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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (SG10202012652S, filed on December 16, 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the 2D material” should be corrected to read: - the two-dimensional material - for consistency with the terminology used.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “upper and lower chamber” should be corrected to read: - upper and lower chambers - to ensure proper plural agreement.
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.
Claims 14-20 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 14 recites the limitation “said gaseous component”. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation because the claim introduces both “a gaseous component” and “at least one gaseous component” earlier. It is ambiguous which of the two is being referenced.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein composite membrane is configured” in line 13. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the claim introduces “at least one composite membrane,” and it is not clear whether “composite membrane” refers back to the previously introduced membrane or introduces a new element.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “may be”. The term “may be” introduces permissive language that makes the scope of the claim unclear. It is uncertain whether the stated volume is a required feature of the device or merely an optional characteristic, resulting in ambiguity as to what is actually claimed.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “said gaseous component”. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation because the claim introduces both “a gaseous component” and “at least one gaseous component” earlier. It is ambiguous which of the two is being referenced.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein composite membrane is configured”. There is unclear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the claim introduces “at least one composite membrane,” and it is not clear whether “composite membrane” refers back to the previously introduced membrane or introduces a new element.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “may be operated”. The use of “may be” introduces ambiguity into the operational structure of the apparatus. It is unclear whether operation in series or from a common feedstock is required or merely a possible implementation, which makes the scope of the claim uncertain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / § 103
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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1-13 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 CHOI et al. (US20140069277A1, hereinafter CHOI).
Regarding Claims 1–3, 5, and 7–8, CHOI discloses a membrane comprising a porous support and an active layer, and the active layer includes a functionalized graphene (¶[0045]). The porous support may be a metal, a ceramic, or a glass. Suitable metals include titanium, iron, and aluminum (¶[0050]). Ceramics include alumina, zirconia, titania, and zeolites (¶[0051]). The active layer may include graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide (¶[0066]).The active layer is formed by dispersing functionalized graphene in a solvent, coating this dispersion onto the porous support, and drying it to form a graphene-containing layer on the surface (¶[0065]).
Regarding Claims 6, 9, and 10, CHOI discloses a separation membrane of Claim 1. Although CHOI does not explicitly disclose the weight percent of the inorganic porous material and the two-dimensional material, these limitations are considered result effective variables based on optimization through routine experimentation. CHOI discloses a separation membrane with a similar structure, comprising a porous inorganic support and a graphene-based coating. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the relative amounts of the support and coating to achieve desirable membrane performance, mechanical strength, and selectivity (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 11, CHOI discloses a separation membrane of Claim 1. CHOI further discloses that the porous support has an average pore size of about 1 nm to about 100 nm (¶[0049]), which overlaps the claimed “an average pore size between 0.1 μm to 50 μm.” (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 12, CHOI makes obvious a separation membrane of Claim 11. Although CHOI does not explicitly disclose the claimed “average pore size between 0.5 μm to 10 μm,” CHOI’s membrane is designed for gas separation (¶[0003]), where smaller pore sizes are sufficient. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to increase the pore size to accommodate larger molecules found in aqueous media, such as in water filtration, where typical membrane structures operate effectively within the micrometer range. This optimization represents a routine engineering adjustment based on intended application and expected result (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 13, CHOI discloses a composite membrane of Claim 1. CHOI further discloses that the graphene oxide dispersion is applied to the inorganic support and then air dried to form the active layer (¶[0066]).
Although CHOI describes air drying, this does not preclude additional post-treatment. Applying a high-temperature calcination step is a well-known and conventional practice in fabricating ceramic–graphene membranes, and a person of ordinary skill would have recognized it as a routine option for removing residual organic matter and enhancing membrane stability with a reasonable expectation of success (In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 1988).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA et al. (US20110024342A1, hereinafter FUJITA) in view of CHOI.
Regarding Claim 14, FUJITA discloses a separation membrane module (¶[0001]). FIG. 6 illustrates the third embodiment of a separation membrane module having a module main body (11), membrane elements (12), and outer tubes (13) arranged inside the body (¶[0041]). The module includes an upper fluid channel (22) above a partition plate and a lower fluid channel (24) below it. A fluid inlet (31) and fluid outlet (32) are joined to the lower channel, and a discharge port (33) is positioned in the lid (11B) (¶¶[0043]–[0044]). The membrane is positioned between the upper fluid channel (22) and the lower fluid channel (24), with the upper end of the gap between the membrane and the outer tube (13) joined to the upper channel, and the lower end joined to the lower channel (¶[0046]).
During operation, the fluid enters through inlet (31) into the lower fluid channel (24). The portion that passes through the membrane element (12) is discharged through the fluid discharge port (33) at the top of the lid (11B) (¶[0056]).
However, FUJITA does not explicitly disclose the utility of a composite membrane comprising at least one two-dimensional material and an inorganic porous material.
PNG
media_image1.png
853
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6 of US20110024342A1
CHOI discloses a membrane comprising a porous support and an active layer that includes functionalized graphene (¶[0045]). The support may be metal, ceramic, or glass, including alumina, zirconia, titania, and zeolites (¶¶[0050]–[0051]). The active layer may include graphene oxide or reduced graphene oxide, formed by dispersing functionalized graphene in a solvent, coating it onto the support, and drying to form a graphene-containing layer (¶¶[0065]–[0066]).
Advantageously, the membrane disclosed by CHOI may be easily manufactured at low cost and exhibits excellent permeability and selectivity with improved processability (¶[0012]). The functionalized graphene layer can be uniformly dispersed in a solvent, enabling simple membrane fabrication (¶[0045]). Increasing the interlayer spacing of the graphene-based layer improves gas permeation while maintaining selectivity (¶[0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the composite membrane disclosed by CHOI for the membrane used in the separation membrane module by FUJITA (KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 2007).
Regarding Claim 15, modified FUJITA makes obvious a separation membrane module of Claim 14. CHOI discloses a composite membrane comprising an active layer with a thickness of 1 nm to 6 µm (¶[0063]) and a porous support with a thickness of 25 µm to 400 µm (¶[0053]), giving a total membrane thickness up to approximately 406 µm. However, modified FUJITA does not explicitly disclose a membrane thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm.
The claimed range of 1 mm to 10 mm is considered an optimization through routine experimentation, as membrane thickness is a result-effective variable, since CHOI discloses a similar structured membrane, whose thickness directly affects gas permeability and selectivity, and the membrane is designed for gas separation only. A thicker membrane would be reasonably selected in liquid–gas separation applications to improve mechanical strength and fluid handling. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the membrane thickness within routine limits to accommodate different separation demands (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 16, modified FUJITA makes obvious a separation membrane module of Claim 14. Although modified FUJITA does not explicitly disclose the surface area of the composite membrane, the claimed range is considered an optimization through routine experimentation, as membrane surface area is a result-effective variable. The membrane must span the interface between the upper and lower chambers in the module, and its area directly affects the contact surface available for gas transfer. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably adjusted the membrane area to ensure functional separation performance within the design constraints of the module (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claim 17, modified FUJITA makes obvious a separation membrane module of Claim 14. Although FUJITA does not explicitly disclose the volume of the upper and lower chambers, FUJITA teaches a similar separation module with upper and lower chambers associated with a membrane element (¶[0043]). The claimed volume range of 70 cm³ to 0.005 m³ is considered an optimization through routine experimentation, as chamber volume is a result-effective variable selected to accommodate the membrane area and meet separation performance requirements (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456–57; 1955).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, modified FUJITA makes obvious a separation membrane module of Claim 14. FUJITA discloses a discharge port (33) in the lid joined to the upper chamber and a fluid outlet (32) joined to the lower chamber (¶[0044]). FUJITA further teaches that fluid passing through the membrane is discharged via the top discharge port (¶[0056]) and that feed/retentate is conducted to and removed via the lower outlet (¶[0056]). Although FUJITA does not state exact compositions, the disclosed structure and operation establish that outlet (33) carries the permeate and outlet (32) carries the non-permeated stream with a reduced gaseous component. This functional result is inherent in the disclosed configuration. (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 1997).
Regarding Claim 20, FUJITA discloses a separation membrane module, and CHOI discloses a composite membrane comprising graphene oxide coated on an inorganic porous support, which together make obvious the separation device of Claim 14. It would not have been inventive to provide more than one such separation device, as operating multiple modules in series or from a common feedstock is a routine configuration used to increase capacity or improve process efficiency. (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669; KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, VICKIE Y KIM can be reached at (571)272-0579. 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.
/TAK L CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777