DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Amendment filed 9/16/25 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Claims 1-12 and 22 are under prosecution.
The Amendments are not sufficient to overcome a prior art rejection. A Final Rejection follows.
FINAL REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lively et al. US Patent 8,257,474 in view of Broens EP 1446218.
Regarding claims 1, Lively teaches a purification system comprising (Figures 2A and 2B);
a) A vessel 200 with a feed inlet and a feed outlet (column 4 lines 10-15);
b) An adsorbent within the vessel further comprising multiple fibers 110 (column 4 line 13, column 10 line 6) and a
c) heating element at the exterior of the vessel (column 13 line 23).
Lively does not explicitly teach helical fibers formed around a center tube. However, this configuration is known in Broens who teaches a membrane permeator module for gas separation in Figures 1 and 2 that comprises a helically-wound bundle 2 of composite fibers around center hollow tube 6. This configuration provides an uninterrupted system thus increasing purification ([0019]-[0020]). The fibers may not be hollow (claim 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lively with known membrane configurations as shown in Broens that include hollow helically wound fibers because it has been shown to provide a benefit in gas purification.
Regarding claim 2, the fibers are disposed along the length of the vessel which form a fiber arrangement about the center tube 220 where water is flowed through the lumens 130 of the plurality of fibers 110 of a fiber-based adsorption contactor 200 for adsorption and steam is flowed through the lumens 130 of the plurality of fibers 110 of a fiber-based adsorption contactor 200 for desorption (column 13 lines 30-37). Broens further discloses that the fibers may be wound over a hollow tube or cartridge (Figure 1, [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 3, the device comprises ends 240 for engaging the adsorption device.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Figure 2B shows the adsorbents can be arranged in parallel or series (column 12 line 15).
Regarding claim 6, the heating element comprises a heat exchanging medium (column 4 line 54).
Regarding claim 7, the fluid purification system is configured for axial flow along the length of the device or cross flow where it exits 215 (column 12 lines 34-35).
Regarding claim 8, the system is configured for bore side feeding or at the feed inlet (column 4 line 4).
Regarding claim 9, the multiple fibers comprise an exterior surface (Figure 2B), where the surface is wrapped by a binding material 210 (column 12 line 16).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the exterior surface of the adsorbent is wrapped by a polymer matrix 150, thus comprises a porous polymer (Figure 1A, column 7 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 12, the adsorbent material comprises at least one of molecular sieves, zeolites, silico-aluminophosphate (SAPO) materials, aluminosilicates, aluminophosphate (ALPO) materials, activated carbon, activated alumina, silicates, amine-grafted silica, metal-organic framework materials, covalent organic framework materials, metal-organic polyhedra, zeolite-imidazolate framework materials, and polymer-based adsorbents (column 8 lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 22, Lively teaches a purification system comprising (Figures 2A and 2B);
a) A vessel 200 with a feed inlet and a feed outlet (column 4 lines 10-15);
b) An adsorbent within the vessel further comprising multiple fibers 110 (column 4 line 13, column 10 line 6);
c) heating element at the exterior of the vessel (column 13 line 23); and
wherein the fibers are disposed along the length of the vessel which form a fiber arrangement about the center tube 220 where water is flowed through the lumens 130 of the plurality of fibers 110 of a fiber-based adsorption contactor 200 for adsorption and steam is flowed through the lumens 130 of the plurality of fibers 110 of a fiber-based adsorption contactor 200 for desorption (column 13 lines 30-37).
Lively does not explicitly teach helical fibers formed around a center tube. However, this configuration is known in Broens who teaches a membrane permeator module for gas separation in Figures 1 and 2 that comprises a helically-wound bundle 2 of composite fibers around center hollow tube 6. This configuration provides an uninterrupted system thus increasing purification ([0019]-[0020]). The fibers may not be hollow (claim 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Lively with known membrane configurations as shown in Broens that include hollow helically wound fibers because it has been shown to provide a benefit in gas purification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772