate heptahydrate for reacting in the system first stage, thus again not reciting any corresponding structural limitation.
It is noted that neither the manner of operating an apparatus worded as a disclosed device (or “system”), nor material or article worked upon, or transiently present in a device or system further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
Thus, claim 1 is interpreted on the merits as a system merely comprising a first stage, operable for reacting and precipitating any material present in a fluid, and a second stage having a nanofiltration membrane, operable for separating any material present in such fluid, with dependent claims 2-20, interpreted on the merits, as including the claim 1 features of a first stage, operable for reacting and precipitating any material present in a fluid, and a second stage having a nanofiltration membrane, operable for separating any material present in such fluid
Nevertheless, in the addition of facilitating compact prosecution, the claims have been examined on the merits as being potentially amended so as to positively recite system structure operable or tailored for performing the specific claim reactions, precipitation and separation.
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 1-20 are 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 regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is unclear how recitation of reacting dissolved phosphorus with a ferrous salt to precipitate vivianite corresponds to one or more first stage structural feature(s).
In claim 2, “large” preceding “particles” is a vague, relative term, since no criteria for detailing what size particles are “large” vs. being of “average”, “medium”, or “small” size.
In claim 3, “the filter” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 7, it is unclear how the recitation: “operates as a dead-end or a cross flow membrane filtration system” further structurally limits the second stage, and it is unclear whether “a cross flow membrane filtration system” refers back to the “nanofiltration membrane” introduced in claim 1, or whether such recitation may refer to an additional membrane instead of, or in addition to, such nanofiltration membrane.
In claim 9, it is unclear whether “one or more polyelectrolytes” refers back to the “one or more polyelectrolytes” introduced in claim 1, or whether such recitation may refer to one or more additional polyelectrolyte(s) instead of, or in addition to, such polyelectrolyte(s).
In claim 11, it is unclear how many layers are recited by the recitation “PDAC and SPS in alternating layers” (is more than one respective layer of each of PDAC and SPS required by such terminology?).
In claim 16, “dense” preceding “selective layer” is a vague, relative term, since no criteria for detailing what layer thickness concerns dense vs. a layer which is light, porous, or otherwise not dense.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 from which it depends, since no new structural components or features of the first stage of the system are recited.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation(s)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation is “a means for separating and recovering the precipitated vivianite” in claim 4. Such limitation is interpreted in view of its description in the Specification at paragraph [0052], as being one or both of any filter or magnet.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraldo et al US PGPUBS Document 20239947832 (Giraldo) in view of, Lee et al US PGPUBS Document 20160137802 (Lee) and English Machine translation of Patent Publication CN 10304173 (Publication ‘173), and optionally, also in view of the Escapenet English translation of Patent Publication CN 111875023 (publication ‘023) .
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Giraldo discloses a system for recovering ammonium and phosphorus from a waste stream [0003 re recovering nutrients from a high nitrogenous waste to produce solids and liquid wastes], [0025 re pre-treating to remove phosphorous] [0046 re a pre-treatment unit comprising a biological phosphorus removal unit], and [0068 and 0070 re a solids-liquid separator such as a filter, decanter or membrane to induce precipitation of phosphorous and other solids-ions]; and also [0068, and 0076 re reaction chambers to remove ammonium by reacting it to produce ammonia salts or crystals to produce fertilizers, as well as to produce nitrate crystals from nitrogen-containing species]), the system comprising:
(a) a first stage, wherein in the first stage, dissolved phosphorus is reacted so as to precipitate a phosphorous or phosphate solids or specifically, a salt
(b) a second stage, wherein a nanofiltration membrane is present in the second stage for separation of ammonium ([0155 re a second solids-liquid separator and reactor to separate ammonia salt solids or other precipitates], such second solids-liquid separator optionally comprising a membrane filtration unit such as a microfiltration or ultrafiltration unit [0153], or optionally comprise a nanofiltration membrane filter [0068, 0149]).
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, differ by requiring the nanofiltration membrane of the second stage of the system to be modified with one or more polyelectrolytes.
Lee PGPUBS Document US 20160137802 teaches production of reverse osmosis membranes or “nano-structured surface membranes, i.e. “nanofiltration membranes” for various uses [0008, 0011-0012], the membranes comprising porous polyelectrolyte multi-layer (PEM) films [0007-0008].
Lee teaches that such membrane structure enables precise control of pore size of nanopore dimension, so as to improve accuracy of separation of impurities such as in pharmaceutical manufacturing [0007-0008, 0042 and 0049-0050].
