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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 26th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12-16, 19-21, and 31 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 26th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 10, 12-16, 19-21, and 31 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.
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 15-16 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 15 recites the limitation "the high surface area substrates" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the high surface area substrates" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 19, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2013/0283842 A1 to Heyse et al. (hereinafter referred to as Heyse), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0039047 A1 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kimura), U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2005/0199124 A1 to Little et al. (hereinafter referred to as Little), and Nigar, H. et al. Amine-Functionalized Mesoporous Silica: A Material Capable of CO2 Adsorption and Fast Regeneration by Microwave Heating, AIChE Journal, Vol. 62 (November 2015), pp. 547-555 (hereinafter referred to as Nigar).
Regarding claim 1, Heyse teaches a cabin filter system (¶0001), comprising: a water sorbent material configured to remove water from air within a cabin (¶0038 “In a further step 203, moisture, in particular water vapor, is removed from the gas mixture.”); a gas sorbent material configured to remove gas from the air within the cabin (¶0037 “In a step 201, carbon dioxide is filtered out of the gas mixture.”); and at least one heater configured to transmit energy directly to at least the water sorbent material or the gas sorbent material to regenerate at least one of the sorbent materials (¶0038 “The zeolite or silica gel can preferably be regenerated by means of heating”).
Heyse does not teach wherein the gas sorbent material comprises about 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of an amine component and about 45 wt% to about 65 wt% of a silica component, wherein the gas sorbent material is positioned downstream from the water sorbent material in a direction of operation such that air contacts the water sorbent material before contacting the gas sorbent material, and wherein the at least one heater comprises a microwave resonator configured to transmit microwave energy directly to one of the sorbent materials.
However, Kimura teaches a carbon dioxide sorbent for use in a building (¶0002) that comprises a porous support impregnated with an amine compound (Abstract), more specifically wherein the sorbent material comprises about 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of an amine component and about 45 wt% to about 65 wt% of a silica component (¶0016 “In one embodiment, the porous support comprises … silica” ; ¶0121 “In certain embodiments, after drying, a weight percent of one or more amine compounds impregnated onto the porous support ranges from 20% and 60% of a total weight of the sorbent, from 30% to 50% of the total weight of the sorbent, or from 38% to 45% of the total weight of the sorbent.”). Kimura further teaches that removal of water from the sorbent material increases the capacity of the material for removal of carbon dioxide (¶0035 “Typically, the treatment results in removal of contaminants (e.g., water) from adsorption sites in order to increase the capacity of the materials for their intended use.” ; ¶0116 “In certain embodiments, the activation includes the removal of water molecules from the adsorption sites.”).
Heyse and Kimura are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of environmental air quality control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cabin filter system as taught by Heyse could be modified to include the carbon dioxide sorbent as taught by Kimura. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (removal of carbon dioxide) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Kimura also teaches that water molecules compete with the carbon dioxide for adsorption sites and the sorbent material would therefore more efficiently remove carbon dioxide if water was removed prior to contact; it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter system of Heyse such that the air contacts a water sorbent material prior to contacting the gas sorbent material.
In an alternative, assuming that Kimura does not sufficiently teach positioning the gas sorbent downstream from the water sorbent material, Little teaches a device for the removal of carbon dioxide and water (Abstract), wherein a first bed is configured to remove water (Fig. 1, first column 14) and a second bed is configured to remove carbon dioxide (Fig. 1, second column 26). Little further teaches that drying the gas stream prior to carbon dioxide removal results in more efficient carbon dioxide removal, as traditional adsorbents, such as those seen in Heyse, have a weaker affinity for carbon dioxide than water (¶0010 “The carbon dioxide adsorbent is a zeolite … This adsorbent, however, has a weaker affinity for carbon dioxide than for water.” ; ¶0019).
Heyse, Kimura, and Little are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide removal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cabin air filter as taught by Heyse such that the gas sorbent material is positioned downstream from the water sorbent material as taught by Little to increase overall carbon dioxide removal.
As to the limitation of wherein the heater comprises a microwave resonator, Nigar teaches that the use of microwave irradiation for desorption is a highly efficient process (Introduction, Pg. 547 “In the last two decades, microwave irradiation has emerged as a highly effective way to supply energy”) and that microwaves have the advantage of a direct transfer of energy (Introduction, Pg. 547-548 “The main advantage of MWSA relates to the fact that, unlike conventional heating where solids heat through conduction and convection, microwaves are able to provide energy to susceptible materials in a direct manner”).
Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorption and sorbent regeneration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cabin filter system as taught by Heyse, modified by Kimura and Little, could be regenerated using microwave irradiation as taught by Nigar, resulting in an accelerated regeneration step and an increase in efficiency of the system. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (regeneration of the sorbent material) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the gas sorbent material comprises a plurality of units, and wherein the plurality of units comprise at least one of powder, beads, extrudates, tablets, pellets, agglomerates, granules, shaped bodies, compressed shapes and combinations thereof (¶0128 “a sorbent is formed by producing a granule from the powder impregnated with the second amine compound.”).
Regarding claim 12, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the gas sorbent material further comprises at least one of alumina or a metal organic framework (¶0016 “In one embodiment, the porous support comprises … metal organic framework.”).
Regarding claim 19, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the gas sorbent material comprises about 40 wt% to about 50 wt% of the amine component and about 50 wt% to about 60 wt% of the silica component (¶0121 “In certain embodiments, after drying, a weight percent of one or more amine compounds impregnated onto the porous support ranges from 20% and 60% of a total weight of the sorbent, from 30% to 50% of the total weight of the sorbent, or from 38% to 45% of the total weight of the sorbent.”).
Regarding claim 31, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim1 above. Heyse further teaches wherein the cabin is in a vehicle, an electric automobile, a truck, a van, a plane, a helicopter, a train or a spacecraft (Abstract).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Tundo, P. et al. Synthesis of Carbamates from Amines and Dialkyl Carbonates: Influence of Leaving and Entering Groups, Synlette, Vol. 10 (2010), pp. 1567-1571 (hereinafter referred to as Tundo).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein a first amine compound is reacted with a carbonate ester to form a second amine compound, and wherein the second amine compound is impregnated onto a porous support to produce the sorbent (¶0005 “In one aspect of the present disclosure, a method of preparing a sorbent comprises preparing a reaction solution comprising a first amine compound and a reactant, wherein the reactant comprises a carbonate ester compound or a ketone compound, and wherein the first amine compound reacts with the reactant to produce a second amine compound; and impregnating the second amine compound onto a porous support to produce the sorbent.”). More specifically, Kimura teaches that the carbonate ester compound may comprise an alkyl carbonate (¶0010 “In one embodiment, the carbonate ester compound comprises an alkyl carbonate. The method of claim 11, wherein the alkyl carbonate comprises one or more of dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate.”). As evidenced by Tundo, a reaction between an amine and a dialkyl carbonate will produce a carbamate (Abstract “A number of carbamates were synthesized through a halogen-free process by reacting amines with symmetrical and unsymmetrical carbonates.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in certain embodiments as taught by Kimura, the second amine compound which is impregnated onto a porous support to produce the sorbent would be a carbamate when the initial reaction occurs between a first amine compound and a reactant such as an alkyl carbonate.
Regarding claim 14, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar, as evidenced by Tundo, teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 13 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the carbamates comprise the product of a reaction between an ethylamine and dimethyl carbonate (¶0008 “In one embodiment, the first amine compound comprises … alkylamines” ethylamine is an alkylamine ; ¶0010 “In one embodiment, the carbonate ester compound comprises an alkyl carbonate. The method of claim 11, wherein the alkyl carbonate comprises one or more of dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate.”).
Regarding claim 15, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar, as evidenced by Tundo, teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 13 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the high surface area substrates comprise a pore volume of greater than about 0.8 cc/g (¶0140 “A BJH average pore volume of the silica powder ranged from 0.8 cc/g to 1.2 cc/g.”).
Regarding claim 16, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar, as evidenced by Tundo, teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 13 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the high surface area substrates comprise a mean pore diameter of greater than about 100 Å (¶0133 “In certain embodiments, the resulting sorbents formed according to any of methods 300, 400, or 500 were formed having … a BET average pore radius from 100 angstroms to 300 angstroms.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of International Patent Publication No. WO 2018/156020 A1 to Smith et al. (hereinafter referred to as Smith).
Regarding claim 10, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Heyse further teaches wherein the water sorbent material comprises a silica gel (¶0038 “The moisture is preferably removed from the gas mixture by means of adsorption in zeolite or silica gel.”), but Heyse does not teach wherein the water sorbent material comprises an alumino-silicate material.
However, Smith teaches a cabin filter system for the removal of carbon dioxide (Pg. 3, lines 6-7 “The present invention relates to a process and apparatus for separating carbon dioxide from air in a confined space such as a passenger cabin of a vehicle”) with the use of an amine-functionalized sorbent (Pg. 3, lines 10-11 “using an amine-containing particulate material which can be processed to selectively adsorb and subsequently desorb the CO2.”), wherein the sorbent material comprises an alumino-silicate material, optionally an alumino-silicate gel (Pg. 7, lines 7-8 “Suitable sorbents include zeolites, ceramic based materials, such as alumina, silica, and silica alumina, titanium dioxide, silica gel”).
Heyse, Kimura, Little, Nigar, and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorbent systems. 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 cabin filter system as taught by Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar to include the alumino-silicate material as taught by Smith. Such a substitution of materials would result in a predictable result (successful capture of water); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20180117023 A to Hong et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding claim 20, Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 19 above. Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar do not teach wherein the gas sorbent material comprises one or more binders.
However, Hong teaches an amine-grafted metal-organic framework used for carbon dioxide adsorption (Abstract “The present invention relates to an amine-functionalized metal- organic framework-based carbon dioxide adsorbent”), wherein the gas sorbent material comprises one or more binders (Technical Field, Pg. 1 “The present invention relates to an amine-functionalized MOF-based carbon dioxide adsorbent comprising a binder”). Hong further teaches that the mechanical strength of the sorbent can be improved with the use of a binder, which allows for the adsorption capability of the sorbent to be maintained through multiple reuses (Pg. 3 “As a result of the improvement of the mechanical strength of the porous metal- organic skeleton through the introduction of the binder, the carbon dioxide adsorbing ability can be maintained even when reused.”)
Heyse, Kimura, Little, Nigar, and Hong are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorption and regenerating sorbent materials. 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 cabin filter system as taught by Heyse, Kimura, Little, and Nigar to include the carbon dioxide adsorbent with a binder as taught by Hong so that the mechanical strength and subsequent adsorption capabilities of the sorbent is maintained throughout multiple uses of the sorbent.
Regarding claim 21, Heyse, Kimura, Little, Nigar, and Hong teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 20 above. Hong further teaches wherein the one or more binders comprise at least one of an organic binder, a styrene acrylic polymer, an inorganic binder, or sodium silicate (Pg. 2 “The binder may be selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, hydrotalcite, sucrose, cellulose, fumed silica, silica sol and alumina sol.”; aluminum oxide and hydrotalcite are inorganic binders and sucrose and cellulose are organic binders).
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
