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 .
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 1 – 13 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.
Independent claim 1 “(a) While a position of the second permeation spacer relative to the first permeation spacer moves in the second direction by a larger pitch out of a pitch of the grooves a and a pitch of the grooves b, a top portion of at least one of the projections c is in contact with a top portion of at least one of the projections d” as one option of a condition that must be satisfied. On its face, this language is considered to be clear. The examiner interprets it to require the grooves of the second permeation spacer to have a larger pitch than the grooves of the first permeation spacer while also having a top portion of at least one of the projections of the first permeation spacer be in contact with a top portion of at least one of the projections of the second permeation spacer. This is consistent with what is shown in figures 8A and 8B where the specification describes this condition being met. As discussed in MPEP 2173.03, a claim, although clear on its face, can also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain. The specification in the present application further provides examples 1 – 5, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 and discussed in paragraphs [0109] – [0128]. As discussed in paragraph [0120], examples 1 to 5 are all considered to satisfy the above condition (see paragraph [0009] where condition (a) is defined). Examples 1 to 3 use different materials having a different pitch of the grooves, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. This is consistent with the language of condition (a) as the permeation spacers have grooves with different pitches. Examples 4 and 5, however, use the same material for each permeation spacer, as shown in Table 1. Given the information from Table 2, permeation spacers made of the same material will also have the same pitch of the grooves. It is not clear how two of the same materials with the same pitch of the grooves satisfies condition (a). For the purpose of examination condition (a) will be considered to be satisfied as long as a top portion of at least one of the projections c is in contact with a top portion of at least one of the projections d.
Claims 2 – 13 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000-51671 to Ando (hereinafter referred to as Ando).
In regard to claim 1, a shown in figure 1, Ando discloses a spiral membrane element (1) with a central tube (5) and a membrane leaf (4) that has a separation membrane (2) and is wound around the central tube. As shown in figures 1 and 2, the membrane leaf (4) has a first permeation spacer (10a) having a surface A1 and a second permeation spacer (10b) having a surface B1 facing the surface A1. As best shown in figure 2, the surface A1 has a plurality of grooves (12) and a plurality of projections. The surface B1 also has a plurality of grooves (12) and a plurality of projections. On the surface A1, the grooves and the projections each extend in a first direction and are arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. Similarly, on the surface B1, the grooves and the projections each extend in the first direction and are arranged in the second direction. The top portions of the projections on the surface A1 are shown to contact the top portions of the projections on the surface B1, thus claimed condition (a) can be considered to be satisfied, as broadly interpreted.
In regard to claim 8, as shown in figure 2, the first permeation spacer has a surface A2 facing the surface A1, the second permeation spacer has a surface B2 facing the surface B1, and each of the surface A2 and the surface B2 is flat.
In regard to claim 9, as shown in figure 2, the first permeation spacer has a surface A2 facing the surface A1, the second permeation spacer has a surface B2 facing the surface B1, and each of the surface A2 and the surface B2 has no grooves.
In regard to claim 10, the spiral membrane element (1) of Ando includes all of the required structural limitations and is considered to have a pressure loss as claimed.
In regard to claim 11, the membrane leaf (4) has two pieces of the separation membranes (2), and the two pieces of the separation membranes (2) are stacked with each other and sealed in such a manner as to have a bag-like structure, as discussed in paragraph [0022].
In regard to claim 12, as shown in figure 1, the first permeation spacer (10a) and the second permeation spacer (10b) are disposed between the two pieces of the separation membranes (2).
In regard to claim 13, the spiral membrane element (1) of Ando includes all of the required structural limitations and is considered to be capable of being used for separating carbon dioxide from a gas mixture containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights