DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludvik USPA 2016/0318613 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ludvik discloses a system for capturing carbon dioxide from ambient air (paragraph 23), the system comprising: an input port configured to accept ambient air into the system (figure 2: input port at 201); an air conditioning system configured to: draw the ambient air into the input port; and reduce a temperature of the ambient air (figure 2: 202; paragraph 18); a filter device configured to capture carbon dioxide from the ambient air after the temperature of the ambient air is reduced by the air conditioning system (figure 2: 205; paragraph 23); and an output port, through which the ambient air is discharged from the system after the ambient air is processed with the filter device (figure 2: output port can be anticipated by air entering cabin from 208, or air leaving cabin at 210). Ludvik discloses that when the filter device is saturated with the captured carbon dioxide, the filter device is configured to be regenerated to release the captured carbon dioxide (paragraphs 23 and 24).
Although Ludvik does not disclose a tank, Ludvik does disclose that a fraction of treated air is used to purge the regenerating bed (paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to store the purge gas in a storage tank in order to control the amount of purge gas being utilized, as is generally well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ludvik discloses that the filter device is regenerated using a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) method, where the filter device is heated to release the captured carbon dioxide (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 5, Ludvik discloses heating (paragraph 49), which implies a heater configured to heat the filter device for the regeneration using the TSA method.
Regarding claim 8, the heater of Ludvik is capable of heating to a temperature in a range of about 70° C. to about 100° C. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 9, Ludvik does not disclose that the filter device is regenerated using the PSA method, the captured carbon dioxide in the filter device is released using a vacuum pump. However, regenerating an adsorbent with a vacuum pump using a PSA method is well-known in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention as an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludvik USPA 2016/0318613 A1 in view of Meirav USPA 2015/0298043 A1.
Ludvik is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 6, Ludvik does not disclose that the heater comprises a heating coil attached to the filter device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a heating coil since heating coils are well-known heaters used to regenerate a sorbent (see Meirav paragraph 62). MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludvik USPA 2016/0318613 A1 in view of Shoji USPA 2012/0160099 A1.
Ludvik is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 7, Ludvik does not disclose that a waste heat from the air conditioning system is used to heat the filter device for the regeneration using the TSA method. Shoji discloses utilizing waste heat from an air-conditioning source to regenerate a carbon dioxide adsorbent (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ludvik so that waste heat from the air conditioning system is used to heat the filter device for the regeneration using the TSA method, as disclosed by Shoji, for the purpose of saving energy.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludvik USPA 2016/0318613 A1 in view of Meirav USPA 2015/0321135 A1.
Ludvik is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 11-15, Ludvik discloses an adsorbent material (paragraph 22), but does not disclose an adsorption filter, wherein the adsorption filter comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polymer, carbon, fabric, felt, silicate based material, polypropylene based material, and silicate based material and combinations thereof, wherein the adsorption filter is modified by the adsorbent material, wherein the adsorbent material comprises a nanomaterial selected from the group consisting of carbon nitride, metal-organic framework (MOF), and faujasite (FAU), and combinations thereof, wherein modifying the adsorption filter by the adsorbent material comprises grafting the adsorbent material onto the adsorption filter, wherein modifying the adsorption filter by the adsorbent material comprises pelletizing the adsorbent material and adding the pelletized adsorbent material to the adsorption filter, or wherein modifying the adsorption filter by the adsorbent material comprises selectively heating the adsorbent material and thermally fusing the adsorbent material to the adsorption filter. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any of these known sorbents/supports, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin,125 USPQ 416. Meirav discloses sorbents for removing CO2 from air, including zeolites (faujasites) or MOFs (paragraph 25), that can be pelleted (paragraph 53), or supported on polymers (paragraph 25). Furthermore, thermal fusion for attaching a sorbent to a support is known in the art and would have been obvious. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that any tank of Ludvik would be used for air and not for released carbon dioxide. However, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. A tank utilized in Ludvik would be structurally capable of storing the released carbon dioxide.
The Examiner also points out that it appears that amended independent claim 1 is not actually claiming a tank as part of the structure of the claim. The limitation “wherein the released carbon dioxide is stored in a tank configured to store a pure gas” is essentially an intended use limitation and does not require the tank to be part of the claimed system. Therefore, since the released carbon dioxide of Ludvik could be sent to a tank, the limitation is met.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776