Publication ‘713 teaches a nanofiltration membrane modified with polyelectrolytes to treat wastewater, motivation in [0021-0023 poly-alkali electrolyte solution the polyamine and polybasic acyl chloride react in the process can have the effect of proton absorbent... it not only saves the conventional method need to fully dry the membrane surface of complex program, continuous technical process, short preparation period, and improves the preparation efficiency of nanofiltration membrane].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of recovering ammonia and phosphorous from liquid waste streams, to have modified the Giraldo system, by modifying the membrane of the second stage of the system to be comprised of one or more electrolytes, in the form of layers of membrane surface, as cumulatively taught by Lee and ‘713, so that the nanofiltration membrane has precise control of pore size of nanopore dimension, so as to improve accuracy of separation of impurities, such as in pharmaceutical manufacturing, and also so as to improve the preparation efficiency of the nanofiltration membrane as taught by ‘713 in [0021-0023].
Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device does, instead of what a device is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Thusly, given that claim 1 can be interpreted on the merits as a system merely comprising a second stage, operable for separating ammonia present in such fluid, recitation of “separation of ammonia” is of little patentable weight.
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom, optionally also differ by requiring the first stage of the system to be operable for reacting dissolved phosphorous with a ferrous salt to precipitate vivianite.
Publication ‘023 teaches a water treatment process for recovering phosphorus or phosphates from wastewater and organic macromolecules from wastewater at the same time [Translation 0001, 0003], so as to recover a phosphate precipitate useful as phosphate fertilizer, which has good environmental and economic benefits [0009], the phosphate utilizing ferrous sulfates for recovering the phosphates and organic macromolecules [0011], the phosphates recovered as vivianite grains or crystals [0051], which can be directly used for phosphate fertilizer [0051].
Optionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of recovering ammonia and phosphorous from liquid waste streams, to have modified the Giraldo system, by tailoring the first stage of the system to facilitate the instantly claimed reacting with ferrous sulfate to produce vivianite grains or crystals, as taught by ‘023, to enable recovering of phosphorus or phosphates from wastewater and organic macromolecules from wastewater at the same time [0001, 0003 of ‘023], the phosphates recovered in a form which can be directly used for phosphate fertilizer [0051 of ‘023]
For claim 2, Giraldo further discloses the system further comprising a pre-filter to remove large particles from the waste stream [0177 re “pretreatment unit 136”], or a solid-liquid separator 134 which may be a filter, such as a “coarse filter [0070, 0149, 0177] .
Claim 6 is deemed to not further limit the subject matter of system claim 1 from which it depends, since no new structural components or features of the first stage of the system are recited associated with the ferrous salt comprising ferrous sulfate heptahydrate. Additionally, the MPEP at Section 2114 provides Court Decisions where it has been ruled that functional limitations in apparatus claims and recitations of what a device (or “system”) does, instead of what a device (or “system”) is do not distinguish or make non-obvious apparatus claims if the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
For claim 7, although Giraldo lacks a teaching of wherein the second stage nanofiltration membrane [0068, 0149 re “nanofiltration” concerning a solids-liquid separator which necessarily operates as a dead-end or a cross flow membrane filtration system], membrane filters in filtration systems inherently are configured to operate with either dead-end flow (flow directed through the membrane) or with tangential or cross flow along a surface of the membrane, so that fluid can pass from an inlet to an outlet [see 0155 of Giraldo concerning flow from inlet to outlet of the membrane system], membrane filter systems necessarily having either a dead-end or a cross flow configuration, to enable filtered fluid to be directed out of the system, after contacting one or more membrane filtration surfaces.
For claim 8, Lee further teaches wherein the one or more polyelectrolytes comprise poly(diallyl dimethylammonium) chloride (PDAC), poly(sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) (SPS), poly(allylamine hydrochloride) (PAH), poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), or any combination thereof [0037, Thereafter, additional layers of polyelectrolyte are deposited in alteration between positive and negative….For example, layers of PDAC/SPS cannot be assembled on a hydrophobic (non-plasma treated) surface of PDMS”].
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized such particular electrolytes or electrolyte combination, since these are proved or well-known electrolytes for facilitating thin film or membrane having negative and positive charges for separating charged impurities from the water [suggested by 0035-0037].
For claim 9, Lee further teaches sodium chloride being in contact with the one or more polyelectrolytes [0142-144 re polyacrylic acid/sodium salt solutions contacting PAA and PAH electrolytes] . It would have been further obvious to have utilized such salt solutions to facilitate handling and assembly of polyelectrolytes into the membrane (suggested by Lee at [0144]).
For claim 10, Lee further teaches the polyelectrolytes and membranes utilized therein being arranged in layers, and all arranged to form a composite with a first or underlying support layer(s) of membranes, hence also teaching having one or more polyelectrolytes are present only on a first side of the membrane [0080-0081 re NF membranes having a bottomless support layer followed by a polysulfone layer upon which polyelectrolytes such as PAA being deposited] and [0037, Thereafter, additional layers of polyelectrolyte are deposited in alteration between positive and negative….For example, layers of PDAC/SPS cannot be assembled on a hydrophobic (non-plasma treated) surface of PDMS”]).
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have configured the nanofiltration membrane of Giraldo to incorporate one or more polyelectrolytes are present only on a first side of the membrane, as taught by Lee, so as to provide structural support to the membrane, while enabling flux through the membrane, while realizing the benefits of incorporating electrolyte layers to the membrane .
For claims 11-13, Lee further teaches wherein the one or more polyelectrolytes comprise PDAC and SPS in alternating layers, and such that an outermost layer of the alternating layers optionally comprises PDAC and is positively charged for claim 12, or comprises SPS and is negatively charged for claim 13 [0035-0037], see in particular [0037, Thereafter, additional layers of polyelectrolyte are deposited in alteration between positive and negative….For example, layers of PDAC/SPS cannot be assembled on a hydrophobic (non-plasma treated) surface of PDMS”].
It would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized such types of and configurations of polyelectrolytes in the Giraldo membrane, as recited in claims 11-13, and as taught by Lee, so as to optimize the electrical charge of the membrane, in order to optimize separation of charged ions of inorganic and organic contaminants in the water being treated which contacts the membrane surfaces {Lee at [0035-0037].
For claims 14-15, Lee further teaches wherein the one or more polyelectrolytes comprise PAH and PAA in alternating layers, and such that an outermost layer of the alternating layers comprises PAH and is positively charged [0010, 0025-0028 re PAA/PAH composites] and [0132 re PAH/PAA multilayers .
Lee teaches such polyelectrolyte structure as enabling more precise control over membrane pore size and suggests such polyelectrolytes facilitating separation of contaminants of widely different molecular weights by way of the differences of molecular weight between PAA and PAH].
Claim 16 further differs by requiring wherein an outermost layer of the alternating layers is modified with glutaraldehyde to form a dense polyelectrolyte selective layer and decrease an amount of positive charge present on the outermost layer.
Lee further teaches membranes which have been modified with addition of polyelectrolytes, undergoing a post treatment in which the PEM thin film or membrane is cross-linked, by dipping in a glutaraldehyde solution [0056], hence the outermost layer of the membrane having been modified with glutaraldehyde. Lee teaches that such dipping enables a build-up of multiple bilayers, hence forming of a composite, relatively thick and dense polyelectrolyte selective layer [0058-0059], such multi-layers modifying the overall charge state of the membrane [0037].
As glutaraldehyde has the inherent property of having a neutral electrical charge, the modifying of polyelectrolytes with glutaraldehyde would thus inherently decrease an amount of positive charge present on the outermost layer.
Hence it would have been further obvious to have further modified the Giraldo system by providing a membrane filter in which an outermost layer of the alternating layers is modified with glutaraldehyde to form a relatively dense polyelectrolyte selective, as cumulatively taught by Lee and publication ‘173, in order to enables a build-up of multiple bilayers, hence forming of a composite, relatively thick and dense polyelectrolyte selective layer {Lee at [0058-0059]}, thus increasing separation capacity of the membrane.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraldo et al US PGPUBS Document 20239947832 (Giraldo) Lee et al US PGPUBS Document 20160137802 (Lee) and English Machine translation of Patent Publication CN 10304173 (Publication ‘173), and optionally also in view of the Escapenet English translation of Patent Publication CN 111875023 (publication ‘023), as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-16 above, and further in view of the English Machine translation of Patent Publication TW 201221199.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS and translation Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claim 3 further differs from Giraldo by requiring wherein the membrane filter comprises a 0.45 µm polyethersulfone membrane.
Publication ‘199 teaches to treat water or wastewater with a membrane system comprising such 0.45 µm polyethersulfone (PES) membrane, and teaches that such type and thickness of membrane (Translation, summary of the invention regarding such PES membrane material in the form of electrospun fibers, and advantageously providing an easily manufacture, good support layer for nanofiltration and microfiltration membranes and enabling easily controlled pore size to control flow through membranes in which the PES fibers are installed, the detailed description of ‘199 teaching PES or other support layers providing a membrane thickness of about 1 to 200 µm).
It would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized such type and thickness of membrane as the membrane, or with the membrane, disclosed by Giraldo, since publication ‘199 teaches that PES membrane material in the form of electrospun fibers, and advantageously providing an easily manufacture, good support layer for nanofiltration and microfiltration membranes and enabling easily controlled pore size to control flow through membranes in which the PES fibers are installed.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraldo et al US PGPUBS Document 20239947832 (Giraldo) in view of Lee et al US PGPUBS Document 20160137802 (Lee) and English Machine translation of Patent Publication CN 10304173 (Publication ‘173), and optionally also in view of the Escapenet English translation of Patent Publication CN 111875023 (publication ‘023), as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-16 above, and further in view of Muck US PGPUBS Document 20230033717 (Muck).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS and translation Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claims 4 and 5 further differ by requiring a means for separating and recovering the precipitated vivianite, with claim 5 requiring wherein such means comprises a filter, a magnet, or any combination thereof.
Muck teaches production of precipitated vivianite from a waterbody, sediment or sludge (Abstract) and separation and recovery of precipitated vivianite in the form of sediment (Abstract, utilizing a magnet. See [0027 re treatment of wastewater or water in sewage treatment plants with reducing agents including Fe ions to crystallize or precipitate phosphates [0026-0027], and combined with treatment with alkaline earth metal peroxide to form vivianite [0031, 0034], the vivianite separated and removed from, or recovered with a magnetic separating apparatus [0002, 0008, 0060], associated with a housing and/or conveying means [0069]
It would have been further obvious to have added such magnet means to the Giraldo system, since Muck teaches that means for separating and recovering precipitated vivianite in the form of a magnet, enables easy removal of the vivianite over long periods of time [0032].
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraldo et al US PGPUBS Document 20239947832 (Giraldo) in view of Lee et al US PGPUBS Document 20160137802 (Lee) and English Machine translation of Patent Publication CN 10304173 (Publication ‘173), and optionally also in view of the Escapenet English translation of Patent Publication CN 111875023 (publication ‘023), as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-16 above, and further in view of Aljundi US PGPUBS Document 20210113971 (Aljundi).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS and translation Documents are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
Claims 17-20 further differ from Giraldo, by requiring wherein the nanofiltration membrane comprises a support fabric, a porous layer having a first side in contact with the support fabric, and a polymer coating in contact with a second side of the porous layer.
Aljundi teaches such combination of membrane layers and features concerning a polyamide coating on a polysulfone porous layer, [0005, 0006, 0092], in turn having a first side in contact with a support fabric [0074 re “In addition to the selective layer and the porous support layer, any number of other layers may be present, such as a backing web layer onto which the porous support layer is cast. In one embodiment, the backing web layer comprises a non-woven fabric, a woven fabric, or both. Preferably, the backing web layer is a non-woven fabric.”]. Aljundi teaches such membrane structure in a nanofiltration or other type of filtering membrane [0092].
It would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Giraldo system by utilizing a nanofiltration membrane comprising such layers and features, as taught by Aljundi, such that the membrane has advantageous properties of enabling “high flux permeation and is capable of performing multi-stage separation processes across a single membrane” {Aljundi at [0052]}
For claim 18, Aljundi further teaches wherein the porous layer comprises polyethersulfone, polysulfone, or any combination thereof [0074]; and wherein the porous layer has a thickness of about 50 µm [0056].
It would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized polyethersulfone and/or polysulfone as a support layer of the nanofiltration membrane, since Aljundi teaches such material as having controlled high flux at varied pressures and temperatures [0093-0094], and well defined porosity, so as to enable controlled separation capabilities [0071-0076].
For claim 19, Ajundi further teaches wherein the polymer coating comprises polypiperazine, polyamide, or any combination thereof [0005 re mixed polyamide layer] and it forming a “coating” [0103].
It would have been additionally obvious to the skilled artisan to have utilized polypiperazine and/or polyamide as a membrane polymer coating, since Ajundi teaches such material as having recognized water purification properties including removal of salts {Aljundi at [0103]}
For claim 20, Aljundi further teaches wherein the polymer coating has a thickness of less than about 200 nm [0103].
It would have been also obvious to the skilled artisan to have manufactured the polymer coating of the membrane to have a thickness of less than about 200 nm, since Aujundi teaches such coating thickness as a property of conventional membrane synthesis processes including continuous single step extrusion film process, flow coating, spin coating, or solvent casting [0103].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of particular interest , the English Machine translation of Patent Publication CN 102399032 (publication ‘032) teaches utilization of ferrous sulfate heptahydrate to precipitate various impurities in wastewater.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
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 encourage to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
10/07/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights