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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the metal block of claim 27 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-29 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a metal sleeve" twice. It is unclear if the sleeves are the same or different. Additionally, further mentions of “the metal sleeve” does not have insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "an inorganic membrane" twice. It is unclear if the sleeves are the same or different. Additionally, further mentions of “the inorganic membrane” does not have insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 17-29 depend upon claim 16.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the inorganic membrane has a tubular geometry of a flat geometry”. The limitation is indefinite as to the claimed shape. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the inorganic membrane has a tubular geometry or a flat geometry”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16-18, 20-25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edlund US 2003/0159354 (hereafter Edlund).
Regarding claim 16, Edlund teaches a sealing method (¶138, Figs 12-17) for the sealing of a metal sleeve (730 in Fig 17) to an inorganic membrane (720), the method comprising the steps of: providing a metallic sleeve (730) configured to cover at least part of the inorganic membrane (as shown in Figs 16-17); and applying graphite tape onto at least part of the inorganic membrane to create a graphite sleeve in between the inorganic membrane and the metallic sleeve (¶138).
Regarding claim 17, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches sealing the metallic sleeve onto the membrane by pressing the metallic sleeve onto the membrane with the graphite sleeve in between the metallic sleeve and the inorganic membrane, to produce a sealed inorganic membrane (¶138).
Regarding claim 18, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Edlund further teaches wherein the sealing is performed on at least one edge of the inorganic membrane (¶138, as shown in Figs 15-17 where the sealing is on the outer edges).
Regarding claim 20, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Edlund further teaches wherein the sealed inorganic membrane provides a gas-tight seal (¶90).
Regarding claim 21, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches the metallic sleeve covers at least one edge of the inorganic membrane (¶138, as shown in Figs 15-17 where the sleeve is on the outer edge).
Regarding claim 22, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches wherein the inorganic membrane has a tubular geometry (¶138).
Regarding claim 23, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches wherein the inorganic membrane is supported on a ceramic porous support or a metallic porous support (¶42, ¶59, ¶118).
Regarding claim 24, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches wherein the metal of the metallic sleeve is selected from the group including stainless steel, copper, bronze, and aluminum (¶98).
Regarding claim 25, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches wherein the graphite tape has a width between 1.0 cm and 5.0 cm, and wherein the graphite tape is wrapped around at least one side of the inorganic membrane (¶138, as shown in Figs 15-17).
Regarding claim 29, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches the step of using the sealed inorganic membrane in a membrane reactor or as a membrane reactor for a gas separation process for the separation of at least two gases, wherein the gases including at least one of He, H20, Ne, H2, NO, Ar, NH3, N2, 02, CO, CO2, CH4, C2H4, C2H6, propene,
propane, H2S, methanol, ethanol, DME, 1-2 propanol, and 1-2 butanol (¶99).
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.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edlund as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of “Hydraulic press” Wikipedia published 4 Jun. 2019 and access at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydraulic_press&oldid=900270166> (hereafter Hydraulic).
Regarding claim 19, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Edlund further teaches pressing (¶138).
Edlund does not teach wherein the pressing is performed using a hydraulic press or a pneumatic press.
Hydraulic teaches where a hydraulic press allows a small mechanical force to generate a large mechanical force (Main principle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressing (¶138) of Edlund by incorporating the hydraulic press (first paragraph) of Hydraulic in order to allow a small mechanical force to generate a large mechanical force (Main principle).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edlund as applied to claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 26, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches graphite tape (¶138).
Edlund does not teach wherein a thickness of the graphite tape is between 1.0 mm and 5.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the graphite tape (¶138) of Edlund to be between 1.0 mm and 5.0 mm as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.04 IV A) and in order to provide the proper space filling thickness, be thin enough for sufficient flexibility, and be sufficiently thick enough for sufficient strength.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edlund as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of “Computer numerical control” Wikipedia published 13 Jun. 2019 and access at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_numerical_control&oldid=901609639> (hereafter Computer).
Regarding claim 27, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 16. Edlund further teaches a metallic sleeve (¶138).
Edlund does not teach wherein the metallic sleeve is pretreated by a method comprising the steps of: cutting the metal sleeve into sections having a length between 3.0 cm and 5.0 cm; welding the sections to a metallic disk or to a ring; welding the metallic disk or ring with the attached sections to a metallic tube; and attaching a metal block to the sections using a computer numerical control machine.
As shown in Fig 17, the Edlund sleeve is a cylinder with one open end and one end capped by an annulus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the metallic sleeve (730) of Edlund to be between 3.0 cm and 5.0 cm as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.04 IV A) and in order to be long enough to provide the proper seal space while being short enough to allow for the membrane to function, where Edlund teaches the overall length of the device is 21 cm (¶149)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify metallic sleeve pretreatment by incorporating the step of cutting the metal sleeve into sections having a length between 3.0 cm and 5.0 cm in order to create a sleeve sized cylinder from a larger tube stock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify metallic sleeve pretreatment by incorporating the step of welding the sections to a metallic disk/ring in order to form the sleeve shape (as shown in Figs 16-17) and where Edlund teaches where welding is a gas tight seal which may be used (¶87).
Edlund teaches a tube (734) attached to the sleeve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube (734) of Edlund to be a metallic tube because copper is taught to be a compatible material (Edlund ¶138) and as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07). Further, Edlund teaches a metal tube 56 (¶42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify metallic sleeve pretreatment by incorporating the step of welding the sections to a metallic disk/ring and sections to the metallic tube in order to form the sleeve with the outlet (as shown in Figs 16-17) and where Edlund teaches where welding is a gas tight seal which may be used (¶87).
Edlund teaches attaching a metal block (52a) to the sections via tube 56.
Computer teaches where a computer numerical control machine allows automating machine movements (page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal block (52a) attachment of Edlund by using the computer numerical control machine (page 1) of Computer in order to allow automating machine movements (page 1).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the metallic sleeve is pretreated by a method comprising the steps of: cutting the metal sleeve into sections having a length between 3.0 cm and 5.0 cm; welding the sections to a metallic disk or to a ring; welding the metallic disk or ring with the attached sections to a metallic tube; and attaching a metal block to the sections using a computer numerical control machine.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edlund and Computer as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of “3d printing” Wikipedia published 13 Dec. 2020 and access at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3D_printing&oldid=993944880> (hereafter 3d).
Regarding claim 28, Edlund teaches all the limitations of claim 27.
Edlund does not teach wherein the pre-treatment method further comprises the step of 3D printing metal alloys to the metal block that is attached to the sections.
Edlund further teaches a metal (30a) attached to the metal block (52a).
3d teaches where 3d printing allows constructing 3 dimensional objects through additive manufacturing (first page) where metal alloys can be 3d printed (page 19, Hazards section Emissions subsection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the metal block (52a) attachment to the metal block (30a) of Edlund by using 3d printing of a metal alloy (pages 1 and 19) of 3d in order to manufacture the part (page 1) and as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07). A metal alloy would have advantages of the base metal improved by the addition of the additives, such as brass.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights