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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. The Applicant argues in the remarks that Shimizu (US-20200001229) discloses 1. A gas for inspection used in gas leak detection in the separation membrane; and 2. that the gas for inspection is characterized by not exhibiting a tendency to be absorbed by or condense on the zeolite membrane as opposed to a test of performance degradation of the present invention. Upon reviewing the claims, and the Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection. Claim 1 only requires supplying the gas that reduces permeance (This is the “sealing step” in paragraph 0007 of Shimizu, since “sealing” would mean that less gas/fluid may move through) and supplying a different fluid to measure a flow rate (which is described in paragraph 0022). The Leak detection of the membrane is an evaluation of the membrane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (US2020/0001229).
In regards to claim 1, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module, comprising: (abstract)
a) supplying a performance degradation gas to a primary side of a separation membrane, the performance degradation gas having a property of reducing permeance of said separation membrane; and (para [0047], ‘the CO2 gas permeation rate [nmol/m2sPa] is measured based on the permeation flow amount of CO2 gas that has permeated to the secondary side of the zeolite membrane 12.’)
b) after said operation a), supplying an evaluation fluid to the primary side of said separation membrane and measuring a flow rate of said evaluation fluid to a secondary side of said separation membrane. (para [0048],’gas or fluid for inspection is prepared.’; para(s) [0054-0055], ‘a reduction rate for the CO2 gas permeation rate after exposure to the gas for inspection is calculated by subtracting the CO2 gas permeation rate that was measured after exposure to the gas for inspection from the CO2 gas permeation rate that was measured prior to exposure to the gas for inspection and then dividing that value by the CO2 gas permeation rate prior to exposure.’; para(s) [0087-0090], ‘CO2 applied to primary side of the zeolite membrane and the C02 gas permeation is measured, and in this case CF4 was prepared as the gas for inspection.’)
In regards to claim 2, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein a rate of reduction of the permeance of said separation membrane before and after said operation a) is higher than or equal to 30%. (Table 1 teaches the use of CF4, SF6, CO2 used in inspecting a separation membrane. Table 1 shows rate of reduction of the permeance of said separation membrane before and after said operation CO2 gas permeation of different fluids will be different as showed in the 3 sample numbers.’)
In regards to claim 3, Shimizu method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein said evaluation fluid has a molecular size of less than or equal to 0.40 nm. (Table 1, Shows 3 different type of molecular sample sizes which differ depending on what type of fluid and molecule size a variable parameter.’; para [0049])
In regards to claim 4, Shimizu method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein said evaluation fluid has a molecular size that is 1.06 times or less of a pore size of said separation membrane. (para [0049] As described above, when there is a minor diameter and a major diameter to the pore diameter of the zeolite membrane 12, the dynamic molecular diameter of the gas for inspection is 1.07 times greater than the "minor diameter" of the zeolite membrane 12. This feature is due to the fact that even when the dynamic molecular diameter of the gas for inspection is smaller than the major diameter of the zeolite membrane 12, when it is greater than 1.07 times the minor diameter, the gas for inspection is inhibited from entering the pores.’)
In regards to claim 5, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein said separation membrane is an inorganic membrane. (para [0082], 'a separation membrane is prepared with 30 vol % of inorganic binding material in sample no. 1'
In regards to claim 6, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 5, (see claim rejection 5) wherein said separation membrane is a zeolite membrane. (para(s) [0052-0060]; 12 fig(s) 1-2, 4-6, 'zeolite membrane')
In regards to claim 7, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 6, (see claim rejection 6) wherein said separation membrane is composed of a maximum 8 or less-membered ring zeolite. (para [0024], 'The zeolite membrane 12 is formed in a cylindrical shape.'; 11-12 fig(s) 1-2, 4-6)
In regards to claim 8, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein said evaluation fluid and said performance degradation gas are composed of an identical component. (para(s) [0027-0056], ‘CO2 gas in this case’; para [0054], ‘a reduction rate for the CO2 gas permeation rate after exposure to the gas for inspection is calculated by subtracting the CO2 gas permeation rate that was measured after exposure to the gas for inspection from the CO2 gas permeation rate that was measured prior to exposure to the gas for inspection and then dividing that value by the CO2 gas permeation rate prior to exposure.’)
In regards to claim 9, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein said performance degradation gas contains at least one of water or organic matter. (para(s) [0024-0025], 'the mixed fluid that is the object of a separation process may be a mixed gas or a mixed liquid.')
In regards to claim 10, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein a difference in pressure between the primary side and secondary side of said separation membrane in said operation b) is greater than or equal to 0.1 MPa. (para(s) [0064-0066], para(s) [0070-0072]; para [0099], 'the membrane defect leak rate was acquired with reference to four pressure levels obtained by varying the primary side pressure to 0.1 MPaG, 0.2 MPaG, 0.3 MPaG and 0.35 MPaG while maintaining the secondary side pressure at 0.0 MPaG.'; ‘the function of the pressure both sides can be varied.’)
In regards to claim 11, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) further comprising: after said operation b), regenerating said separation membrane by recovering the permeance of said separation membrane that has been reduced by said performance degradation gas. ('claims 6-8 discloses a recovery step of the gas inspection and a sealing step')
In regards to claim 12, Shimizu teaches a method of evaluating a separation membrane module according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein said performance degradation gas contains a total of 0.05 mol% or higher of a component whose boiling point under atmospheric pressure is higher than or equal to -10℃. (para [0024] , ’The zeolite membrane 12 enables permeation of a permeation component that is contained in a mixed fluid that is the object of a separation process. The mixed fluid is supplied to an inner surface side (referred to below as "primary side") of the zeolite membrane 12 and a permeation component flows out to an outer surface side (referred to below as "secondary side") of the zeolite membrane 12.; para(s) [0050, 0090], para [0065] recites: ‘The vapor pressure of the gas for inspection can be controlled by adjusting the temperature of the gas for inspection. It is noted that as shown in FIG. 5, the second recovery passage 23 is not blocked and the secondary side (outer surface side) of the zeolite membrane 12 is exposed to atmospheric pressure.’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Noda (US 2024/0033691), Noguchi (JP 2021-23898), and Miyahara (US 2019/0391064) references further describe a separation and leak inspection method using a zeolite membrane as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights