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 1-10 are pending.
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 3 and 7-9 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 3: The claim recites, “wherein the first convex structure is disposed on each of the first surfaces of the two gas separation membranes.” The claim depends from claim 1, which recites, “a first convex structure protruding from at least one of the first surface of the gas separation membrane and an outer surface of the wall body.” It is unclear how a single first convex structure protruding from a single surface (claim 1) can be disposed on, and presumably protrude from, two different surfaces of two membranes (claim 3). For the purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted as reciting, “wherein [[the ]]a respective first convex structure is disposed on each of the first surfaces of the two gas separation membranes.”
Claim 7: The claim recites, “a mixed gas flow path part which is defined by a wall surface including the first surface and through which the mixed gas flows.” It is unclear whether “a wall surface including the first surface” is to be interpreted as two surfaces or a renaming of the first surface as a wall surface. It is noted that Merriam-Webster defines “surface” as “the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body” and “the external or superficial aspect of something,” so it would appear that a surface must be a singular aspect of a corresponding object. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by a surface including another surface.
Claims 8-9 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 7.
Claim 9: The claim recites, “the first convex structure protrudes at upstream in a flow of the mixed gas of the gas separation membrane on the outer surface of the wall body.” It is unclear what is meant by “at upstream” since “upstream” must be an adjective or an adverb, whereas the object of the preposition “to” must be a noun, so this text is unintelligible. Therefore, it is unclear if Applicant means to claim that the first convex structure protrudes from the upstream side or the wall body. For the purposes of examination only, the claim will be interpreted as requiring a convex structure protruding on or from the outer surface of the wall body.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slovetskiy et al. (WO 2007/018444 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Slovetskiy discloses a membrane apparatus (Fig. 6; p. 10, top) comprising a hydrogen permeable membrane 1 (Fig. 1; p. 9, “In accordance”) (i.e., a gas separation membrane unit) comprising:
the membrane 1 for permeating hydrogen from a gas mixture (p. 9, “The membrane”) (i.e., a gas separation membrane configured to separate a predetermined gas component contained in a mixed gas) having protrusions 2 facing a supply mixture (Figs. 1, 5, 6; p. 7, “The indicated,” end of para.), the protrusions being in the form of convex sections in the form of sphere segments (p. 9, “An example”) (i.e., supplied to a first surface by allowing the predetermined gas component to permeate to a second surface that is a reverse surface of the first surface; a first convex structure protruding from
a center of a filter element 5 between two membranes 1 (Fig. 6) from which pure hydrogen is discharged via pipes 11 (p. 10, “The membrane . . . exhausting . . . from the center”) (i.e., a gas flow path part including a wall body configured to define an internal space through which the predetermined gas component separated flows).
Further regarding “a first convex structure protruding from . . . the first surface of the gas separation membrane,” Slovetskiy teaches that the protrusions are formed by formed by pressing using a mold (p. 11, “Example 1”), so the protrusions are integral to the gas separation membrane. However, as Fig. 1 makes clear, the protrusions 2 protrude from surrounding valleys 3 (Fig. 1; p. 9, “In accordance”) of the membrane 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Slovetskiy teaches an embodiment in which membranes 1 are at top and bottom surfaces of a filter element 5 (Figs. 5, 6) (i.e., two pieces of the gas separation membranes arranged such that the second surfaces are opposed to each other), with protrusions extending from membranes 1 away from the enter of the filter element 5 (Fig. 5) (i.e., wherein the first convex structure is disposed on each of the first surfaces of the two gas separation membranes).
Regarding claim 4, Slovetskiy teaches that the radius of the sphere can vary from 0.5 to 10 mm (p. 9, “The radius”) (i.e., wherein a projection height of the first convex structure is 0.1 mm or more and 50 mm or less). See MPEP 2131.03(I).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner et al. (US 2,597,907) in view of Walch et al. (EP0081182A2).
Regarding claim 1, Steiner discloses a membrane-supporting unit (Fig. 10; col. 11, line 58) (i.e., a gas separation membrane unit) comprising:
membranes 36 (coil. 11, line 68) which allow a gas of a gas mixture to permeate (col. 1, lines 6-9; col. 10, lines 63-65) to chambers 38 for withdrawing permeated gases through lateral passages 45 (col. 12, lines 23-29) in frames 33 around the chambers 38 (col. 11, line 60) (i.e., a gas separation membrane configured to separate a predetermined gas component contained in a mixed gas supplied to a first surface by allowing the predetermined gas component to permeate to a second surface that is a reverse surface of the first surface; a gas flow path part including a wall body configured to define an internal space through which the predetermined gas component separated flows).
However, Steiner does not suggest a first convex structure protruding from at least one of the first surface of the gas separation membrane and an outer surface of the wall body.
Walch discloses a membrane layer 2 (Fig. 1; [0022]) for separating gaseous multi-component systems ([0008]). Walch teaches profiling elements 1 ([0022]) permanently bonded with the membrane as threads or chains of dots ([0014]) (i.e., convex structures protruding from a surface of a gas separation membrane) to create improved flow conditions between membrane layers ([0008]).
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 unit of Steiner by providing a first convex structure protruding from a first surface of the gas separation membrane as taught by Walch because profiling elements can create improved flow conditions between membrane layers (Walch, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Steiner teaches membranes 36 on either side of the intervening chambers 38 (Fig. 10) (i.e., two pieces of the gas separation membranes arranged such that the second surfaces are opposed to each other).
Regarding claim 3, Steiner in view of Walch does not explicitly disclose that the first convex structure is disposed on each of the first surfaces of the two gas separation membranes.
However, it would have been obvious to provide the profiling elements/convex structures on the first surfaces of the membranes in the embodiment taught by Steiner in view of Walch because their function is create improved flow conditions (Walch, [0008]) in place of other structures the affect the type of flow over the membrane where deposits or dead zones can form (Walch, [0005], [0006]), which would have been recognized by the skilled practitioner to correspond to the upstream or unfiltered side of the membrane, rather than the downstream side where flow results from diffusion through the membrane of the separated gas component (Steiner, lines 26-29), wherein the upstream side corresponds to the first surface.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Walch, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niedzielski et al. (US 3,307,330).
Regarding claim 6, Steiner discloses a gas separation apparatus (Fig. 9; col. 4, line 65) comprising the membrane-supporting unit, so Steiner in view of Walch is interpreted as teaching a gas separation apparatus comprising the gas separation membrane unit according to claim 1.
Steiner in view of Walch does not explicitly disclose an exhaust pump configured to exhaust the predetermined gas component flowing through the internal space of the gas flow path part.
Niedzielski discloses a membrane for separating gases from a gas mixture (col. 1, lines 9-13). Niedzielski teaches a pump 64 for drawing a permeated mixture from the membrane 56 (col. 4, lines 50, 54-55).
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 unit of Steiner in view of Walch by providing an exhaust pump configured to exhaust the predetermined gas component flowing through the internal space of the gas flow path part as taught by Niedzielski because (1) Steiner teaches the withdrawal of permeated gas (Steiner, col. 12, lines 61-67) but does not state how a pressure difference is created to withdrawn the gas; and (2) a pump can be used to withdrawn a permeated gas (Niedzielski, col. 4, lines 50, 54-55).
Regarding claim 10, Steiner teaches pairs of membranes 36 separated in the direction through which gas permeates the membranes (Fig. 11, arrows) (i.e., at least two pieces of the gas separation membrane units arranged at a distance from each other in a direction crossing the first surface).
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slovetskiy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niedzielski.
Regarding claim 6, Slovetskiy discloses a gas separation apparatus (Fig. 11) including the apparatus of Fig. 6 (i.e., a gas separation apparatus comprising the gas separation membrane unit according to claim 1).
Slovetskiy does not explicitly disclose an exhaust pump configured to exhaust the predetermined gas component flowing through the internal space of the gas flow path part.
Niedzielski discloses a membrane for separating gases from a gas mixture (col. 1, lines 9-13). Niedzielski teaches a pump 64 for drawing a permeated mixture from the membrane 56 (col. 4, lines 50, 54-55).
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 unit of Slovetskiy by providing an exhaust pump configured to exhaust the predetermined gas component flowing through the internal space of the gas flow path part as taught by Niedzielski because a pump can be used to withdrawn a permeated gas (Niedzielski, col. 4, lines 50, 54-55).
Regarding claim 7, Slovetskiy teaches gas supply elements 16 in the form of plates (i.e., a mixed gas supply unit including a mixed gas flow path part which is defined by a wall surface including the first surface and through which the mixed gas flows), a nozzle 17 for supplying an initial mixture (i.e., a mixed gas introduction part configured to introduce the mixed gas into the mixed gas flow path part), and an outlet for a depleted gas mixture 19 (i.e., a mixed gas discharge part configured to discharge the mixed gas from the mixed gas flow path part) (Fig. 6; p. 10, “The membrane”).
Regarding claim 10, Slovetskiy teaches pairs of membranes 1 (Fig.1) separated in the direction through which gas permeates the membranes (e.g., p. 10, “The membrane . . . discharging pure hydrogen”) (i.e., at least two pieces of the gas separation membrane units arranged at a distance from each other in a direction crossing the first surface).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 8-9 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 5 and 8-9.
The concept of a gas separation membrane unit comprising:
a gas separation membrane configured to separate a predetermined gas component contained in a mixed gas supplied to a first surface by allowing the predetermined gas component to permeate to a second surface that is a reverse surface of the first surface;
a gas flow path part including a wall body configured to define an internal space through which the predetermined gas component separated flows; and
a first convex structure protruding from at least one of the first surface of the gas separation membrane and an outer surface of the wall body (claim 1)
wherein a gas permeability to carbon dioxide of the gas separation membrane is 5000 GPU or more and 100000 GPU or less (claim 5); or
comprising an exhaust pump configured to exhaust the predetermined gas component flowing through the internal space of the gas flow path part (claim 6); and further comprising a mixed gas supply unit including a mixed gas flow path part which is defined by a wall surface including the first surface and through which the mixed gas flows, a mixed gas introduction part configured to introduce the mixed gas into the mixed gas flow path part, and a mixed gas discharge part configured to discharge the mixed gas from the mixed gas flow path part (claim 7);
wherein the mixed gas supply unit includes a second convex structure protruding from the wall surface (claim 8); or
wherein the first convex structure protrudes at upstream in a flow of the mixed gas of the gas separation membrane on the outer surface of the wall body (claim 9)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Slovetskiy et al. (WO 2007/018444 A1), which discloses a membrane apparatus (Fig. 6; p. 10, top) comprising:
a membrane 1 for permeating hydrogen from a gas mixture (p. 9, “The membrane”) having protrusions 2 facing a supply mixture (Figs. 1, 5, 6; p. 7, “The indicated,” end of para.), the protrusions being in the form of convex sections in the form of sphere segments (p. 9, “An example”); and
a center of a filter element 5 between two membranes 1 (Fig. 6) from which pure hydrogen is discharged via pipes 11 (p. 10, “The membrane . . . exhausting . . . from the center”).
Regarding claim 5, Slovetskiy does not suggest a membrane that is permeable for carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 8, Slovetskiy does not suggest protrusions/convex structures on a wall surface.
Regarding claim 9, Slovetskiy does not suggest protrusions/convex structures on an outer surface of a wall body.
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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