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 § 102
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US 2009/0110873).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a separation membrane complex (composite membrane having multiple layers), comprising:
a porous support (refer [0032]);
an intermediate membrane (refer [0047]) which is a polycrystalline membrane (refer [0054]) formed on a surface of said support and has pores originated from a framework structure, said pores having an average pore diameter smaller than that of pores in vicinity of said surface of said support (refer [0056]); and
a separation membrane which is formed on said intermediate membrane and is an inorganic membrane having a regular pore structure (refer [0056] disclosing two intermediate layers), wherein a functional group is introduced into pores of a surface layer in said separation membrane (refer [0058] disclosing polymeric amine containing membrane layer), said surface layer being away from said intermediate membrane, said functional group existing one-sidedly on a surface side of said separation membrane (the polymeric amine containing membrane layer is applied on surface of the second intermediate membrane). The polymeric coating is applied on surface of separation membrane (2nd intermediate membrane layer) by surface coating. It is inherent that at least a portion of the coating penetrates at least a portion of the pore.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Jiang discloses that the intermediate layer comprises zeolite (refer [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Jiang discloses that the separation membrane (2nd intermediate layer) comprises zeolite (refer [0054]).
Regarding claim 7, Jiang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Jiang discloses that the functional group is amino group (refer [0105], [0106]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2009/0110873), in view of Noda et al. (US 2017/0296980).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Jiang discloses that the average pore diameter of said intermediate membrane is 0.1 to 1.0 nm, an average pore diameter of said separation membrane is 0.5 to 10.0 nm, and the average pore diameter of said intermediate membrane is smaller than that of said separation membrane.
Noda teaches a separation membrane complex (refer fig. 1), comprising: a porous support (20); an intermediate membrane (30) which is a polycrystalline membrane formed on a surface of said support and has pores originated from a framework structure (refer [0029]-[0030] disclosing zeolite layer providing framework structure), said pores having an average pore diameter smaller than that of pores in vicinity of said surface of said support (refer [0024] disclosing pore diameter of a surface layer of substrate to be 0.001 microns to 1 micron and pore diameter of intermediate layer 30 is between 0.32 nm and 0.44 nm); and a separation membrane (40) which is formed on said intermediate membrane (refer layer 40 applied on a surface of layer 30).
Noda discloses that the intermediate layer has a pore diameter that is greater than or equal to 0.32 nm and less than or equal to 0.44 nm (which is within the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0 nm), and discloses that “average pore diameter of the second separation membrane 40 is preferably greater than or equal to the average pore diameter of the first separation membrane 30, and more preferably greater than the average pore diameter of the first separation membrane 30” (refer [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the intermediate and separation membrane layers of Jiang such that the average pore diameter of said intermediate membrane is 0.1 to 1.0 nm, an average pore diameter of said separation membrane is 0.5 to 10.0 nm, and the average pore diameter of said intermediate membrane is smaller than that of said separation membrane to provide selectivity in separation as taught by Noda.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2009/0110873), in view of Nair et al. (US 2012/0108418).
Regarding claim 5, Jiang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Jiang does not disclose that in an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by X-ray irradiation onto a surface of said separation membrane, a peak appears in a range of 2θ = 1 to 4°.
Nair teaches a membrane comprising silica coating on a substrate (abstract, fig. 1, fig. 2), wherein X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by X-ray irradiation onto a surface of said separation membrane, a peak appears in a range of 2θ = 1 to 4° (refer fig. 3). Nair discloses that the coating provides improved/tailored gas permeation selectivity (refer [0008], [0021], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide separation membrane having X-ray diffraction peak in a range of 2θ = 1 to 4° in the membrane complex of Jiang to provide improved/tailored gas permeation selectivity as taught by Nair.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (US 2009/0110873).
Regarding claim 6, Jiang teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Jiang discloses that the one or more porous intermediate layers can have a combined thickness of from 1 micron to 100 microns (refer [0057]). 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). Selecting thickness of the intermediate layer would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 1777
Prosecution Insights