DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden to search and examine all claims. This is not found persuasive because search burden is not the only consideration when making a restriction requirement. In this case, the separation membrane complex can be used, for example, to separate a substance with low permeability or using the separation membrane complex as a support rather than a separation membrane complex. Upon allowance of a generic claim, restriction will be reconsidered.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yajima et al. (JP2009214075A).
Claim 1: Yajima et al. teach a separation membrane complex (Fig. 1) comprising: a support (1) including a porous portion (page 2, 2 paragraphs up from the bottom) and a dense portion (12) that are arranged continuously (Fig. 1); a separation membrane (11) provided on said porous portion of said support and having an end portion that is in contact with said dense portion (See Fig. 1); and a coating membrane (21) composed by a layered inorganic compound (the coating 21 is layered on the membrane) and coating a boundary portion between said dense portion and said separation membrane (Page 2, 2nd paragraph up from bottom).
Claim 2: the coating (21) is a zeolite wherein zeolite is aluminum oxide and aluminum is a metal.
Claim 5: the coating membrane has an average thickness of greater than or equal to 0.002um (page 4, 1st paragraph).
Claim 6: the separation membrane is a zeolite membrane (Page 2, last paragraph).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ichikawa et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0206025).
Claim 7: Yajima et al. teach the membrane of Claim 1. The functional limitations of the membrane recited in Claim 7 do not further limit the structure of the membrane. The membrane claimed is the same as is taught by Yajima et al. and properties and function thereof are, therefore, the same.
Yajima et al. do not teach a supplier provided with the membrane.
Yajima et al. clearly intend for their membrane to be used for fluid separation as they discuss gas separation in their disclosure. Ichikawa et al. teach a system and housing for a similar type membrane wherein a gas supply unit and a pump for supplying a liquid are provided [0047] in order to make the membrane and system functional in practice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a housing and supply unit for Yajima et al.’s membrane to put the membrane into practice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are allowable over the prior art.
While Yajima et al. teach the composite material of Claim 1 above, they do not teach wherein the membrane coating is made of either clay or smectite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773