DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 22-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the inventions do not meet the requirement for unity of invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-16 and 21, drawn to a first method.
Group II, claim 22, drawn to a second method.
Group III, claim 23, drawn to a third method.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of A method of magnetic swing absorption comprising: contacting a fluid mixture and a liquid absorbent in a separation chamber, wherein the fluid mixture includes one or more gases; absorbing, by the liquid absorbent, at least one gas of said one or more gases of the fluid mixture; and desorbing, from the liquid absorbent, the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Vaseen US 4,049,398 A method of magnetic swing absorption (col 1) comprising: contacting a fluid mixture (air/aeration, col 1 line 14) and a liquid absorbent (inert liquid, col 1 line 14) in a separation chamber (vessel, col 3 line 41), wherein the fluid mixture includes one or more gases; absorbing, by the liquid absorbent, at least one gas of said one or more gases of the fluid mixture (col 1 lines 7-25, dissolving gas into liquid); and desorbing, from the liquid absorbent, the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent (col 1 lines 22-61, where gas is desorbed under influence of the magnet).
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, 4-6, 8-9, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaseen US 4,049,398 (hereafter Vaseen) and further in view of Matinez Palou et al. US 2018/0140993 (hereafter Palou).
Regarding claim 1, Vaseen teaches a method of magnetic swing absorption (col 1) comprising:
contacting a fluid mixture and a liquid absorbent (inert liquid, col 1 line 14) in a separation chamber (vessel, col 3 line 41), wherein the fluid mixture includes one or more gases (air/aeration, col 1 line 14) and wherein the separation chamber is at a first chamber pressure (where the chamber would have a pressure);
absorbing, by the liquid absorbent, at least one gas of said one or more gases of the fluid mixture (col 1 lines 7-25, dissolving gas into liquid); and
desorbing, from the liquid absorbent, the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent desorbing the at least one absorbed gas from the liquid absorbent (col 1 lines 22-61, where gas is desorbed under influence of the magnet);
wherein the magnetic field is present in the region of the liquid absorbent at least during one of the absorbing or desorbing steps (col 1 lines 22-61, where gas is desorbed under influence of the magnet).
Vaseen does not teach:
wherein the first chamber pressure decreases to a second chamber pressure during absorption;
wherein the second chamber pressure increases during desorption; and
wherein the first chamber pressure represents a sum of a pressure contribution from one or more non-absorbed gases of the fluid mixture and a pressure contribution from the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent.
Palou teaches a method of absorption where the separation chamber is operated at constant volume and variable pressure in order to measure the absorption capacity, where the wherein the first chamber pressure decreases to a second chamber pressure during absorption and wherein the first chamber pressure represents a sum of a pressure contribution from one or more non-absorbed gases of the fluid mixture and a pressure contribution from the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent (¶21-23).
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 separation chamber (vessel, col 3 line 41) of Vaseen by incorporating the separation chamber operated at constant volume and variable pressure (¶21) of Palou in order to measure the absorption capacity (¶21-23).
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 desorbing (col 1 lines 22-61) of Vaseen by operating the separation chamber at constant volume and variable pressure (¶21) of Palou in order to measure the absorption capacity (Palou ¶21-23, where it would have been obvious to operate at constant volume during desorption to measure desorption capacity).
Regarding claim 2, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. The further limitations of claim 2 are optional limitations (“optionally in the presence of a constant inhomogeneous magnetic field” of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Vaseen further teaches wherein absorbing by the liquid absorbent is performed in the absence of the constant inhomogeneous magnetic field and desorbing from the liquid absorbent is performed in the presence of the constant inhomogeneous magnetic field (col 1).
Regarding claim 5, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Vaseen further teaches wherein, at times before equilibrium is reached, an amount of the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent in the presence of the constant inhomogeneous magnetic field is different than an amount of the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent in the absence of the constant inhomogeneous magnetic field (col 1, where the amount of absorbed gas changes from a low amount after desorption, to a higher amount after absorption, then returns to a lower amount after further desorption; an equilibrium is reached after desorption).
Regarding claim 6, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Vaseen further teaches wherein the fluid mixture includes any combination of diamagnetic gases and paramagnetic gases (col 1).
Regarding claim 8, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Vaseen further teaches wherein the fluid mixture includes only paramagnetic gases (col 1, oxygen).
Regarding claim 9, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Vaseen further teaches wherein the liquid absorbent includes one or more of a paramagnetic liquid, an ionic liquid, a solid magnetic component, and a foaming agent (col 3, where fluorocarbons are a foaming agent).
Regarding claim 15, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Vaseen further teaches wherein the liquid absorbent is regenerated without applying heat and/or a vacuum (col 1).
Regarding claim 21, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Vaseen does not teach wherein the second chamber pressure corresponds to the pressure contribution of the one or more nonabsorbed gases of the fluid mixture.
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 separation chamber (vessel, col 3 line 41) of Vaseen by incorporating the separation chamber operated at constant volume and variable pressure (¶21) of Palou in order to measure the absorption capacity (¶21-23).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the second chamber pressure corresponds to the pressure contribution of the one or more nonabsorbed gases of the fluid mixture because the pressure would be a sum of the partial pressures of all components in the system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaseen US 4,049,398 (hereafter Vaseen) in view of Matinez Palou et al. US 2018/0140993 (hereafter Palou) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sadiq et al. US 2022/0134307 filed 7 Dec. 2018 (hereafter Sadiq).
Regarding claim 16, Vaseen in view of Palou teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Vaseen does not teach purging, after absorbing or desorbing, a second fluid mixture from the separation chamber, wherein: the second fluid mixture after absorbing is enriched in at least one gas of the one or more gases of the fluid mixture not absorbed by the liquid absorbent; and/or the second fluid mixture after desorbing is enriched in the at least one gas absorbed by the liquid absorbent.
Sadiq teaches absorption comprising purging, after absorbing, a second fluid mixture from the separation chamber, wherein: the second fluid mixture after absorbing is enriched in at least one gas of the one or more gases of the fluid mixture not absorbed by the liquid absorbent in order to purge the non-absorbed gas from the separation chamber (¶236).
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 (col 1) of Vaseen by incorporating the purging (¶236) of Sadiq in order to purge the non-absorbed gas from the separation chamber (¶236).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising absorbing in the absence of a magnetic field and desorption in the presence of a magnetic field. Vaseen does not teach magnetic swing absorption comprising desorbing in the absence of a magnetic field and absorption in the presence of a magnetic field.
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising absorbing and desorbing oxygen and/or air. Vaseen does not teach wherein the fluid mixture includes only diamagnetic gases.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising a diamagnetic liquid. Vaseen does not teach a paramagnetic liquid.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising a diamagnetic liquid. Vaseen does not teach wherein the liquid absorbent includes an ionic liquid, a solid magnetic component suspended in the ionic liquid, and an optional foaming agent dissolved in the ionic liquid.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising a diamagnetic liquid. Vaseen does not teach wherein the liquid absorbent includes a paramagnetic ionic liquid selected from the claimed group.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising a diamagnetic liquid. Vaseen does not teach wherein magnetic particles or magnetic nanoparticles.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art is Vaseen US 4,049,398 which teaches magnetic swing absorption comprising a diamagnetic liquid. Vaseen does not teach wherein magnetic nanoparticles.
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 20 Oct. 2025:
Applicant argues that the 112b rejections are overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the 102 rejection in view of Vaseen is overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and/or consideration the invention is unpatentable over Vaseen and Palou.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776