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 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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the oxidative combustion reactor " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the combustion reactor”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the oxidative combustion reactor " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “the combustion reactor”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the metabolic CO2 from a spacecraft crew cabinet and from solid organic waste” in line 2. It is known in the art that a spacecraft crew cabinet may contain metabolic carbon dioxide. However, it is not known or clear if “metabolic carbon dioxide” could be from solid organic waste. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the metabolic CO2" in line 2 and “the CO2" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the above limitations will be interpreted as “CO2” and “the combined CO2", respectively.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " metabolic CO2" in line 1. Claim 7 recites “the metabolic CO2". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the O2 which is supplied to the crew cabin". Claim 7 recites “generating H2 including producing O2". It is not clear if "the O2" that is generated with H2 is also supplied to the crew cabin” or the mixture is supplied to the crew cabin. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the CO2 from solid organic waste". Claim 7 recites “solid organic waste ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Due to the dependency to the parent claims, claims 2-6, and 8-15 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ganzer et al (“Integration of an algal photobioreactor into an environmental control and life support system of a space station”, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Ganzer et al disclose a system for producing methane and a method using the same (ABSTRACT). The method comprises steps of
(1) supplying carbon dioxide to a Sabatier reactor for producing methane, wherein the carbo dioxide comprises some metabolic carbon dioxide from cabin and some carbon dioxide from incinerating solid organic waste in an incineration system while generated carbon dioxide and water from the incineration system are output separately (i.e., a combustion reactor …, a Sabatier reactor …, a separator …, combining carbon dioxide … and supplying …, Figure 1, Table 1, pages 249, 253, & 260);
(2) electrolyzing water to generate hydrogen and oxygen in a water electrolysis unit, wherein the hydrogen is supplied to the Sabatier reactor for generating methane while oxygen is supplied to cabinet crew for life support (i.e., generating hydrogen … including producing oxygen, … for life support, Figure 1, Table 1, page 249).
It should be noted that “a separator” does not recite any structural limitations and will be interpreted as “a structure configured to separately output different components”. Ganzer teaches that the generated carbon dioxide and water are separately supplied to a water treatment system and a carbon dioxide tank (Figure 1). Thus, Ganzer either inherently teaches at least one separator for separately outputting water and carbon dioxide or it would be obvious to provide at least one separator to separately output water and carbon dioxide. As such, the separated carbon dioxide and water are separately supplied for different applications.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Ganzer teaches to branch a portion of oxygen from a supply line to the incineration system, to mix the branched oxygen with air from removal of metabolic carbon dioxide source, and supply the mixture of oxygen and air from a mixer to the crew cabin (Figure 1 & Table 1, pages 249, 253, & 260).
Regarding claim 3, Ganzer teaches to electrolyze water from a water supply line in a water electrolysis unit to generate hydrogen and oxygen, wherein the hydrogen is supplied to the Sabatier reactor and oxygen is supplied to the incineration system and to mix with air in the mixer (Figure 1 & Table 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 4, Ganzer teaches to receive gas mixture from the cabin and to discharge cleaned air to the mixer, wherein the contaminants are removed from air stream (Figure 1, page 249).
It should be noted that “a thermal amine scrubber” does not recite any structural limitation and will be interpreted as “a structure for removing/separating components/contaminants from mixture stream. Ganzer teaches that EDC2 along with TCCS and CHX can remove contaminants and separate metabolic carbon dioxide from gas mixture, reading on “a thermal amine scrubber”.
Regarding claim 5, Ganzer teaches that a carbon dioxide tank is provided for storing carbon dioxide which receives carbon dioxide from scrubbed carbon dioxide in a first line and separated carbon dioxide in a second line while supplying carbon dioxide to the Sabatier reactor (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claims 6 , Ganzer teaches that the system is provided within a spacecraft and the generated methane is supplied to thrusters while oxygen/air mixture is supplied to the cabin (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 9, Ganzer teaches that the carbon dioxide is generated by the reaction of solid waste with oxygen in the incineration system (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 10, Ganzer teaches that the carbon dioxide and water are generated in the incineration system (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 11, Ganzer teaches that the produced carbon dioxide is supplied to the Sabatier reactor and separated from water (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 12, Ganzer teaches to electrolyze water from a water supply line in a water electrolysis unit to generate hydrogen and oxygen, wherein the hydrogen is supplied to the Sabatier reactor and oxygen is supplied to the incineration system and to mix with air in the mixer (Figure 1 & Table 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 13, Ganzer teaches that the generated water is supplied to the water electrolysis unit (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 14, Ganzer teaches to remove metabolic carbon dioxide from gas mixture received from the cabin and to supply the filtered carbon dioxide to the Sabatier reactor (Figure 1, page 249).
Regarding claim 15, Ganzer teaches that the system is provided within a spacecraft and the generated methane is supplied to thrusters (Figure 1, page 249).
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUYU TAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/XIUYU TAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795