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 . This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 69-88 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 72 and 77 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 72 recites “a coefficient of friction of at most 0.4 ASTM D-184” in lines 1-2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a coefficient of friction of at most 0.4 based on American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D-184 standard” for clarification purposes.
Claim 77 recites “a roughness of less than 100 nm RMS” in line 2. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “a roughness of less than 100 nm root mean square (RMS)” for clarification purposes.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 86 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 86 recites “the filter element” which lacks an antecedent basis.
Claim 87 is also rejected under 35 U.S. §112 by virtue of its dependence on claim 86.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 69-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 2004/0099598 A1), in view of Takasi et al. (US 2020/0047129 A1, hereinafter “Takasi”).
In regard to claim 69, Cheng discloses a method of making a leaf packet useful in forming a spiral filtration module, comprising:
(i) applying an adhesive to a fold region of a membrane sheet (10, Fig. 1) (Figs. 1-2; para [0021]-[0023]), wherein a UV curable adhesive (18, Figs. 1-2) is applied to either side of fold line in the fold area; and
(ii) allowing the adhesive to cure (paragraphs [0023]-[0024], UV curable adhesive is cured by exposure to UV light.
But Cheng does not explicitly disclose applying a non-stick material to the adhesive
and after the adhesive cures, removing the non-stick material to provide a leaf packet.
However, Takasi discloses a spiral-wound gas separation membrane element, a method for manufacturing the same, a gas separation membrane module, and a gas separation apparatus (Abstract). Takasi discloses a method of manufacturing the gas separation membrane element comprising a step of applying an adhesive to a membrane (paragraphs [0136]-[0138]), comprising applying a non-stick material (a film) to the adhesive (a coated layer formed of the resin or the cured material of a resin (paragraphs [0133]-[0140]), coating layer comprising an adhesive composition is used to attach a cover film wherein the film material is PE , PP , PTFE , PS , PPS , PES , PEEK , PI , and PCT (paragraph [0133])); after the adhesive cures, removing the non-stick material (a film) to provide a leaf packet (paragraphs [0140]).
It is noted that both the Cheng and Takasi references direct a spiral filtration module for separating fluid (gas or liquid) mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Cheng to provide the features of “applying a non-stick material to the adhesive and after the adhesive cures, removing the non-stick material to provide a leaf packet” as taught by Takasi, this is because the feature of applying a non-stick material to the adhesive and after the adhesive cures, removing the non-stick material to provide a leaf packet can suppress formation of a pinhole of hydrophilic resin composition layer that may be caused by unevenness and the like of the coated film formed by the application of the coating liquid (Takasi, paragraph [0106]), and (2) this involves application of a known technique to improve a known leaf packet of spiral filtration module for fluid separation to yield predictable results.
In regard to claims 70 and 71, Takasi discloses a film may be laminated on one surface (paragraph [0140]) and further discloses a step of rolling step on the porous material (paragraphs [0098];[0099]) which renders the limitation “applying pressure to the non-stick material to force the adhesive into the membrane” prima facie obvious.
Although Takasi does not discloses the applied pressure range of from at least one pound per square inch gauge (psig) to at most 1000 psig (claim 71), the claimed applied pressure range of from at least one pound per square inch gauge (psig) to at most 1000 psig would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the step of making the film laminated on one surface of the porous material and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of manufacturing the gas separation membrane element.
In regard to claim 72, Takasi discloses the thickness of first porous layer is not particularly limited, and from the viewpoint of mechanical strength, usually, the thickness is preferably within a range of 10 µm to 3000 µm, more preferably within a range of 10 µm to 500 µm, and still more preferably within a range of 15 µm to 150 µm. The average pore size of the pores of first porous layer is not particularly limited, and the average pore size is preferably less than or equal to 10 µm, and more preferably within a range of 0.005 µm to 1.0 µm. The porosity of first porous layer 21 is preferably within a range of 5% to 99%, and more preferably within a range of 30 % to 90 % (paragraph [0090]). Takasi discloses the adhesive material penetrates the pores of the membrane (paragraphs [0142]-[01441]). In light of teachings from Takasi, in its entirety, the claimed feature of the non-stick material has a coefficient of friction of at most 0.4 ASTM D-184 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize the step of making the film laminated on one surface of the porous material and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of manufacturing the gas separation membrane element.
In regard to claims 73 and 74, Takasi discloses the method comprising applying a non-stick material (a film) to the adhesive (a coated layer formed of the resin or the cured material of a resin (paragraphs [0133]-[0140]), coating layer comprising an adhesive composition is used to attach a cover film wherein the film material is PE (i.e., a polyolefin), PP , PTFE , PS , PPS , PES , PEEK , PI , and PCT (paragraph [0133])); after the adhesive cures, removing the non-stick material (a film) to provide a leaf packet (paragraphs [0140]). The film taught by Takasi renders the recited “monolithic sheet of the non-stick material prima facie obvious.
In regard to claims 75 and 76, Takasi discloses the membrane comprises a polymer such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (paragraph [0089]).
In regard to claim 77, since Cheng, in view of Takasi, the same process of making a leaf packet useful in forming a spiral filtration module as that recited in claim 69, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Cheng, in view of Takasi, to function the same as the process recited in claim 69. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Cheng, in view of Takasi, can result in a process that surface of the cured adhesive has a contact angle greater than 15° or a roughness of less than 100 nm RMS. See MPEP 2112.01 and 2112.02.
In regard to claims 78-82, Cheng discloses the adhesive material comprises acrylate or (meth)acrylate-terminated polybutadiene oligomer or an epoxidized polybutadiene, most preferably as a (meth)acrylate-terminated polybutadiene, and further discloses compounds selected from the group consisting of acrylate or (meth)acrylate-terminated polyisoprenes, chloroprenes, polyethers, polyesters and their copolymers (paragraph [0024]).
Although Cheng does not explicitly discloses the recited viscosity of the adhesive as recited in claim 78, the claimed viscosity of the adhesive would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize adhesive activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the adhesive curing operation (time, temperature, pressure, etc.), the geometry of the filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the filter making materials.
In regard to claim 83, Cheng discloses a method of wet adhesive as a background method of adhesion (paragraph [0006]). Since a method of wet adhesin is explicitly disclosed in the Cheng reference, the recitation of claim 83 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claims 84-86, Cheng, in view of Takasi, discloses the steps of: before applying the adhesive, folding the membrane, wherein the adhesive is applied to a non-stick material, and subsequently applied to a folded portion of the membrane (Cheng, Figs. 1-2; Takasi, Fig. 5); repeating the method to provide a plurality of leaf packets (Cheng, Figs. 3-4; Takasi, Fig. 4); and configuring the filter elements as a spiral wound filter element (Cheng, Figs. 1-2; Takasi, Fig. 2).
In regard to claims 87, Cheng discloses the spiral wound filter element comprises microfiltration, nano filtration, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis and gas separation (paragraph [0004]).
In regard to claims 88, since Cheng, in view of Takasi, the same process of making a leaf packet useful in forming a spiral filtration module as that recited in claim 69, it is asserted, absent evidence to the contrary, that one would reasonably expect that the process as taught by Cheng, in view of Takasi, to function the same as the process recited in claim 69. Specifically, it is asserted that one would reasonably expect the process of Cheng, in view of Takasi, can result in the cured adhesive has a lower surface energy than an adhesive covered by a tape during the curing process. See MPEP 2112.01 and 2112.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772