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 .
The amendment dated 03/10/2026 has been considered and entered. The response was found to be persuasive over the rejections in view of Steigelmann (US 4,014,665) for failing to teach the silver bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide component of the claim. Brennecke et al. (US 2021/0246089) fails to teach the non-porous membrane of the claims. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn and new grounds of rejections are maintained.
The replacement drawings dated 03/10/2026 has been considered and entered. Therefore, the previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
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 47 is 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 47 recites the limitation "the stream of hydrogen gas" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 2, 6, 15, 20, 42, 48, 50, 55, 60, 83, 87, 88, 90, 91, 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Gorke et al. (CN102574060A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gorke et al. (CN 102574060A)
In regards to claim 1, Gorke recites membrane comprising ionic liquid having metals such as silver, copper, gold etc., for separation of olefins from paraffins (abstract). The ionic liquid can comprise Tf2N [0031]. The membrane can comprise a polymer carrier such as cellulose [0040]. The membrane has reverse selectivity performance [0071, Example 8].
There is no teaching that the membrane is porous, which makes the claimed limitation quickly envisaged or obvious. Thus, Gorke provides the method for separating mixtures comprising olefins from non-olefins using a non-porous membrane having metal ion and Tf2N which mediate the transport of the olefin by selectively and reversibly coupling with the olefins as claimed.
In regards to claim 2, Gorke provides the method and teaches membranes for selectively separating olefins from paraffins but does not particularly recite the step of hydrogenation as claimed. However, in view of Brennecke et al. (US 2021/0246089) which is similarly drawn to separation of olefins from alkanes, and which recites that the mixture of olefins and alkanes can undergo dehydrogenation which generates hydrogen gas and removal of the gas prior to adding to the membrane, the step of increasing the olefin content prior to membrane separation would be obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed [0004].
In regards to claim 6, Gorke provides the method for separation olefins from paraffins which makes the claim obvious.
In regards to claims 15, 20, Gorke provides the method having the claimed limitations as previously discussed.
In regards to claim 42, Gorke provides the method and the membrane having the claimed ingredients and thus would be expected to have the claimed properties.
In regards to claim 48, Gorke provides the method and membrane having the claimed ingredients and which would be expected to have similar properties.
In regards to claim 50, Gorke teaches the membrane having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regards to claims 55, 60, 83, 88, 94, Gorke teaches the membrane having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regards to claim 87, Gorke teaches the membrane. The product-by-process limitation does not carry patentable weight, or is met as long as the membrane itself is taught.
In regards to claims 90, 91, Gorke teaches the membrane having the claimed ionic liquid and metals and would be expected to have similar properties such as the metals not being dissolved in the ionic liquid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 27, 35 – 37, 41, 52, 67, 75, 76, 82, 92, 93 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gorke teaches the membrane for separating olefins but fails to recite a porous support, types of polymers or the molecular weight of the polymers, amount of metal ions, or cross-linked polymer as claimed.
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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights