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 Status
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are currently pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention. Corrections are required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018183756 to Tanihara et al. (hereinafter “Tanihara”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/10/2026, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 11, Tanihara teaches a regeneration device for an inorganic porous gas separation membrane having a tube shape, the regeneration device comprising a gas separation membrane module including a housing (container) including a cleaning-fluid (permeate gas) feed port and a used-cleaning-fluid (permeate gas) discharge port, an inorganic porous gas separation membrane accommodated in the housing, and a cleaning-fluid (permeate gas) feed device that is in fluid communication with the cleaning-fluid feed port (see figures 1-5, and English translation [0011-0012, 0022-0025 and 0032-0034]).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018183756 to Tanihara et al. (hereinafter “Tanihara”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/10/2026, see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tanihara teaches a method for regenerating an inorganic porous gas separation membrane having a tube shape (see figures 1-3) (English translation [0011-0012, and 0016]), the method comprising the steps of bringing a cleaning fluid (permeate gas) at a pressure of 0 MPaG or more and 5MPaG or less into contact with a used inorganic porous gas separation membrane containing at least a part of components of a treated gas (English translation [0022-0025 and 0029-0030]). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Tanihara further teaches that the inorganic porous gas separation membrane is formed of zeolites (English translation [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanihara further teaches that the cleaning fluid is a gas mixture including hydrocarbon having 1 or more carbon atoms (English translation [0022-0023]).
Regarding claim 6, Tanihara further teaches that the cleaning fluid (permeate gas) is at a temperature of from 80°C or higher (English translation [0028]). In the case where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Consult MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Tanihara further teaches that the membrane has a tubular shape including a treated-gas feed side, a non-permeation side, and a permeation side (see figures 1-4) (English translation [0016-0017, and 0019-0020]), wherein the method comprises the step of feeding the cleaning fluid to the treated-gas feed side, or the permeation side of the inorganic porous gas separation membrane (English translation [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanihara does not teach the step of keeping a difference between a pressure on the treated-gas feed side and a pressure on the permeation side at 12 MPa or less.
However, the difference between a pressure on the treated-gas feed side and a pressure on the permeation side is a result effective variable modifying the cleaning results. For example, if the difference between a pressure on the treated-gas feed side and a pressure on the permeation side is too low, it risks insufficient removal of contaminants from the membrane, while if the difference between a pressure on the treated-gas feed side and a pressure on the permeation side is too high, it risks damages to the membrane. Without evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the appropriate difference between a pressure on the treated-gas feed side and a pressure on the permeation side with predictable results, 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. Consult MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding claim 10, Tanihara further teaches an initial pressure increasing step of feeding the cleaning fluid (permeate gas) to both the treated-gas feed side and the permeation side (English translation [0025 and 0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Tanihara teaches the inorganic porous gas separation membrane is a tubular inorganic porous gas separation membrane (see figures 1-3, and English translation [0011-0013]).
However, Tanihara does not explicitly teach that the membrane is a single-tube membrane or a honeycomb-shaped inorganic porous gas separation membrane.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Tanihara for regenerating an inorganic porous gas separation membrane, wherein the membrane is a single-tube membrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Tanihara teaches that the method is effective for regenerating an inorganic porous gas separation membrane, wherein the membrane can be a hollow fiber membrane bundle having the form of a cylinder, and that the separation membrane module can be a hollow-feed type (see figures 1-3, and English translation [0011-0014]).
Regarding claim 13, Tanihara teaches the inorganic porous gas separation membrane is a tubular inorganic porous gas separation membrane (see figures 1-3, and English translation [0011-0013]).
Tanihara does not teach that the membrane is a single-tube membrane or a honeycomb-shaped inorganic porous gas separation membrane.
However, 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 shape of the membrane, wherein the membrane is a single-tube membrane, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Tanihara teaches that the regeneration device can comprise an inorganic porous gas separation membrane, wherein the membrane can be a hollow fiber membrane bundle having the form of a cylinder, and that the separation membrane module can be a hollow-feed type (see figures 1-3, and English translation [0011-0014]), and because such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of the membrane. In the absence of persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed tank was significant one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the shape of the tank with respect to the amount of produce and/or washing liquid to be contained within the tank. Consult MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018183756 to Tanihara et al. (hereinafter “Tanihara”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/10/2026, see attached English translation) in view of JP 2011045818 to (hereinafter “Sugawara et al.”, presented in the IDS filed on 02/10/2025, see attached English translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tanihara does not teach that the cleaning fluid is a supercritical fluid, wherein the supercritical fluid is supercritical CO2.
Sugawara teaches a method for cleaning filters used for filtering gases (English translation [0015]). Sugawara teaches that the method comprises the step of supplying supercritical carbon dioxide through the filter for cleaning the filter (English translation [0036-0038]).
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 method disclosed by Tanihara wherein the cleaning fluid is supercritical CO2, with a reasonable expectation of success, since
Sugawara teaches that it is effective to use supercritical carbon dioxide for cleaning filters because the high density of the supercritical carbon dioxide has a great ability to transport fine particles, allowing the fine particles inside the filter to be effectively expelled (English translation [0036-0038] of Sugawara).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights