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 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a thorough and complete search of the elected claims would necessarily encompass a thorough and complete search for the subject matter of the non-elected claims. This is not found persuasive because the elected and non-elected claims can be classified differently (B01D 71/0281 and B01D 67/00 respectively), so the elected claims would not necessarily encompass the non-elected and would result in a search burden for the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda (US20200346171).
Regarding claim 1, Noda discloses a separation membrane that is made of a zeolite (paragraph 0007). The zeolite is formed on a porous support (paragraph 0011). The zeolite membrane can have an ETL-type zeolite (paragraph 0043).
Noda does not disclose an X-ray diffraction pattern where an intensity of a peak existing in vicinity of diffraction angles 9.9° and 19.8° are each not lower than 0.8 times the intensity of a peak at diffraction angle 7.9°.
Noda discloses the same materials as the present invention. The zeolite is ETL-type (paragraph 0043). The support is a ceramic sintered compact including alumina, silica, mullite, zirconia, titania, yttria, silicon nitride, and silicon carbide (paragraph 0037). The inorganic binder may be at least one of titania, mullite, easily sinterable alumina, silica, glass frit, clay minerals, and easily sinterable cordierite (paragraph 0038). The alkali metals in the membrane can be lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, or cesium (paragraph 0049).
Noda discloses ratios that satisfy the present invention. The amount of Si in the zeolite membrane is preferably 5 times or more and 1000 times or less than the amount of Al (paragraph 0048). The amount of alkali metal to Al is preferably less than or equal to 90 mol%, more preferably less than or equal to 60 mol% (paragraph 0049).
The membrane is formed in the same manner as the present invention. The zeolite powder is synthesized by hydrothermal synthesis and seed crystals are acquired (paragraph 0058). The porous support is immersed in a solution which the seed crystals are dispersed, so that the crystals are deposited on the support (paragraph 0059).
Because the materials, ratios of materials, and method of forming the membrane are the same as the present application, it is the position of the examiner that the XRD of the membrane in Noda is the same as the present invention and thus the peak existing in vicinity of diffraction angles 9.9° and 19.8° are each not lower than 0.8 times the intensity of the peak existing in the vicinity of diffraction angle 7.9°.
Regarding claim 2, because the materials, ratios of materials, and method of forming the membrane are the same as the present application, it is the position of the examiner that the XRD of the membrane in Noda is the same as the present invention and thus the peak existing in vicinity of diffraction angles 9.9° and 19.8° are each not lower than 1.0 times the intensity of the peak existing in the vicinity of diffraction angle 7.9°.
Regarding claim 3, Noda discloses an amount of Si in the zeolite membrane that is preferably 5 times or more and 1000 times or less than the amount of Al (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 4, because the materials, ratios of materials, and method of forming the membrane are the same as the present application, it is the position of the examiner that the CF4 gas permeance is not higher than 10 nmol/m2*s*Pa in the membrane taught in Noda.
Regarding claim 5, Noda discloses that the zeolite membrane contains rubidium (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 6, Noda discloses the amount of alkali metal to Al is preferably less than or equal to 90 mol%, more preferably less than or equal to 60 mol% (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 7, Noda discloses a gas separation apparatus that includes the zeolite membrane complex and a gas supply part (paragraph 0034). The gas supply part supplies a mixed gas (paragraph 0055). A mixed gas containing CO2, N2, and CH4 are led into the apparatus. CO2 and N2 permeate the zeolite membrane complex to be simultaneously and efficiently separated from CH4 in the mixed gas (paragraph 0065).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Izuru et al. (JP2021024801).
The teachings of Noda are applied as above for claim 1. In addition:
Regarding claim 8, Noda discloses a gas separation apparatus that includes the zeolite membrane complex and a gas supply part (paragraph 0034). The apparatus separates a high permeability substance in a mixed substance by allowing the high permeability substance to permeate the zeolite membrane complex (paragraph 0065).
Noda does not disclose a membrane reactor comprising a catalyst for accelerating a chemical reaction of a starting material. Noda does not disclose the mixed substance containing a product that is generated by a chemical reaction.
Izuru et al. discloses an alcohol production apparatus by reacting a raw material containing at least hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the presence of a catalyst (paragraph 008). The apparatus comprises a reactor equipped with a raw material feed and a zeolite membrane that is an alcohol selective permeable membrane (paragraph 0021). The reactor also has a catalyst disposed around the zeolite membrane (paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the gas separation device taught in Noda by adding the reactor and catalyst component of Izuru et al to carry out a reaction inside of the gas separation apparatus as a means of process intensification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742