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 Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Falco et al. (Int. Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 6771-6786) in view of Harale et al. (US 8,921,619) and Wang et al. (J. of Membrane Science 474 (2015) 39-56).
Regarding claim 14, De Falco et al. (see FIG. 2 on page 6775; also, “Process description” on pages 6774-6775) discloses a process using a membrane reactor for the hydrogenation of carbon dioxide (i.e., for conducting the CO2 hydrogenation reaction (1) as one of the main reactions for DME direct synthesis; see page 6772), said membrane reactor comprising:
a reaction compartment comprising a catalyst bed (i.e., an annular zone between the internal and external tubes of the reaction zone where catalyst particles are packed); a permeate compartment (i.e., the Permeation Zone located inside of the internal tube); and a water-permeable membrane separating the reaction compartment and the permeate compartment (i.e., the inner tube comprises an H2O selective membrane); wherein, during operation of the reactor, water that permeates through the water-permeable membrane is removed from the permeate compartment using a sweep gas and discharged from the reactor to an external condenser where water can condense (see FIG. 1).
De Falco et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses that the inner wall and the outer wall are tubular, and the outer wall is at least partially co-axially arranged around the inner wall (i.e. the membrane reactor is constructed from two co-axial tubes, see discussion under “Process description” on page 6774).
De Falco et al. discloses that the membrane reactor has a longitudinal axis (i.e., corresponding to the horizontal axis, as shown).
De Falco et al. further discloses that the trans-membrane molar flux for water (see equation (21) for determining JH2O and the corresponding discussion at pages 6775-6776) is proportional to the partial pressure difference across the water-permeable membrane and the permeability of the membrane. In particular, De Falco et al. (see “Effect of permeation zone operation conditions” at pages 6780 and the results shown in FIG. 6) discloses,
It is clear that increasing the pressure difference between the reaction and permeation zones, thus reducing the ƞ ratio, leads to a steep improvement of all the membrane reactor performance indexes… Such a behavior is due to the variation of pressure driving force that modifies the water permeated flux, as shown in eq. (21).
Also the ratio Sw has a positive effect on membrane reactor performance, since increasing the sweeping gas flow rate allows the reduction of the water partial pressure in the permeate side and thus the increase of the water permeated flux JH2O.”
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that increasing the pressure difference between the reaction compartment and the permeate compartment by reducing the partial pressure of water in the permeate compartment increases the amount of water that permeates through the water-permeable membrane and thereby improves the performance of the membrane reactor, i.e., by increasing the yield of DME (YDME), the selectivity of DME (SDME), the conversion of COx (XCOx), and the conversion of CO2 (XCO2), (see FIG. 6).
De Falco et al., however, fails to disclose that the permeate compartment comprises a condensing surface placed along essentially the entire longitudinal axis of the membrane reactor and a means for cooling that is connected to said condensing surface, such that during operation of the reactor, water can condense on the condensing surface.
However, Harale et al. discloses a membrane reactor (i.e., a membrane-integrated hydration reactor 110; see FIG. 1; column 4, line 36, to column 6, line 17) comprising a reaction compartment (i.e., the space above a hydrophilic member 132); a permeate compartment (i.e., the space below the hydrophilic member 132); and a water-permeable membrane (i.e., the hydrophilic membrane 132) separating the reaction compartment and the permeate compartment. Specifically, Harale et al. discloses that the permeate compartment comprises a condensing surface (i.e., a condenser 144), such that during operation, water can condense on the condensing surface. In particular, Harale et al. (at column 6, lines 6-11) discloses, “Condenser 144 causes the formation of liquid water on permeate side 136 of hydrophilic membrane 132, lowering the pressure on that side of hydrophilic membrane 132. Lowering the pressure on permeate side 136 increases the pressure drive through hydrophilic membrane 132, removing additional water from feed side 134.”
Harale et al. therefore discloses that the condensing surface 144, which condenses water in the permeate compartment, increases the pressure difference between the reaction compartment and the permeate compartment by reducing the partial pressure of water in the permeate compartment, which then increases the amount of water that permeates through the water-permeable membrane 132.
Wang et al. further illustrates four basic modes of inducing a pressure gradient across a membrane as would be recognized by one of skill in the art (see “3. MD configurations” on pages 45-46; also, FIG. 3.1 on page 47). Under a “sweep gas” mode for inducing a pressure gradient (see FIG. 3.1-C), vapors that permeate through the membrane are removed from the permeate compartment using a sweep gas and discharged with the sweep gas to an external condenser where the vapors can condense. The “sweep gas” mode is essentially the mode of inducing a pressure gradient used by De Falco et al. Wang et al. also discloses an “air-gap” mode for inducing a pressure gradient (see FIG. 3.1-B), wherein vapors that permeate through the membrane are condensed on a condensing surface (i.e., a cooling surface) located in the permeate compartment, and the condensing surface is connected to a means for cooling (i.e., a flowing cooling stream on the other side of the cooling surface). The flowing cooling stream has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to the “means for cooling” as described in Applicant’s specification (see, e.g., page 8, lines 10-18), and equivalents thereof. In the “air-gap” mode, the condensing surface is placed along essentially the entire longitudinal axis of the separator (i.e., corresponding to the horizontal axis, as illustrated). The “air-gap” mode is essentially the mode of inducing a pressure gradient used by Harale et al., since the condensing surface 144 is spaced from the wall of membrane 132 (see FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a condensing surface in the permeate compartment and a means for cooling that was connected to the condensing surface, as an alternative to the supply of sweep gas, in the membrane reactor of De Falco et al. because the provision of either: (i) a condensing surface in the permeate compartment connected with means for cooling (i.e., the “air-gap” mode of inducing a pressure gradient), or (ii) a flow of sweep gas through the permeate compartment with an external condenser (i.e., the “sweep gas” mode of inducing a pressure gradient) would have achieved substantially the same result of reducing the partial pressure of water in the permeate compartment to induce a pressure difference between the reaction compartment and the permeate compartment and to increase the amount of water that permeates through the water permeable membrane during use, as taught by Harale et al. and Wang et al. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art, and when the prior art is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.
Wang et al. (see FIG. 3.1-B) discloses that the condensing surface is placed along essentially the entire longitudinal axis of the separator (i.e., horizontal axis, as shown). Given the structural similarities and functional overlap between the apparatuses of De Falco et al. and Wang et al., it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to likewise provide the condensing surface along essentially the entire longitudinal axis in the membrane reactor of De Falco et al., so that the “continuous removal of water from the reaction environment” as desired by De Falco et al. (see Abstract) can be realized.
Wang et al. discloses that the permeate compartment comprises a means for cooling that is an active cooling device (i.e., the opposite side of the cooling surface is in contact with a flowing cooling stream, see FIG. 3.1-B on page 47), wherein the active cooling device is disconnected from the inner wall (i.e., the cooling surface is spaced from the membrane by an air gap). Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly configure the means for cooling and active-cooling device to be disconnected from the inner wall of the modified membrane reactor of De Falco et al. in order to provide the gap required of the “air-gap” mode for inducing the pressure gradient across the membrane, as taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Wang et al. discloses that the means for cooling comprises an active-cooling device having a passage through which cooling fluid can flow (i.e., a flowing cooling stream across the opposite side of the cooling surface; see FIG. 3.1-B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly provide an active cooling device having a passage through which cooling fluid can flow as the means for cooling in the modified membrane reactor of De Falco et al.
Regarding claim 16, De Falco et al. discloses that the membrane reactor (see FIG. 2) comprises an inner wall (i.e., the internal tube) bounding an inner space that defines the permeate compartment (i.e., the Permeation Zone), wherein the permeate compartment has said longitudinal axis (i.e., corresponding to the horizontal axis); an outer wall (i.e., the external tube) arranged around the inner wall, wherein the outer wall and the inner wall bound an outer space that defines the reaction compartment (i.e., an annular zone that is the Reaction Zone where catalyst particles are packed); wherein the inner wall comprises the water-permeable membrane (i.e. the H2O selective membrane). The membrane reactor configuration in FIG. 2 of De Falco et al. is therefore in reverse of the claimed membrane reactor configuration, where the inner space instead defines the reaction compartment and the outer space instead defines the permeate compartment. However, either membrane reactor configuration would be expected to achieve substantially the same results, as further evidenced by Harale et al. In particular, Harale et al. (see FIG. 2A and 2B) discloses two membrane reactors constructed from an inner wall bounding an inner space, and an outer wall that is arranged around said inner wall, wherein the outer wall and the inner wall bound an outer space. Under a first configuration (see FIG. 2A), the inner space defines the permeate compartment (i.e., interior fluid conduit 238a) and the outer space defines the reaction compartment (i.e., the annular compartment 230a containing the catalyst 220a). Under a second configuration (see FIG. 2A), the permeate compartment and the reaction compartment are reversed, with the inner space defining the reaction compartment (i.e., the interior fluid conduit 238 containing the catalyst 220b) and the outer space defining the permeate compartment (i.e., the annular volume 230b). Therefore, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the locations of the permeate compartment and the reaction compartment in the modified membrane reactor of De Falco et al. because either membrane reactor configuration would be expected to achieve substantially the same result, as suggested by Harale et al.
Wang et al. further discloses that under the “air-gap” mode for inducing a pressure gradient across the membrane (see FIG. 3.1-B and corresponding discussion under 3.1(c) on page 46), the condensing surface (i.e., cooling surface) is located away from the wall of the membrane (i.e., by a distance defining the air-gap), and the condensing surface is placed along essentially the entire longitudinal axis of the permeate compartment. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the condensing surface to the outer wall and place the condensing surface along essentially the entire longitudinal axis of the permeate compartment in the modified membrane reactor of De Falco et al. in order to provide the gap required of the “air-gap” mode for inducing the pressure gradient across the membrane, as taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 17, De Falco et al. discloses that the membrane reactor (see FIG. 2) comprises an inner wall (i.e., the internal tube) bounding an inner space that defines the permeate compartment (i.e., the Permeation Zone), wherein the permeate compartment has said longitudinal axis (i.e., corresponding to the horizontal axis); an outer wall (i.e., the external tube) that is arranged around the inner wall, wherein the outer wall and the inner wall bound an outer space that defines the reaction compartment (i.e., an annular zone that is the Reaction Zone where catalyst particles are packed); wherein the inner wall comprises the water-permeable membrane (i.e. the H2O selective membrane).
Wang et al. further discloses that under the “air-gap” mode for inducing a pressure gradient across the membrane (see FIG. 3.1-B and corresponding discussion under 3.1(c) on page 46), the condensing surface (i.e., cooling surface) is located away from the wall of the membrane (i.e., by a distance defining the air-gap), and the condensing surface is placed along essentially the entire longitudinal axis of the permeate compartment. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the condensing surface away from the inner wall in the modified membrane reactor of De Falco et al. in order to provide the gap required of the “air-gap” mode for inducing the pressure gradient across the membrane, as taught by Wang et al.
Regarding claim 20, De Falco et al. discloses that the water permeable membrane comprises a hydrophilic membrane that is a zeolite membrane (see discussion under “Hydrophilic membranes and membrane reactor state of the art” on page 6773; see also discussion of the microporous zeolite membrane used as the H2O selective membrane under “Process description” on pages 6774-6775).
Regarding claim 21, De Falco et al. discloses that a suitable catalyst comprises bi-functional catalytic particles of Cu-ZnO-Al2O3/HZSM-5 (see discussion under “Mathematical modeling” on page 6775), and therefore, the catalyst bed comprises copper and zinc oxide.
Regarding claims 22-24 De Falco et al. the hydrophilic membrane to be integrated has to have the following properties:) stability at the DME production operating temperature and pressure (200-3000 C, 30-70 bar (3-7 MPa));highly selective to water steam) with high water steam permeability, leading to a high permeated flux. Conventionally, water selective membranes are applied in the desalination processes, the dehydration of natural gas or air and dehydration of organic compounds by pervaporation. All these processes operate at low temperature less than 1500 C. see page 6773, left col. 4th paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Falco et al. (Int. Journal of Hydrogen Energy 42 (2017) 6771-6786) in view of Harale et al. (US 8,921,619) and Wang et al. (J. of Membrane Science 474 (2015) 39-56), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 3,358,750).
The combination of De Falco et al., Harale et al., and Wang et al. fails to disclose or adequately suggest protruding surface elements on the condensing surface.
Thomas (see FIG. 1) discloses a condensing surface 2 comprising protruding surface elements (i.e., projections 3 in the form of fins; projections 4 in the form of wires).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide protruding surface elements on the condensing surface in the modified membrane reactor of De Falco et al. because the protruding surface elements would help draw condensate from the condensing surface between the protruding surface elements, which decreases the thickness of the condensate film on that surface, and thereby provides a substantial increase in the film condensation heat transfer coefficient of the surface, as taught by Thomas (see column 2, lines 11-23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692