DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed 8/6/26 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
The amendment is sufficient enough to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejection. A prior art rejection remains.
A Final rejection follows.
FINAL REJECTION
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. US Patent 9,457,314 in view of Arab et al. “Methanol synthesis from CO2 and H2 in multi-tubular fixed-bed reactor and multi-tubular reactor filled with monoliths” Chemical Engineering Research and Design Volume 92, Issue 11, November 2014, Pages 2598-2608.
Regarding claim 1, Oguro teaches a separation module (see Figure 4 and column 8-11):
a) A monolithic separation element 2 (Figure 2A, column 7 line 10-11) extending in a longitudinal direction (along the height of the page);
b) A housing casing (including parts 24, 25, and 26 in Figure 4) that houses the separation elements 2;
c) A first annular sealing S sealing a gap between the housing casing and the end portion of the module 2 (near end 21);
d) A second annular sealing portion S to seal a gap between the housing and the second end of the assembled separation module (bottom portion near end 22).
Oguro does not explicitly teach a single monolith. Figure 4 shows multiple monolithic separation elements 2 in a series, with the two outer sealing portions associated with the different elements. However, Oguro does teach that a single separation element can be used as a unit (column 2 lines 2-3). Additional elements can be arranged in a series to accommodate for large amounts of water for treatment.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a single monolithic separation element 2 for smaller water treatments when its membrane area is sufficient for the processing amount. Because Oguro acknowledges that additional elements can be arranged in a series to accommodate for large amounts of water for treatment, it is obvious to one that smaller water treatments would only need a single monolith. The modification would include (in Figure 2) omitting the additional element 2 while retaining/adjusting the connection jigs 8 and their seal S to hold the single element 2. In this modified configuration, the outer sealing portions would seal the gaps between the housing and the ends of the same single monolithic element. This would predictably provide the required separation capacity with few elements and connections.
Oguro does not explicitly teach the first sealing portion is deformable or movable in the longitudinal direction together with the reactor, and the second sealing portion fixes the reactor to the housing.
However, Oguro does teach a housed monolithic module having elastic seal members and a restrained positioning structure (column 13 lines 1-15). The seal members S are disposed between the ends of the modules and the first connection jig 7 and between the second connection jigs 8 and the inner side wall of the cylindrical body (column 9 lines 50-60 and column 10 lines 20-40) and may be elastic members such as O-ring and gaskets (column 11 lines 2-20 and line 38). Oguro further teaches in Figure 8B, a fixing member 9 and protrusion 15A connects with the annular fixed portion jig 8 to restrain the movement (column 12 line 64 – column 13 line 10).
It would have been obvious to make one end of the fitting fixed to support the module in the housing, while making the opposite end elastically deformable or axially movable, because the module housed in the casing may experience thermal expansion between the module and the fixings which would result in insufficient sealing and gas leakage (column 1 lines 43-53). Allowing one end to move while the other end fixes the module would predictably accommodate dimensional changes caused by thermal expansion or assembly tolerance while maintaining sealing contact and preventing leakage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure one end of Oguro’s module as a deformable O-ring while retaining the opposite end as a fixed, in order to maintain sealing while accommodating relative movement between the monolithic element and the housing caused by thermal expansion and assembly tolerances (see column 1 lines 43-53).
Oguro teaches that module 2 is a separation module and does not explicitly teach the module is a monolith reactor configured to be used for converting hydrogen and a carbon oxide into liquid fuel.
However, Arab teaches a tubular reactor comprising monoliths for converting hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methanol which is a liquid fuel. Since Oguro teaches housing monolithic modules in a casing with inlet, outlets, connection jigs and sealing members, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to install the monolithic reactor of Arab into the housing casing of Oguro to allow efficient transfer of reactants and collection of products along the monolith. One having ordinary skill in the art would find a predictable and reasonable amount of success in the combination because the casing of Oguro would allow the monolithic reactor to receive gaseous reactants through the longitudinal flow passages, while maintaining separate flow spaces, prevent leakage, and permit assembly of the reactor and housing.
Regarding claim 2, Oguro teaches the first sealing portion further comprises an annular fixed portion as jig 8 and an annular elastic portion S abutting against the module 2 and the fixed jig 8 (Figure 4, column 10 lines 40-50). Oguro further teaches in Figure 8B, a fixing member 9 and protrusion 15A connects with the annular fixed portion jig 8 to restrain the movement (column 12 line 64 – column 13 line 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
142
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
161
229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Left: Inset of Figure 4 of Oguro showing the sealing portion S in between the module and jig 8Right: Inset of Figure 8B showing fixing member 9 and protrusion 15A that fixes the end portion of the monolith to the housing
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned do not explicitly teach inclined surfaces, particularly the first sealing portion including an annular second fixed portion fixed to an inner surface of the housing and having an inclined surface facing a side surface of the reactor; and an annular abutting portion attached to the side surface and abutting against the inclined surface.
As stated above, Oguro does teach the first sealing portion further comprises an annular fixed portion as jig 8 and an annular elastic portion S abutting against the module 2 and the fixed jig 8 (Figure 4, column 10 lines 40-50). Oguro further teaches in Figure 8B, a fixing member 9 and protrusion 15A connects with the annular fixed portion jig 8 to restrain the movement (column 12 line 64 – column 13 line 10).
The difference is inclined surfaces versus linear. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide inclined surfaces facing a side surface of the reactor as a matter of design choice. An inclined sealing or contact surface is known to maintain contact pressure while allowing axial movement. Thus, using inclined surfaces would have predictably maintained sealing contact while accommodating thermal expansion during operation, without changing the basic operation of the module.
Regarding claim 4, Arab teaches the reactor comprises an inlet formed on the first surface for the source gas (hydrogen and carbon dioxide) and an outlet port for the liquid fuel formed on the send end portion (methanol and water) (see attached graphical abstract and section 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
215
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Arab graphical representation
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oguro et al. US Patent 9,457,314.
Regarding claim 5, Oguro teaches a separation module (see Figure 4 and column 8-11):
a) A monolithic separation module 2 configured to separate a fluid mixture (column 6 line 49-65 and column 7 lines 10-11) extending in a longitudinal direction (along the height of the page);
b) A housing casing (including parts 24, 25, and 26 in Figure 4) that houses the separation module 2;
c) A first annular sealing S sealing a gap between the housing casing and the end portion of the module 2 (near end 21);
d) A second annular sealing portion S to seal a gap between the housing and the second end of the module (bottom portion near end 22).
Oguro does not explicitly teach a single monolith. Figure 4 shows multiple monolithic separation elements 2 in a series, with the two outer sealing portions associated with the different elements. However, Oguro does teach that a single separation element can be used as a unit (column 2 lines 2-3). Additional elements can be arranged in a series to accommodate for large amounts of water for treatment.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a single monolithic separation element 2 for smaller water treatments when its membrane area is sufficient for the processing amount. Because Oguro acknowledges that additional elements can be arranged in a series to accommodate for large amounts of water for treatment, it is obvious to one that smaller water treatments would only need a single monolith. The modification would include (in Figure 4) omitting the additional element 2 while retaining/adjusting the connection jigs 8 and their seal S to hold the single element 2. In this modified configuration, the outer sealing portions would seal the gaps between the housing and the ends of the same single monolithic element. This would predictably provide the required separation capacity with few elements and connections.
Oguro does not explicitly teach the first sealing portion is deformable or movable in the longitudinal direction together with the reactor, and the second sealing portion fixes the reactor to the housing.
However, Oguro does teach a housed monolithic module having elastic seal members and a restrained positioning structure (column 13 lines 1-15). The seal members S are disposed between the ends of the modules and the first connection jig 7 and between the second connection jigs 8 and the inner side wall of the cylindrical body (column 9 lines 50-60 and column 10 lines 20-40) and may be elastic members such as O-ring and gaskets (column 11 lines 2-20 and line 38). Oguro further teaches in Figure 8B, a fixing member 9 and protrusion 15A connects with the annular fixed portion jig 8 to restrain the movement (column 12 line 64 – column 13 line 10).
It would have been obvious to make one end of the fitting fixed to support the module in the housing, while making the opposite end elastically deformable or axially movable, because the module housed in the casing may experience thermal expansion between the module and the fixings which would result in insufficient sealing and gas leakage (column 1 lines 43-53). Allowing one end to move while the other end fixes the module would predictably accommodate dimensional changes caused by thermal expansion or assembly tolerance while maintaining sealing contact and preventing leakage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure one end of Oguro’s module as a deformable O-ring while retaining the opposite end as a fixed, in order to maintain sealing while accommodating relative movement between the monolithic element and the housing caused by thermal expansion and assembly tolerances (see column 1 lines 43-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues with respect to single monolith reactor being that Oguro teaches a plurality of monoliths. However, this was not found persuasive because Oguro does teach that single separation units (single monoliths) may be used for smaller water treatment applications (column 2 lines 2-3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a single monolith for process applications that don’t require a large membrane area.
It would further be obvious to modify Oguro to have a single monolith with ease and predictable results without destroying Oguro’s apparatus. As indicated above the modification would simply include removing the additional element 2 in Figure 4 while retaining/adjusting the connection jigs 8 and their seal S to hold the single element 2. Thus, Oguro fairly suggests a separation membrane module comprising a single monolith.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached 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 at (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 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
