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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/20/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20 are pending, of which claims 1,16,17 were amended. The amendments of claims 1,16,17 as best as can be ascertain at this time, are sufficiently supported by the originally filed disclosure.
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) " to allow carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas to preferentially permeate therethrough," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 16 phrase(s) " at least one selected from the group consisting of the first separation membrane and the second separation membrane includes a polyether block amide resin or an ionic liquid," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 17 phrase(s) " to allow carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture to preferentially permeate therethrough," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 17 phrase(s) " to allow carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas to preferentially permeate therethrough," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 20120118147 (herein known as CLARIDGE) specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR10-2019-0090259 (herein known as POWER) specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5415681 (herein known as BAKER)
With regard to claim 1, BAKER sufficiently teaches a gas separation system capable of separating a gas mixture containing nitrogen as a main component gas and carbon dioxide as a sub-component gas comprising (as follows, and):, especially at title, c1ln15-20, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
a first separation membrane unit 52 including a first separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, and configured to separate the gas mixture into a first permeated 62 and a first non-permeated gas 63, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen)
a second separation membrane unit 53 including a second separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, and configured to separate the first permeated gas into a second permeated gas 65 and a second non-permeated gas 67, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68, claims 6,12,27
a first decompression device 55 that decompresses a permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit, capable of a pressure difference between a supply-side space and the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit within the claimed range, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68, table 1 feed pressure and vacuum pressure examples 4,7, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68
a second decompression device 56 that decompresses a permeation-side space of the second separation membrane unit, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68
With regard to claim 2, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of being a continuous-type system, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 3, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of the gas mixture is separated into the first permeated gas and the first non-permeated gas while the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit is being decompressed by the first decompression device, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 4, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of
wherein the gas mixture contains a main component gas and a sub-component gas,, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5
the first permeated gas has a content of the sub-component gas higher than that in the gas mixture, and, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5
the first non-permeated gas has a content of the sub-component gas lower than that in the gas mixture, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 5, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of wherein the second permeated gas has a content of the sub-component gas higher than that in the first permeated gas, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)), claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. carbon dioxide a sub-component gas content is higher, due to permeation), and
the second non-permeated gas has a content of the sub-component gas lower than that in the first permeated gas, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)), claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. carbon dioxide a sub-component gas content is lower, due to permeation)
With regard to claim 6, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of
wherein the gas mixture contains nitrogen as the main component gas and carbon dioxide as the sub-component gas, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 7, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of wherein a content CCO2 (wt%) of carbon dioxide in the gas mixture and a content CN2 (wt%) of nitrogen in the gas mixture satisfy relational expression (1):
CCO2 < CN2/4 (1), especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 8, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of wherein a content of carbon dioxide in the gas mixture is 5 wt% or more, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 9, BAKER sufficiently teaches the system capable of wherein a content of carbon dioxide in the second permeated gas is 80 wt% or more, and a content of nitrogen in the first non-permeated gas is 95 wt% or more, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 10, BAKER sufficiently teaches
a permeated gas supply passage 62 connected to the first separation membrane unit and the second separation membrane unit and configured to supply the first permeated gas to the second separation membrane unit, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5,
wherein the first decompression device 55 is provided to the permeated gas supply passage, especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5
With regard to claim 11, BAKER sufficiently teaches
wherein the permeated gas supply passage is provided with no collector that collects the first permeated gas (as depicted) , especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5
With regard to claim 12, BAKER sufficiently teaches
wherein the permeated gas supply passage is composed only of the first decompression device and a pipe (as depicted) , especially at title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5
With regard to claim 15, BAKER sufficiently teaches
a gas mixture supply passage 61 connected to the first separation membrane unit and configured to supply the gas mixture to the first separation membrane unit, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68
a discharge passage 67 connected to the second separation membrane unit and configured to discharge the second non-permeated gas from the second separation membrane unit, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68
wherein the discharge passage joins the gas mixture supply passage at a joining point, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68
With regard to claim 17, BAKER sufficiently teaches a method for separating a gas mixture, containing nitrogen as a main component gas and carbon dioxide as a sub-component gas, the method comprising (as follows, and):, especially at title, c1ln15-20, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen)
a first separation step of supplying the gas mixture to a first separation membrane unit 52 including a first separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen)
and separating the gas mixture into a first permeated gas 62 and a first non-permeated gas 63 by decompressing via 55 a permeation-side space of the first separation membrane to adjust a pressure difference between a supply-side space and the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit within the claimed range, especially at title, claims 1,6,12,33, fig 5, c8ln42-68, table 1 feed pressure and vacuum pressure examples 4,7, c6ln45-55
a second separation step of supplying the first permeated gas to a second separation membrane unit 53 including a second separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen)
and separating the first permeated gas into a second permeated gas and a second non-permeated gas by decompressing via 56 a permeation-side space of the second separation membrane unit, especially at title, claims 1,6,12,33, fig 5, c8ln42-68
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.
Claim(s) 13,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 5415681 (herein known as BAKER).
With regard to claim 13, BAKER sufficiently teaches
plurality of the first separation membrane units, especially at c4ln39-44 among others title, abstract, c1ln15-20, c6ln45-55, c8ln42-68, claims 1,6,12, fig 5
in an alternative, BAKER does not sufficiently teach plurality of the first separation membrane units
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide a plurality of the first separation membrane unit of BAKER, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B)
With regard to claim 16, BAKER sufficiently teaches
wherein the first separation membrane unit has a first separation membrane that separates the gas mixture, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68
the second separation membrane unit has a second separation membrane that separates the first permeated gas, and, especially at title, claims 1,6,12, fig 5, c8ln42-68
a polyether block amide resin, especially at example 4, c3ln14-15;
in an alternative, assuming that it is determined that BAKER does not specifically teach at least one selected from the group consisting of the first separation membrane and the second separation membrane includes a polyether block amide resin
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide polyether block amide resin of BAKER as material of BAKER for the benefit of fulfill the desired polyamide-polyether membrane taught by BAKER, especially at example 4
Claim(s) 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5415681 (herein known as BAKER)
With regard to claim 14, BAKER does not sufficiently teach the first decompression device is shared by the first separation membrane units
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide the first separation membrane units (as already discussed), and the first decompression device of BAKER, such that the first decompression device is shared by the first separation membrane units (i.e. duplicating piping), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04 VI-B)
With regard to claim 20, BAKER does not sufficiently teach wherein the pressure in the permeation-side space of the second separation membrane unit in the second separation step is equal to or higher than the pressure in the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit in the first separation step
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide the pressures among the decompression devices of BAKER, such that within the claimed range of the pressure in the permeation-side space of the second separation membrane unit in the second separation step in relation to the pressure in the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit in the first separation step, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 PART II-A)
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5415681 (herein known as BAKER) as evidenced by northwestern.
With regard to claim 19, BAKER sufficiently teaches
in the first separation step, when a pressure in the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit is denoted as P (kPa) and a content of the carbon dioxide in the “air” (gas mixture) is denoted as x (wt%), the relational expression (A) is pressure is 2psia (13.8 kPa), especially at title, claims 1,6,12,33, fig 5, c8ln42-68, table 1 feed pressure and vacuum pressure examples 4,7, c6ln45-55, claim 33; [https://peshkin.mech.northwestern.edu/scifair/Atmosphere.html provides extrinsic evidence that the weight percent of co2 in air is 0.0315 %], which gives a range of 0.280370685 kpa -to- 0.550728132 kpa
BAKER does not specifically teach the relational expression (A)
But, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide the pressure P of BAKER, such that it was within the claimed relational expression (A), since BAKER c6ln45-50 states "The flux of a gas or vapor through a polymer membrane is proportional to the pressure difference of that gas or vapor across the membrane,"; since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 PART II-A); since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.05 II-B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at page(s) 7, particularly “The Office rejected claims 1-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite."
page(s) 7, particularly “Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) are respectfully requested.
page(s) 7, particularly “Claims 1, 16 and 17 are amended to obviate this rejection.
page(s) 7, particularly “Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection.
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) " to allow carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas to preferentially permeate therethrough," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 16 phrase(s) " at least one selected from the group consisting of the first separation membrane and the second separation membrane includes a polyether block amide resin or an ionic liquid," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 17 phrase(s) " to allow carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture to preferentially permeate therethrough," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
The previous 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection portion specifically with regard to the claim 17 phrase(s) " to allow carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas to preferentially permeate therethrough," has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
Applicant argues at page(s) 7, particularly “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103"
page(s) 7, particularly “The Office rejected claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0118147 to Claridge et al. (hereinafter "Claridge"). The Office rejected claims 1, 4, 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,415,681 to Baker. The Office rejected claim 1 under 35
page(s) 8, particularly “U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by KRl0-2019-0090259 to Power et al. (hereinafter "Power"). The Office rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over, Baker. The Office rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over, Power. The Office rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Power. Applicants respectfully traverse these rejections.
page(s) 8, particularly “The applied references neither teach nor suggest the combination of features recited in claim 1 for at least the following reasons.
page(s) 8, particularly “Claim 1 recites:
page(s) 8, particularly “A gas separation system for separating a gas mixture containing nitrogen as a main component gas and carbon dioxide as a sub-component gas, the gas separation system comprising: a first separation membrane unit including a first separation membrane through which
page(s) 8, particularly “carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, and configured to separate the gas mixture into a first permeated gas and a first non-permeated gas;
page(s) 8, particularly “a second separation membrane unit including a second separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, and configured to separate the first permeated gas into a second permeated gas and a second non-permeated gas;
page(s) 8, particularly “a first decompression device that decompresses a permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit and adjusts a pressure difference between a supply-side space and the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit to 400 kPa or less; and
page(s) 8, particularly “a second decompression device that decompresses a permeation-side space of the second separation membrane unit.
page(s) 8, particularly “Claridge, Baker, and Power do not teach or suggest a first decompression device as recited in claim 1.”
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The previous rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 20120118147 (herein known as CLARIDGE) specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s)
The previous rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR10-2019-0090259 (herein known as POWER) specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s)
However, BAKER sufficiently teaches claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen)
Applicant argues at page(s) 8, particularly “First, with respect to Claridge, the Office asserted that Claridge teaches a gas separation system with first and second separation membrane units and decompression devices corresponding to the claimed features. The Office concluded that Claridge anticipates claim 1 by treating the previously recited "preferentially permeate" language as "optional.""
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the current claims.
Applicant argues at page(s) 9, particularly “Claridge is directed to dehumidifying air by removing water vapor, not separating carbon dioxide from nitrogen. Claridge specifically teaches membranes designed to block carbon dioxide passage, stating that "approximately 95% or more ... of components of the air other than H2O (e.g., nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and so forth) may be blocked from passing through the interfaces" (see Claridge, para. [0035]). This directly contradicts the claimed CO2-selective membranes. Claridge neither discloses nor suggests the first and second separation membranes through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas (i.e., the gas mixture or the first permeated gas) permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen. Additionally, Claridge does not teach the claimed pressure difference limitation of 400 kPa or less for carbon dioxide separation."
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The previous rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 20120118147 (herein known as CLARIDGE) specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s)
Applicant argues at page(s) 9, particularly “Second, with respect to Baker, the Office asserted that Baker teaches a gas separation system with membrane units and decompression devices corresponding to the claimed structural features. The Office concluded that Baker anticipates the claims based on structural similarities."
page(s) 9, particularly “Baker, however, merely describes a general gas-stripping process for removing inorganic components from water and does not specifically disclose first and second separation membranes through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas (i.e., the gas mixture or the first permeated gas) permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen or the claimed pressure difference limitation of 400 kPa or less. Baker's system involves compression of feed gas rather than the decompression-based approach of claim 1. (see Baker, col. 3, lines 33-44).
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. However, BAKER sufficiently teaches claim 27 states “said membrane a permeate gas stream enriched in said inorganic component compared with said gas” claim 12 states “wherein said gas… nitrogen” claim 6 states “said inorganic component…carbon dioxide” (i.e. separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen)
BAKER states "A vacuum pump 55 in the permeate line" , c8ln42-68 (i.e. decompression)
Applicant argues at page(s) 9, particularly “Thirdly, with respect to Power, the Office asserted that Power teaches a gas separation system with the claimed structural features. The Office concluded that Power anticipates claim 1."
page(s) 9, particularly “However, based on the limited information available regarding Power, the reference does not appear to disclose the claimed combination of first and second separation membranes through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas (i.e., the gas mixture or the first permeated gas) permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen with the specific pressure difference limitations recited in claim 1.
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The previous rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR10-2019-0090259 (herein known as POWER) specifically with regard to the claim 1 phrase(s) has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s)
Applicant argues at page(s) 9, particularly “Lastly, as discussed above, none of the applied references, disclose a first decompression device that decompresses the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit and adjusts a pressure difference between the supply-side space and the permeation-side space of the"
page(s) 10, particularly “first separation membrane unit to 400 kPa or less. Applicants note that the first decompression device recited in claim 1 makes it possible to reduce the required energy without significantly increasing the membrane area of the separation membrane required to separate the gas mixture (see, for example, Calculation Examples in the original specification). This feature distinguishes over, and would not have been suggested by, what is described in each of Claridge, Baker, and Power.”
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s argument(s) refer to previous argument(s), which the Applicant is invited to see previous rebuttal(s), respectively.
Prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art. (MPEP 2145 PART II)
Applicant argues at page(s) 10, particularly “As such, none of Claridge, Baker or Power teach or suggest "A gas separation system for separating a gas mixture containing nitrogen as a main component gas and carbon dioxide as a sub-component gas, the gas separation system comprising: a first separation membrane unit including a first separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the gas mixture permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, and configured to separate the gas mixture into a first permeated gas and a first non-permeated gas; a second separation membrane unit including a second separation membrane through which carbon dioxide contained in the first permeated gas permeates at a higher rate than nitrogen, and configured to separate the first permeated gas into a second permeated gas and a second non-permeated gas; a first decompression device that decompresses a permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit and adjusts a pressure difference between a supply-side space and the permeation-side space of the first separation membrane unit to 400 kPa or less; and a second decompression device that decompresses a permeation-side space of the second separation membrane unit," as recited in claim 1."
page(s) 10, particularly “For at least the foregoing reasons, none of the applied references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 1.
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s argument(s) refer to previous argument(s), which the Applicant is invited to see previous rebuttal(s), respectively.
Applicant argues at page(s) 10, particularly “Claim 17 recites features similar to those recited in claim 1, and therefore distinguishes over the applied references for reasons analogous to those discussed with respect to claim 1."
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s argument(s) refer to previous argument(s), which the Applicant is invited to see previous rebuttal(s), respectively.
Applicant argues at page(s) 10, particularly “Claims 2-16, 19 and 20 depend from claim 1 or 17, recite additional features, and distinguish over the applied references for at least the same reasons as those discussed with respect to claims 1 and 17, and/or for the additionally recited features."
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues at page(s) 10, particularly “Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(l) and 103 over the applied references are respectfully requested."
In response, respectfully, the Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Applicant’s argument(s) refer to previous argument(s), which the Applicant is invited to see previous rebuttal(s), respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776