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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 12-13, 20, 22-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long).
The abstract, paragraphs [0003], [0008]-[0010], [0085]-[0086], [00108]-[00109], [00118] [00158], [00165], and fig. 5, claim 9 of Long disclose a composite membrane having the structural features recited in claims 1, 6-9, 12-13, 20, 22-23, and 25.
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(s) 2, 8, 10, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra.
As regarding claim 2, Long discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long discloses wherein the PAF, has general structure (fig. 5 – PAF-1). However, Long does not disclose wherein n is any integer between 2 and 500.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to vary the number of repeat units of the disclosed PAF structure within the claimed range. Long provides the same basic framework-forming building blocks and disclose a porous framework whose structural characteristics depend, at least in part, on the arrangement and extent of the repeating framework units. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize the membrane’s porosity, accessible surface area, molecular transport characteristics, and/or separation selectivity would have been motivated to adjust the number of repeating units while retaining the disclosed node and linking ligand chemistry. Such variation represents a predictable modification of the disclosed framework rather than a change in its fundamental structure or operating principle.
The one ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because changing the number of repeating units does not require a different type of node or linking ligand, but merely extends or contracts the same framework architecture using the same disclosed building blocks and conventional framework-synthesis techniques. Selecting an appropriate number of repeat units withing a finite, expressly define range, including values between 2 and 500, would therefore have constituted routine optimization of a known structural parameter. Accordingly, the limitation of the claimed invention requiring n to be an integer from 2 to 500 would have been an obvious variation of the PAF-1 structure disclosed by Long.
As regarding claims 8, 10 and 14, Long discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs are present at a density of about 0.315-0.345 g/mL; wherein the PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs are present at about 10-55 vol% in the polymer/membrane matrix; and wherein the PAFs, POFs and/or PPNs comprise a particle size of 50-300 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs are present at a density of about 0.315-0.345 g/mL; wherein the PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs are present at about 10-55 vol% in the polymer/membrane matrix; and wherein the PAFs, POFs and/or PPNs comprise a particle size of 50-300 nm in order to enhance composite membrane efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 15, Long discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the PAFs, POFs and/or PPNs form (i) a p-p stacking between aromatic groups on the PAFs, POFs and/or PPNs and polymer/membrane matrix aromatic groups; and/or (ii) hydrogen bonds between amines or oxygen-rich groups appended onto PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs and polar moieties on polymer/membrane matrix groups.
Long discloses an aromatic PAF incorporated into a polymer membrane matrix. Although Long does not expressly identify the intermolecular forces responsible for the PAF/polymer interfacial association, the claimed p-p stacking is an expected interaction between the aromatic surfaces of the disclosed PAF and the aromatic groups of the polymer matrix. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to exploit such aromatic-aromatic interactions because they provide a known mechanism for increasing filler/polymer interfacial affinity and improving dispersion and mechanical and separation properties of mixed-matrix membranes.
As regarding claim 17, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the presence of the PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs in the polymer/membrane matrix improves the mechanical property of the membrane compared to membranes lacking the PAFs, POFs, and/or PPNs (abstract and fig. 5).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra, and further in view of Gaab et al (US 20120270731; hereinafter Gaab).
As regarding claim 3, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the PAF, has the general structure (below), wherein R is a C1-5 alkane or a polyamine, wherein n is any integer between 2 and 500.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the PAF general structure in order to enhance composite membrane efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Gaab ([0032]).
As referring to ‘wherein n is any integer between 2 and 500’, see rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra, and further in view of Ahmad et al (“Enhanced gas separation performance of 6FDA-DAM based mixed matrix membranes by incorporating MOF UiO-66 and its derivatives”; hereinafter Ahmad).
As regarding claim 11, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the composite has a glass transition temperature of about 390-395 oC in a membrane matrix of 6FDA-DAM. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the composite has a glass transition temperature of about 390-395 oC in a membrane matrix of 6FDA-DAM to obtain a desired thermal property, since it was known in the art as shown in Ahmad (p 64, 70; abstract, table 1).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra, and further in view of Koros et al (US 20020056369; hereinafter Koros).
As regarding claim 21, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a method of making the composite membrane, the method comprising:(a) adding about 30% of the polymer/membrane matrix to a solution of dispersed PAFs, POFs and/or PPNs particles and allowing the polymer membrane matrix material to coat the PAFs, POFs and/or PPNs; and (b) adding the remaining polymer/membrane matrix material to (a).
Koros teaches a mixed-matrix membrane fabrication process in which porous particles are first dispersed, a portion of the matrix polymer is added to prime or coat the particle surfaces, and the remaining polymer is subsequently added to form the membrane; such priming improves particle/polymer compatibility and adhesion, promotes particle dispersion, and reduces interfacial defects.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply Koros priming technique to Long’s PAF/polymer membrane to improve PAF/polymer interfacial compatibility and adhesion, promote uniform PAF dispersion, and reduce interfacial defects or non-selective voids. One of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the same particle-priming mechanism disclosed by Koros could be applied to Long’s PAF particles without altering the underlying PAF/polymer membrane architecture. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to add about 30% of the polymer/membrane matrix to coat the PAF particles, followed by addition of the remaining polymer to provide adequate particle-surface coverage and interfacial interaction, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra, and further in view of Grover et al (US 20120003145; hereinafter Grover).
As regarding claim 26, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the method separates H2 in syngas, ammonia synthesis purge gas, and refinery fuel gas streams. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the method separates H2 in syngas, ammonia synthesis purge gas, and refinery fuel gas streams in order to improve an existing membrane-base H2 separation process, since it was known in the art as shown in Grover (title and abstract).
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra, and further in view of Hale et al (US 20050217479; hereinafter Hale).
As regarding claim 27, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the method is used to separate helium in natural gas and off gas from nitrogen rejection units used in natural gas processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the method is used to separate helium in natural gas and off gas from nitrogen rejection units used in natural gas processing improve helium separation performance in natural gas and nitrogen rejection unit off-gas streams, since it was known in the art as shown in Hale (title, abstract, [0041], [0048], and [0077]).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al (WO 2022061030; hereinafter Long) as applied supra, and further in view of Tanihara (US 20070180989).
As regarding claim 28, Long as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Long as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the method is used for recovery of oxygen found in ambient air. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the method is used for recovery of oxygen found in ambient air providing an alternative membrane having selective gas-transport properties for the same oxygen-recovery application, since it was known in the art as shown in Tanihara (title and abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 L. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights