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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2023/0058997A1).
Regarding claims 26, 33 and 39, Zhu teaches a gas separation membrane/module comprising a support layer (Fig. 1, porous support); a layer comprising crosslinked polysiloxane (Fig. 1, PDMS layer; [0006] disclosing crosslinked PDMS), a discriminating layer (Fig. 1, organosilica layer) fromed by plasma treatment of PDMS layer (refer fig. 1 disclosing oxygen plasma etcher); the discriminating layer comprising SiO4 (refer fig. 2); wherein polysiloxane (PDMS) layer is between porous support and discriminating layer. Zhu further discloses that silicon content in organosilica is about 5-27 mol% (refer [0071]).
Zhu further teaches that PDMS layer has an atomic ratio of carbon to silicon of 1.5 to 2 (Refer [0037]). The ratio disclosed by Zhu overlaps the claimed ratio of 1.6 to 1.98. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, Zhu teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Zhu further teaches that layer comprising crosslinked polysiloxane is crosslinked polydimethylsiloxane (Refer fig. 1; [0031], [0042]).
Regarding claim 31, Zhu teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Zhu further teaches that the crosslinked polysiloxane layer comprises PDMS (Refer fig. 1; [0031], [0042]).
Regarding claim 32, Zhu teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Zhu teaches that M is silicon.
Regarding claim 36, Zhu teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Zhu teaches that discriminating layer is formed by oxygen plasma (refer fig. 1). The limitation “formed by process comprising use of atmospheric glow discharge plasma” is reciting a product-by-process limitation without imparting additional structure to the discriminating layer. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 37, Zhu teaches limitations of claim 26 as set forth above. Zhu teaches that discriminating layer is formed by oxygen plasma (refer fig. 1). The limitation “wherein the plasma treatment of layer (ii) is done in the range of 0.30 to 9.00 J/cm2” is reciting a product-by-process limitation without imparting additional structure to the discriminating layer. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim(s) 39, 30, 34, 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2023/0058997A1), in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2019/0076777A1).
Regarding claim 29, 30, 35, Zhu teaches limitations of claim 26 a set forth above. Zhu does not teach a fluorinated layer located on opposite side of discriminating layer to polysiloxane layer.
Mochizuki teaches a gas separation membrane comprising a porous support (4), a first separation layer (3), a second separation layer (8), and protective layer (9), wherein the protective layer is furthest from the porous support (refer fig. 2). Mochizuki teaches that the second separation layer comprises CYTOP which comprises perfluorinated polymer (refer [0221]). Mochizuki teaches that the second separation layer has a thickness of 20 to 200 nm (refer [0184]). Mochizuki also teaches that the protective layer comprises polysiloxane (refer [0302]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the gas separation membrane of Zhu to include a second separation layer comprising perfluorinated compound and a protective layer comprising polysiloxane, wherein the protective layer is furthest from the porous support to provide high selectivity as taught by Mochizuki. Regarding the thickness of the second separation layer, thickness of 20 to 200 nm taught by Mochizuki overlaps the claimed thickness of 50 to 500 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 26, applicant argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
544
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because the claim does not recite that the carbon to silicon ratio is for “untreated” crosslinked polysiloxane.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 103998230A teaches Si/C ratio of 0.6 (refer table 1) and discloses that controlling Si/C ratio impacts density of the layer.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights