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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28-39, and 41-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steigelmann (US3844735) in view of Kurishita (US20180169594).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steigelmann in view of Kurishita further in view of Pinnau (US5670051).Rejection in view of Steigelmann and Kurishita
Claim 25: Steigelmann teaches a process for effecting separation of an operative material from a gaseous feed material by a membrane including a polymer phase and a liquid phase (Abstract teaches separation of aliphatically unsaturated hydrocarbon from gaseous mixtures by the combined use of liquid barrier permeation and metal complexing techniques and the liquid barrier is in a solid matrix that is a film membrane or is in contact with a film membrane. Column 5 lines 41-55 teach suitable film membranes being polymers including polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl alcohols, and olefin polymers.), comprising: over a first time interval, via the membrane, separating at least a separation fraction of the operative material in response to permeation of the at least a separation fraction of the operative material through the membrane (Claim 3 of the prior art teaches that the method separates the hydrocarbon by contacting the vaporous mixture with the aqueous liquid barrier with a membrane in which the liquid barrier having metal ions combine with the unsaturated hydrocarbon to form a water soluble complex. This would mean the gas is going through the membrane and the metal ions are complexing with the hydrocarbons.); and after the first time interval, disposing a replenishment material, including liquid material, relative to the membrane, with effect that the liquid material becomes disposed within the liquid phase of the membrane such that replenishment of the membrane is effected (Column 5 lines 3-17 teach that having the complexing metal ion in the aqueous medium greatly increases the selectivity of the separation, and that water may be replenished in the barrier medium as the separation proceeds. Column 2 line 59 to column 3 line 4 teach that the hygroscopic agent can be added to the liquid barrier or matrix with the aqueous solution of the complex forming metal ions as the separation proceeds. The hygroscopic agent in this case improves the life of the separation procedure and olefin separation as taught in column 2 lines 52-58.),
Steigelmann does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer phase includes covalently cross-linked polymeric material including watersolubilizable polymeric material. Steigelmann teaches the separation of olefins from mixtures in column 1 lines 25-36.
Kurishita teaches an analogous method for separating olefins from gas ([0001] teaches the use of a gas separation membrane for separating olefin. [0142] teaches the use of a crosslinked structure for separation of olefins and paraffin. [0132] teaches the crosslinked structure as the polyamine layer and it has covalent bonds through a crosslinked structure. [0099] teaches chitosan or polysaccharide as an example of polyamine used in the embodiment. Applicant’s claims 31 and 32 states that polysaccharide and chitosan are part of the water solubilizable polymeric material, therefore the prior art reads upon this limitation.). Kurishita teaches in [0142] the use of a polymer membrane and teaches that crosslinking helps improve the separation of olefins and paraffins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the crosslinked polymer membrane of Kurishita in the device of Steigelmann as Kurishita teaches the benefits of promoting separation of olefins and paraffin.
Claim 38: Steigelmann teaches a process for effecting separation of an operative material from a gaseous feed material by a membrane including a polymer phase and a liquid phase (Abstract teaches separation of aliphatically unsaturated hydrocarbon from gaseous mixtures by the combined use of liquid barrier permeation and metal complexing techniques and the liquid barrier is in a solid matrix that is a film membrane or is in contact with a film membrane. Column 5 lines 41-55 teach suitable film membranes being polymers including polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl alcohols, and olefin polymers.), comprising: over a first time interval, via the membrane, fractionating the gaseous feed material based on relative permeabilities of its compounds (Abstract teaches the use of liquid barrier permeation for the separation of unsaturated hydrocarbons from gaseous mixtures); and after the first time interval, disposing a replenishment material, including liquid material, relative to the membrane, with effect that the liquid material becomes disposed within the liquid phase of the membrane such that replenishment of the membrane is effected (Column 5 lines 3-17 teach that having the complexing metal ion in the aqueous medium greatly increases the selectivity of the separation, and that water may be replenished in the barrier medium as the separation proceeds. Column 2 line 59 to column 3 line 4 teach that the hygroscopic agent can be added to the liquid barrier or matrix with the aqueous solution of the complex forming metal ions as the separation proceeds. The hygroscopic agent in this case improves the life of the separation procedure and olefin separation as taught in column 2 lines 52-58.); wherein
Steigelmann does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer phase includes covalently cross-linked polymeric material including watersolubilizable polymeric material. Steigelmann teaches the separation of olefins from mixtures in column 1 lines 25-36.
Kurishita teaches an analogous method for separating olefins from gas ([0001] teaches the use of a gas separation membrane for separating olefin. [0142] teaches the use of a crosslinked structure for separation of olefins and paraffin. [0132] teaches the crosslinked structure as the polyamine layer and it has covalent bonds through a crosslinked structure. [0099] teaches chitosan or polysaccharide as an example of polyamine used in the embodiment. Applicant’s claims 31 and 32 states that polysaccharide and chitosan are part of the water solubilizable polymeric material, therefore the prior art reads upon this limitation.). Kurishita teaches in [0142] the use of a polymer membrane and teaches that crosslinking helps improve the separation of olefins and paraffins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the crosslinked polymer membrane of Kurishita in the device of Steigelmann as Kurishita teaches the benefits of promoting separation of olefins and paraffin.
Claims 26 and 39: Speigelmann teaches the separating/fractionating is effected in response to contacting of the membrane by the gaseous feed material (Claim 3 of the prior art teaches that the method separates the hydrocarbon by contacting the vaporous mixture with the aqueous liquid barrier with a membrane in which the liquid barrier having metal ions combine with the unsaturated hydrocarbon to form a water soluble complex. This would mean the gas is going through the membrane and the metal ions are complexing with the hydrocarbons.); the replenishment of the membrane is effected while contacting of the membrane by the gaseous feed material is being effected (Column 5 lines 3-17 teach that having the complexing metal ion in the aqueous medium greatly increases the selectivity of the separation, and that water may be replenished in the barrier medium as the separation proceeds. Column 2 line 59 to column 3 line 4 teach that the hygroscopic agent can be added to the liquid barrier or matrix with the aqueous solution of the complex forming metal ions as the separation proceeds. The hygroscopic agent in this case improves the life of the separation procedure and olefin separation as taught in column 2 lines 52-58.).
Claims 28 and 41: Steigelmann teaches the permeation includes transporting of the at least a separation fraction through the membrane (abstract and claim 3 of the prior art teaches contacting the membrane with the gas), and, during the transporting, the at least a separation fraction becomes temporarily associated with a carrier agent that is dissolved within a liquid material of the liquid phase of the membrane (Claim 3 of the prior art teaches that the method separates the hydrocarbon by contacting the vaporous mixture with the aqueous liquid barrier with a membrane in which the liquid barrier having metal ions combine with the unsaturated hydrocarbon to form a water soluble complex. This would mean the gas is going through the membrane and the metal ions are complexing with the hydrocarbons, in which case they are the carrier agent.); and the replenishment material includes the carrier agent (Column 5 lines 3-17 teach that having the complexing metal ion in the aqueous medium greatly increases the selectivity of the separation, and that water may be replenished in the barrier medium as the separation proceeds. Column 2 line 59 to column 3 line 4 teach that the hygroscopic agent can be added to the liquid barrier or matrix with the aqueous solution of the complex forming metal ions as the separation proceeds.).
Claims 29 and 42: Steigelmann teaches during the first time interval, a fraction of the liquid material, of the liquid phase of the membrane, becomes depleted (Claim 3 of the prior art teaches that the method separates the hydrocarbon by contacting the vaporous mixture with the aqueous liquid barrier with a membrane in which the liquid barrier having metal ions combine with the unsaturated hydrocarbon to form a water soluble complex. This would mean the gas is going through the membrane and the metal ions are complexing with the hydrocarbons. It also teaches in column 5 lines 3-17 replenishing water and column 2 line 59 to column 3 line 4 teach that the hygroscopic agent can be added to the liquid barrier or matrix with the aqueous solution of the complex forming metal ions as the separation proceeds. Column 2 lines 45-48 teaches that the hygroscopic agent is used to reduce water loss that would occur in the operation, which means that the process would depletes the liquid material.).
Claims 30 and 43: Steigelmann teaches the liquid material includes water (Column 5 lines 3-17 teach that having the complexing metal ion in the aqueous medium greatly increases the selectivity of the separation, and that water may be replenished in the barrier medium as the separation proceeds.).
Claims 31 and 44: Kurishita teaches the crosslinked water solubilizable polymeric material includes a polysaccharide ([0099] teaches the use of polysaccharide as the polyamine.).
Claims 32 and 45: Kurishita teaches the crosslinked water solubilizable polymeric material includes chitosan ([0099] teaches that the use of chitosan as the polyamine.).
Claim 33: Steigelmann teaches the permeation of the at least a separation fraction is effected while at least one slower-permeating compound, of the gaseous feed material, is permeating through the membrane (Column 6 lines 14-30 teaches that the process can be used to separate various aliphatically unsaturated hydrocarbons providing at least one of the hydrocarbons exhibits a transfer rate across the liquid barrier that is greater than at least one other different component. It also teaches that the system can separate hydrocarbons from other hydrocarbons such as paraffins.).
Claim 34: Steigelmann teaches the permeation of the at least a separation fraction is effected while at least one slower-permeating compound, of the gaseous feed material, is permeating through the membrane, such that the gaseous feed material is fractionated (Column 6 lines 14-30 teaches that the system can separate different components if they have different transfer rates. Therefore this would result in the feed material being fractionated or separated.).
Claim 35: Steigelmann teaches the at least a separation fraction includes at least one operative compound (unsaturated hydrocarbons as indicated in the abstract); for each one of the at least one operative compound of the at least a separation fraction, there is provided an operative compound-associated operative ratio defined by the ratio of the molar rate of permeation of the operative compound to the mole fraction of the operative compound within the feed material receiving space, such that a plurality of operative compound-associated operative ratios are defined, and at least one of the plurality of operative compound-associated operative ratios is a minimum operative compound-associated operative ratio (This would just be inherent to the feed. The ratios are just what make up the feed.); and for each one of the at least one permeating slower permeating compound, the ratio of the molar rate of permeation of the slower permeating compound to the mole fraction of the slower permeating compound within the feed material receiving space is less than the minimum operative compound-associated operative ratio (This would make sense in that the permeation of the slower compound is slower through the membrane.), such that, for each one of the at least one operative compound, the molar concentration of the operative compound within a gaseous permeate, that is permeated from the gaseous feed receiving space, through the membrane, and into the permeate receiving space, is greater than the molar concentration of the operative compound within the gaseous feed material (Since the operative compounds being sent into the permeate are separated from slower moving components that are in the retentate, it would naturally have a higher molar concentration in the permeate than in the gas feed material as now it would make up most of the permeate).
If Steigelmann does not explicitly teach this, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have optimal ratios depending on what the feed, separation fraction, operative compound, permeating slower permeating compound, liquid barrier, membrane material is, as shown by the different examples and tables in Steigelmann.
Claim 36: Steigelmann teaches each one of the at least one operative compound, independently, is an olefin (Column 2 lines 57-59 teaches that there is an improvement in olefin separation selectivity in the invention.); and each one of the at least one slower permeating compound, independently, is a paraffin (Column 6 lines 14-67 teaches paraffins can be separated, such as paraffins from monoolefins.).
Claim 37: Steigelmann teaches the separation is effected in response to an established flow of the gaseous feed material across the membrane; the established flow is across a traversed distance of the membrane (Column 3 line 63 to column 4 line 32 teaches that the gas passes through the liquid barrier phase and membrane in order to separate the unsaturated hydrocarbons.).
Steigelmann and Kurishita do not explicitly state the traversed distance, measured in a direction of the established flow, is at least ten (10) centimetres. Steigelmann teaches in column 4 lines 8-14 that the configuration can be multiple gas permeable films with the liquid barrier between. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have an optimal traversed distance, such as at least 10cm depending on the desired configuration of the multiple or single gas permeable films with the liquid barrier.
Rejection in view of Steigelmann, Kurishita, and Pinnau
Claim 46: Steigelmann teaches the gas feed material includes olefinic material, that is defined by at least one olefin, and paraffinic material, that is defined by at least one paraffin (Column 2 lines 57-59 teaches that there is an improvement in olefin separation selectivity in the invention. Column 6 lines 14-67 teaches paraffins can be separated, such as paraffins from monoolefins.); the fractionating within a first apparatus is with effect that the retentate is enriched in the paraffinic material relative to the gaseous feed material (Steigelmann teaches in the abstract separating unsaturated hydrocarbons from a gas stream. Column 6 lines 14-25 teach that this method can be used to separate a paraffin. Column 6 line 38-47 that the unsaturated hydrocarbon component forms a suitable complex with the metal ions, therefore that means what remains, or the retentate, would be the desired unsaturated hydrocarbon such as a paraffin.).
Steigelmann and Kurishita do not explicitly teach the fractionating within a second apparatus is with effect that a second retentate and a second permeate are obtained, with effect that the second retentate is enriched in the paraffinic material relative to the retentate received by the first apparatus.
Pinnau teaches an analogous process using a membrane to separate unsaturated hydrocarbons from fluid streams (abstract). It also teaches in column 4 lines 6-12 that there can be two or more membrane units in series in order to further increase the separation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple membrane filters of Steigelmann and Kurishita as taught by Pinnau as Pinnau teaches the benefit of further enhancing the separation efficiency with multiple membrane filters in series.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 25, 26, 28-39, and 41-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 10/15/2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776