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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence lacks a subject-verb main clause. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: in Figure 3, elements 314 and 316 are not in the Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 11, and their dependent claims 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 1 recites the limitation “the at least one sprayed polymer sheet” on line 5. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a sprayed polymer sheet” earlier in the claim, or not. The initial recitation is singular, while the following recitation above is both singular and plural, making it unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one dried sprayed polymer sheet” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one nanocomposite membrane” on line 8. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a nanocomposite membrane” earlier in the claim, or not. Examiner interprets it to be the same.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the nanomaterials”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a nanomaterial” as in Claim 1, or not. The initial recitation is singular, while the following recitation above is plural, making it unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “nanocomposite membrane”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a nanocomposite membrane”, “at least one nanocomposite membrane”, as in Claim 1, or something different.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the nanomaterials”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “a nanomaterial” as in Claim 1, or not. The initial recitation is singular, while the following recitation above is plural, making it unclear.
Claim 4 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. The phrasing indicates that all of the alternatives following the phrase “in the form of” are required, rather than each being an alternative to each other. Examiner suggests using the phrase “selected from the group consisting of”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. The phrasing indicates that the phrase “cellulose-based polymers” which follows after “the group consisting of” is the only option, not all of the cellulose alternatives that follow.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the at least one polymer nanocomposite sheet”. It is not clear if this limitation is the same as “at least one nanocomposite sheet”, or not.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurth et al., (“Kurth”, US 2011/0005997).
Regarding Claims 1-8, Kurth discloses a method of preparing a nanocomposite membrane for water filtration, (See Abstract), wherein the method comprising: spraying a nanomaterial substantially over a surface of at least one polymer sheet to form a sprayed polymer sheet, (Aqueous Phase 14 containing nanoparticles sprayed on Support Membrane 12, See paragraph [0112] & [0120]); subjecting the at least one sprayed polymer sheet to a heat treatment, and drying thereafter the sprayed polymer sheet, (See paragraph [0118]); and layering the at least one dried sprayed polymer sheet together to form at least one nanocomposite membrane, (Discrimination Layer 24 (formed using Aqueous Phase 14/Organic Phase 18) on Support Membrane layered further on Fabric Layer 20, See paragraph [0103]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises winding the nanocomposite membrane around a polymeric skeleton structure, (See paragraph [0320]; RO membrane 10 is wound in spiral (winding) over which fabric layer is formed from polyester which inherently contains polymeric skeleton (main chain) according to paragraph [0120]).
Claim 3: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nanomaterials employed for preparing nanocomposite membrane comprising carbon- based nanomaterials, metal and metallic oxides, non-metallic oxides, metal-organic frameworks and hybrid nanomaterials, (See paragraph [0087], [0097], [0126]).
Claim 4: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nanomaterials are employed in the form of a cluster, nanotubes, rods, nanosheets, films and polycrystals, (See paragraph [0087], [0097], [0126]).
Claim 5: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the nanocomposite membrane is employed for at least one of a reverse osmosis water filtration process or a forward osmosis water filtration process, (See Abstract, paragraph [0003]).
Claim 6: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymer is selected from either a natural polymer or a synthetic polymer, (See paragraph [0120]; the polymer must either be natural or synthetic).
Claim 7: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymer of the polymer sheet is selected from the group consisting of cellulose-based polymers including cellulose acetate, cellulose triacetate, cellulose acetate proprianate, cellulose butyrate, cellulose acetate propionate, cellulose diacetate, cellulose dibutyrate, cellulose tributyrate, hydroxypropyl cellulose, and nitrocellulose, (See paragraph [0120], cellulose acetate, cellulose diacetate, cellulose triacetate).
Claim 8: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymer of the polymer sheet is selected from the group consisting of polyamide, polybenzimidazole, polyethersulfone, polysulfone, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl pyrrole, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, saponified polyethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, triethylene glycol, and diethylene glycol, (See paragraph [0120], polyethersulfone, polysulfone).
Regarding Claims 9 & 11, Kurth discloses a filter membrane for providing water filtration, wherein the filter membrane comprising: a polymeric skeleton structure, (Discrimination Layer 24 (formed using Aqueous Phase 14/Organic Phase 18) on Support Membrane 12 layered further on Fabric Layer 20, See paragraph [0103]; fabric layer formed from polyester which inherently contains polymeric skeleton (main chain)); and at least one nanocomposite sheet layered together and wound around the polymeric skeleton structure, (See paragraph [0320]; RO membrane 10 including layer 24 and support membrane 12 is wound in spiral (winding) over which fabric layer 20 is formed from polyester which inherently contains polymeric skeleton (main chain) according to paragraph [0120]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 11: The filter membrane as claimed in claim 9, wherein the polymeric skeleton structure is configured to provide support to the at least one polymer nanocomposite sheet, (Fabric 20 supports Support Membrane 12 and Layer 24, See paragraph [0120]).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurth et al., (“Kurth”, US 2011/0005997), in view of Cassassuce, (US 2011/0215037).
Regarding Claim 10, Kurth discloses the filter membrane as claimed in claim 9, wherein the polymeric skeleton structure comprises a plastic skeleton structure, (See paragraph [0120]; polyester).
Kurth does not explicitly disclose the plastic skeleton structure being BPA grade.
Cassassuce discloses the plastic skeleton structure being BPA grade, (See paragraph [0034] & [0041], Cassassuce).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the filter membrane of Kurth by incorporating the plastic skeleton structure being BPA grade as in Cassassuce in order to provide “any suitable FDA approved plastic material” because it “does not contain BPA…chemicals that are currently facing possible ban in United States and Europe”, (See paragraph [0034], Cassassuce).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights