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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on the 18578397 application filed 04/12/22
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 are pending and claim(s)1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 have been fully considered
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.
Claim(s) 14,19,20,21 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 14 has the phrase, “spiral-would,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, the phrase is unclear as to what is “spiral-would”
Claim(s) 19 has the phrase, “thing film-composite membrane,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, the phrase is unclear as to what is “thing film-composite membrane”
Though one or more of the claim(s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Multilayer composite membranes for gas separation based on crosslinked PTMSP gutter layer and partially crosslinked Matrimid 5218 selective layer," (herein known as Peter) in view of Direct Fluorination of the Polyimide Matrimid 5218: The Formation Kinetics and Physicochemical Properties of the Fluorinated Layers (herein known as Kharitonov)
With regard to claim 1, Peter sufficiently teaches a thin-film composite membrane comprising:, especially at section 3.2, pg 66 col 1, abstract
a) a porous-layer support;, especially at section 3.2, pg 66 col 1, abstract
b) a gas-separation layer comprising a fluorinated ionomer; and, especially at b) a gas-separation layer, especially at section 3.2, pg 66 col 1, abstract; does not specifically teach a fluorinated ionomer
But, Kharitonov sufficiently teaches a fluorinated ionomer, especially at abstract
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide Peter with a fluorinated ionomer of Kharitonov for the benefit of improved chemical stability as taught, especially at abstract of Kharitonov
Peter sufficiently teaches a gutter layer comprising a polymer material of poly[(1-trimethylsilyl)-1-propyne] (PTMSP) and within material claimed range, especially at section 3.2, pg 66 col 1, abstract; see instant claim 6 for "having a glass transition temperature greater than 100°C", since products of identical or substantially identical chemical structure or composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. (See MPEP 2112.01 Parts I-II)
With regard to claim 2, Peter sufficiently teaches
wherein the polymer material has an intrinsic permeability to carbon dioxide of 12.490 × 10^10 cm3 (STP) cm/(cm2 s cmHg) is 4.1797 x 10^5 mol m/m2 s Pa, which is within the claimed range, especially at section 2.4.3, table 1
With regard to claim 3, Peter sufficiently teaches
a polymer material of poly[(1-trimethylsilyl)-1-propyne] (PTMSP), especially at section 3.2, pg 66 col 1, abstract; see instant claim 6
With regard to claim 6, Peter sufficiently teaches
a polymer material of poly[(1-trimethylsilyl)-1-propyne] (PTMSP), especially at section 3.2, pg 66 col 1, abstract; see instant claim 6
With regard to claim 11, Peter sufficiently teaches
wherein the porous-layer support comprises polyacrylonitrile, especially at section 3.3.1
With regard to claim 12, Peter sufficiently teaches
wherein the gutter layer thickness is within claimed range, especially at table 3
With regard to claim 13, Peter sufficiently teaches
wherein gas-separation layer thickness is within claimed range, especially at section 3.3.3
With regard to claim 14, Peter sufficiently teaches the thin-film composite membrane of claim 1,
Claim(s) 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Multilayer composite membranes for gas separation based on crosslinked PTMSP gutter layer and partially crosslinked Matrimid 5218 selective layer," (herein known as Peter) in view of Direct Fluorination of the Polyimide Matrimid 5218: The Formation Kinetics and Physicochemical Properties of the Fluorinated Layers (herein known as Kharitonov) as evidenced by US 5194074 (herein HAUK)
With regard to claim 15, Peter sufficiently teaches a process for separating carbon dioxide from a first gas mixture, the process comprising: a) providing a thin-film composite membrane according to claim 1, having a feed side and a permeate side;,
b) exposing the feed side to the first gas mixture that is flowing, especially at section 2.4.3; claim language is merely expressing detail the rudimentary details implicit of "Gas transport" discussed, such as table 1; see extrinsic evidence of HAUK, especially claim 1
c) providing a driving force across the thin-film composite membrane, especially at section 2.4.3; claim langauge is merely expressing detail the rudimentary details implicit of "Gas transport" discussed, such as table 1; see extrinsic evidence of 5194074 HAUK, especially claim 1
and, especially at section 2.4.3; claim langauge is merely expressing detail the rudimentary details implicit of "Gas transport" discussed, such as table 1; see extrinsic evidence of 5194074 HAUK, especially claim 1
d) producing a second gas mixture on the permeate side that has a higher concentration of carbon dioxide than the concentration of carbon dioxide in the first gas mixture, especially at section 2.4.3; claim langauge is merely expressing detail the rudimentary details implicit of "Gas transport" discussed, such as table 1; see extrinsic evidence of 5194074 HAUK, especially claim 1
With regard to claim 16, Peter does not specifically teach wherein the first gas mixture further comprises nitrogen; but Peter sufficiently teaches nitrogen, see table 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide of Peter-Kharitonov with wherein the first gas mixture further comprises nitrogen of Peter for the benefit of separating carbon dioxide from nitrogen as determined as needed
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Multilayer composite membranes for gas separation based on crosslinked PTMSP gutter layer and partially crosslinked Matrimed 5218 selective layer," (herein known as Peter) in view of Direct Fluorination of the Polyimide Matrimid 5218: The Formation Kinetics and Physicochemical Properties of the Fluorinated Layers (herein known as Kharitonov) and 5194074 (herein known as HAUK)
With regard to claim 17, Peter does not specifically teach water vapor
But, HAUK sufficiently teaches water vapor, especially at c4ln1-10
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to combine Peter -Kharitonov with water vapor of HAUK for the benefit of raw gas mixtures with water vapor, so desired to be separated, as needed
With regard to claim 18, Peter does not specifically teach wherein providing a driving force comprises applying a vacuum to the permeate side
But, HAUK sufficiently teaches applying a vacuum to the permeate side (within the scope of the intended result of the process step, positively recited "providing a driving force") , especially at abstract; does not need to be found in prior art since the limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited (see MPEP 2111.04)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide Peter -Kharitonov with applying a vacuum to the permeate side (within the scope of the intended result of the process step, positively recited "providing a driving force") of HAUK for the benefit of creating a pressure difference, as tuaght by HAUK, especially at HAUK
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4,5,7,8,9,10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron can be reached on (571)272-0475. 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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights