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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 4/13/26 is acknowledged. Since the election is made without traverse, the restriction is deemed as proper and therefore made FINAL. Claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims contain several grammatical mistakes and language inconsistencies. For example, in claim 1, line 8, “an uniformly mixed” should be corrected. In claim 1, lines 8-9, “[a] solution is obtained after being stirred, then let it stand for defoaming to obtain…” contains an incorrect sentence structure. These are merely examples in the claims and do not include all the informalities. A careful reading of the claims should be performed and appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 includes the limitation “polyimide/polyethyleneimine@titanium dioxide”. This limitation is unclear because it is confusing what both symbols “/” and “@” should mean in this particular compound. Does the “/” symbolize either polyimide or polyethyleneimine? Or does the “/” mean a mixture or hybrid? Does the “@” symbolize a mixture of titanium dioxide, crosslinking, hybrid, etc.?
Claim 1 also contains the limitation “the non-solvent induced phase separation” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 also contains the limitation “the chemical crosslinking of polyethyleneimine and polyimide” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
The dependent claims are likewise rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wind et al US 2009/0165645, White US 6180008, and Kim et al., “Preparation of Soluble Polyimides and Ultrafiltration Membrane Properties” (1999) are considered the closest prior art of record. Wind teaches a crosslinked polyimide membrane and method for making including using titanate catalysts to facilitate crosslinking (abstract) [0029]-[0030]. The method includes mixing polyimide with a solvent N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) [0070] and mixing with a solution of a titanium cation with lactic acid/ammonium salt [0030]. White teaches a polyimide membrane for hyperfiltration recovery of aromatic solvents (abstract) which is conditioned with lubricating oil. Kim teaches a method of preparing soluble polyimides to form ultrafiltration membranes (abstract) wherein polyimides are mixed with NMP (see page 2). However, none of the prior art teach all of the claimed limitations including forming a final polyimide/polyethyleneimine titanium dioxide nanohybrid ultrafiltration membrane using Ti-BALDH in solution in combination with the remaining claim limitations. There would have been no apparent reason or motivation to have modified the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/NATHAN T LEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights