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 .
This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katagiri et al. (US 2023/0146282 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katagiri discloses a separation membrane 10 (Fig. 1; [0071]) for separating a mixture gas through vapor permeation ([0130]) (i.e., a gas separation membrane) comprising:
a separation layer 1 with a matrix 4 containing polyimide and a filler 3 ([0072], [0076]) with a flaky shape ([0075]) (i.e., a scaly filler), wherein the polyimide is dissolved in a solvent, applied to a porous support, and dried ([0142]) (i.e., a polyimide resin).
Regarding claim 4, Katagiri teaches that the filler has an average particle diameter that is 5 nm to 10000 nm, for example ([0075]) (0.005 to 10 μm) (i.e., wherein an average particle diameter of the scaly filler is 2 μm or more and 30 μm or less).
Regarding claim 7, Katagiri teaches that the membrane is for a spiral membrane element ([0132]) (i.e., wherein a form of the membrane is a spiral type membrane formed by winding the flat membrane into a spiral shape).
Regarding claim 8, Katagiri teaches a porous support member 2 supporting the separation functional layer 1 ([0071]) (i.e., further comprising a porous support configured to support the gas separation membrane).
Regarding claim 10, Katagiri teaches a membrane separation device 100 comprising the separation membrane 10 in a tank 20 (Fig. 2; [0124]) (i.e., a gas separation membrane module, comprising the gas separation membrane according to claim 1 disposed in a closed container) with a first room 21 inlet 21a, a second room outlet 22a, and a first room outlet 21b ([0125]) (i.e., having a mixed gas inlet, a permeable gas outlet, and a non-permeable gas outlet).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katagiri, as evidenced by Voss et al. (US 2011/0197762 A1).
Katagiri teaches that the membrane is for the permeation of water vapor ([0128], [0130]), wherein water was known in the art to have a kinetic gas diameter of 0.290 nm, as evidenced by Voss ([0008]) (i.e., wherein a dynamic molecular diameter of a permeable molecule is 0.3 nm or less).
Claims 1-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fritzsche et al. (US 4,323,454), as evidenced by Muggli et al. (US 2025/0239638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fritzche discloses fiber membranes for gas-gas separation operations (col. 1, lines 7-11, 15-18) (i.e., a gas separation membrane) comprising:
a cured, solid resin and filler (col. 5, lines 34-36), the resin including polyimides (col. 10, line 67; col. 11, line 5; col. 20, line 35) (i.e., a polyimide resin); and the filler is silica or mica (col. 6, lines 33-34) with an aspect ratio of 1:1 to 50:1 (col. 7, lines 23-25), which is known in the art to be a plate-like or flaky filler, as evidenced by Muggli ([0113]) (i.e., a scaly filler).
Regarding claim 2, Fritsche teaches that the filler can be silica or mica (col. 6, lines 33-34) (i.e., wherein the scaly filler is at least one of mica, silica).
Regarding claim 3, Fritsche teaches that excluding the filler, the resin may comprise about 60 to 95, say, about 85 to 95, weight percent of the liquid resinous composition (col. 7, lines 46-48) (i.e., 30 to 5 weight percent filler; wherein a content of the scaly filler is 0.2% by mass or more and 30% by mass or less).
Regarding claim 4, Fritsche teaches that the filler is most often about 2 to 50 microns in its maximum dimension (col. 7, lines 2-7) (i.e., wherein an average particle diameter of the scaly filler is 2 μm or more and 30 μm or less).
Regarding claim 5, Fritsche teaches a filler with an aspect ratio of 1:1 to 50:1 (col. 7, lines 23-25) (i.e., wherein an aspect ratio of the scaly filler is 10 or more and 30 or less).
Regarding claim 7, Fritsche teaches that the membrane is for hollow fiber membranes (col. 5, lines 33-34) (i.e., wherein a form of the membrane is a hollow fiber membrane).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritsche, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Golemme et al. (EP2668995A1).
Fritsche does not explicitly disclose that the scaly filler is arranged in a direction perpendicular to a gas permeation direction.
Golemme discloses a gas separation membrane comprising a high aspect ratio filler ([0017], [0018]). Golemme teaches that the fillers are oriented with their largest dimensions parallel to the external surface of the membrane to enable better permeability and selectivity combinations with respect to analogous membranes containing low aspect ratio filler ([0004]) (i.e., arranged in a direction perpendicular to a gas permeation direction).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the membrane of Fritsche by providing a scaly filler arranged in a direction perpendicular to a gas permeation direction as taught by Golemme because fillers that are oriented with their largest dimensions parallel to the external surface of the membrane enable better permeability and selectivity combinations with respect to analogous membranes containing low aspect ratio filler (Golemme, [0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katagiri, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2016/0288047 A1).
Katagiri does not explicitly disclose that a form of the gas separation membrane is a hollow fiber membrane, a flat membrane, a pleated type membrane formed by folding the flat membrane a plurality of times, or a spiral type membrane formed by winding the flat membrane into a spiral shape.
Fukuda discloses a gas separation system (Abstract; Fig. 2). Fukuda teaches that the membrane 30 of the system can be a hollow fiber membrane module ([0060]) or a spiral-wound membrane module ([0061]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas separation membrane module of Katagiri by providing a form of the gas separation membrane that is a hollow fiber membrane or a spiral type membrane formed by winding the flat membrane into a spiral shape as taught by Fukuda because (1) Katagiri does not explicitly disclose a shape of the configuration of Fig. 2; and (2) a hollow fiber membrane module and a spiral-wound membrane module can be effective for gas separation (Fukuda, Abstract; [0060], [0061]). See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (G).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katagiri, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda.
Katagiri discloses a membrane separation device 100 comprising the separation membrane 10 in a tank 20 (Fig. 2; [0124]) with a first room 21 inlet 21a, a second room outlet 22a, and a first room outlet 21b ([0125]) (i.e., the gas separation membrane according to claim 1 is disposed in a closed container having a mixed gas inlet, a permeable gas outlet, and a non-permeable gas outlet).
However, Katagiri does not explicitly disclose a gas permeable apparatus comprising two or more gas separation membrane modules.
Fukuda discloses a gas separation system (Abstract; Fig. 2). Fukuda teaches arranging a plurality of gas separation membrane modules 40 in parallel ([0060]) so that they function substantially as a single gas separation membrane module having a large membrane area ([0005]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas separation membrane module of Katagiri by providing a gas permeable apparatus comprising two or more gas separation membrane modules as taught by Fukuda because gas separation membrane modules arranged in parallel can function substantially as a single gas separation membrane module having a large membrane area (Fukuda, [0005], [0060]).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sumi et al. (US 2024/0018357 A1) discloses a separation film permeable to water ([0009]) comprising a resin and filler ([0148]), the resin including a polyimide resin ([0150]), and the filler comprising plate-shaped mica ([0140]) or glass flakes ([0145]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights