DETAILED ACTION
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “opening extends in a longitudinal direction of the central tube” is indefinite because it unclear whether this requires a single elongated opening defined by its shape, or whether a plurality of openings arranged along the longitudinal direction would also satisfy the limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “a manner to have a bag-like structure” is indefinite. In the term “bag-like” it is unclear what other structures may be encompassed in ‘bag-like.’ The Examiner understands based on the Applicant’s [0073] that this means there are two pieces of the separation membranes that are stacked with each other and sealed on three sides, and will consider this limitation for the claim.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ouchi et al. US Patent 10,005,024.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ouchi teaches a spiral membrane comprising (See Figure 1);
a) A central tube 12 (column 4 line 49);
b) A separation membrane as gas separation layer 20 that is wound around the central tube (column 4 line 62); wherein
c) The central tube comprises openings 12a for guiding a permeate fluid into the tube that has permeated through the separation membrane (column 5 lines 15-28); and wherein
d) The openings extend along a longitudinal direction of the central tube (shown in Figure 1 where they form a row).
Alternatively, Ouchie does not teach a single opening extending in the longitudinal direction of the tube. However, modifying the shape of an opening, for example to a rectangular shape (pertinent to claim 2), in the tube wall to extend longitudinally is a mere design choice with predictable results. Elongating an opening increases the effective open area and reduces flow resistance, thereby allowing increased fluid flow into the tube. Such modification would have been obvious to one in the art seeking to optimize permeate collection efficiency. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, as disclosed above, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the openings and one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that such a change would provide an increased fluid flow into the tube. It would further be obvious to set the openings’ dimension to have an aspect ratio of 1 ≤ R ≤ 1000, and arrive at that dimension by routine experimentation for optimizing fluid flow.
Regarding claim 4, the holes 12a has a diameter between 0.5 mm to 20 mm. Since the diameter overlaps with the claimed range of 1 mm to 10 mm (column 5 line 49), a prima facie case of obviousness is met.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 7, Ouchie teaches a plurality of holes 12a that are arranged in a circumferential direction of the tube, comprising at least 14 holes pictured (thus overlapping the claimed range of 2 to 64)(Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Ouchi teaches membrane leaf as laminates 14 that comprise the gas separation layer 20 and a permeation spacer 26, where the membrane leaf laminate 14 is wound around the tube (Figure 1, column 5 lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 9, Ouchie discloses in Figures 6-9 that there are at least two layers of the separation membrane 20 that are stacked which further include a fold on the left side across the y-direction (first seal), then wound over the tube, which is then sealed on the ends across the x-direction (second and third seal, or end caps of the overall tube).
Regarding claim 10, the permeation spacer 26 is between two pieces of the separation membrane (Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 11, the membrane leaf laminate 14 further comprises a feed spacer as supply gas channel member 24 (column 5 line 58).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the membrane element further comprises a flow passage spacer as adhesive layer 38a (Figure 9), which is the closest to the central tube 12, wound around the central tube, and in contact with the openings (column 26 lines 45-51).
Regarding claim 14, the separation member comprises a separation functional layer 24, a porous supporting member 20b, and an intermediate layer 20a in between the separation functional layer and the porous supporting member 20b (Figure 3A, column 15 lines 55-56).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the membrane element is used to separate gas including separating carbon dioxide from an acidic gas mixture (column 4 lines 41-57). Since the source is a raw gas, it is taken that nitrogen is naturally present.
Regarding claim 17, the spiral element is integrated with a device that induces a pressure differential in order to draw out permeate gas (column 3 lines 5-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772