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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (US 2006/0090651) in view of Ku et al (US 2011/0030383).
With respect to claim 1 and 4, Lui discloses a multi-channel cross flow porous device, comprising:
A module comprising:
a monolith-type reactor extending in a longitudinal direction (see paragraph 0035-0036, figure 10, top view);
a housing (180) configured to house the reactor (see paragraph 0118);
an annular first seal portion configured to seal a space between the housing and a first end portion of the reactor (end cap, 370, figure 10, paragraph 0078 and 0114);
an annular second seal portion configured to seal a space between the housing and a second end portion of the reactor (end cap, 370, figure 10, paragraph 0078 and 0114); and
an annular flow stop unit (650) disposed between the first seal portion and the second seal portion in the longitudinal direction (see paragraph 0115), wherein the reactor includes:
a separation membrane permeable to a product of a conversion reaction (see paragraph 0121):
a first flow path (280) provided on a non-permeation side of the separation membrane (see paragraph 0118); and
a second flow path (180) provided on a permeation side of the separation membrane (see paragraph 0118),
the second flow path includes:
an inflow port (333) open to a first space between the first seal portion (370) and the flow stop unit (650) (see figure 4, 8 and 10, paragraph 0096 and 0118); and
an outflow port (334) open to a second space between the second seal portion (370) and the flow stop unit (650)(see figure 4, 8 and 10, paragraph 0096 and 0118),
the housing includes:
a sweep gas supply port (280) for supplying a sweep gas to the first space; and
a sweep gas exhaust port (336) for discharging the sweep gas from the second space, and in a side view of the reactor, a direction in which the sweep gas flows through the second space is opposite to a direction in which the sweep gas flows through the second flow path (see figure 10, paragraph 0035-0036).
Lui further discloses wherein the invention may be modified to facilitate the separation of smaller molecules from larger, through the modification of the membrane (see paragraph 0065).
Lui does not disclose wherein the separation membrane is permeable to a product of a conversion reaction of a raw material gas containing hydrogen and carbon oxide to a liquid fuel.
However, in a related Apparatus, Ku discloses a hybrid multichannel porous structure for processing between two fluid streams of different compositions includes a housing and one or more structures disposed within the cavity of the housing in a shell and tube configuration, wherein each structure includes a body made of a porous, inorganic material and a plurality of channels for processing an optional sweep stream and the feed stream may consist of syngas containing hydrogen gas and the sweep stream may contain nitrogen gas (see abstract).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lui in view of Ku, with the claimed separation membrane is permeable to a product of a conversion reaction of a raw material gas containing hydrogen and carbon oxide to a liquid fuel, as Ku discloses wherein the separation membranes are applicable to separate a product of a conversion reaction of a raw material gas containing hydrogen and carbon oxide.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination discloses a reactor module according to claim 1.
Luis further discloses a process comprising: a step of supplying the sweep gas to the first space through the sweep gas supply port, wherein in a side view of the reactor, the direction in which the sweep gas flows through the second space is opposite to the direction in which the sweep gas flows through the second flow path (see figure 10 and paragraph 0118).
Examiner, in respects to the preamble, the liquid fuel synthesis, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing “extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In this case, the claim is described so broadly, that the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
With respect to claim 6, the prior combination discloses a reactor module according to claim 4.
Luis further discloses a process comprising: a step of supplying the sweep gas to the first space through the sweep gas supply port, wherein in a side view of the reactor, the direction in which the sweep gas flows through the second space is opposite to the direction in which the sweep gas flows through the second flow path (see figure 10 and paragraph 0118).
Examiner, in respects to the preamble, the liquid fuel synthesis, the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing “extraneous’ limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
In this case, the claim is described so broadly, that the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui and Ku as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Harale et al (US 2021/0394152).
With respect to claims 2 and 5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1 and 4.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the module further comprises a heat exchanger configured to cool the sweep gas flowing through the second passage, as claimed.
However, in a related membrane reactor Harale discloses a system and method for producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon and steam, including a membrane reformer with multiple membrane reactors each having a tubular membrane., wherein a sweep gas flows through the bore to displace hydrogen in a direction countercurrent to flow of hydrocarbon and steam in the region external to the tubular membrane (see abstract) , and wherein in certain conditions the sweep gas may be condensed (e.g., in a heat exchanger or heat-exchanger vessel) to remove the sweep gas as liquid from the hydrogen (see paragraphs 0025 and 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prior combination in view of Harale with the claimed a heat exchanger configured to cool the sweep gas, as Harlate discloses that cooling said sweep gas allows for the separation of the sweep gas from the permeate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571 272-6381. 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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights