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 23-26 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.
Claims 23 and 25 each recite “the bed” in lines 9 and 17 in claim 23 as well as lines 9 and 17 in claim 25. The Examiner is unclear as to which bed is being referred back to. A review of the claim language appears to show that each instance of “the bed” should refer back to the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed. This interpretation will be how claims 23 and 25 will be treated.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected for being dependent form an unclear and indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5914455 (Jain hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Jain teaches an air purification process and device to conduct the process that discloses an atmospheric water extraction unit (Figure 1, units A and B per Column 5 Lines 12-32); and a direct air capture unit positioned downstream of and in communication with the atmospheric water extraction unit (Units C and D in Figure 1 with Column 5 Line 54 through Column 6 Line 36), wherein the apparatus is capable of reversibly operating in (i) adsorption mode to adsorb water and CO2 from an incoming air stream (Column 4 Lines 25-55 with Claim 8) and (ii) regeneration mode to release adsorbed water and CO2 (Column 4 Lines 25-55 with Claim 8), wherein the atmospheric water extraction unit comprises a first desiccant bed comprising a sorbent that adsorbs water from an incoming air stream during adsorption mode and releases water during regeneration mode (Column 5 Lines 12-22), and wherein the direct air capture unit comprises a first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed comprising a sorbent that adsorbs CO2 from an air stream during adsorption mode and releases CO2 upon contact with water vapor during regeneration mode (Column 6 Lines 4-25).
Regarding claim 2, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Jain would further disclose that the atmospheric water extraction unit further comprises a second desiccant bed, the second desiccant bed comprising a sorbent that adsorbs water from an incoming air stream during adsorption mode and releases water during regeneration mode (Unit B per Column 4 Lines 25-55 and Claim 8); and the direct air capture unit further comprises a second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed, the second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed comprising a sorbent that adsorbs CO2 from an air stream adsorption mode and releases CO2 upon contact with water vapor during regeneration mode (Unit D per Column 5 Lines 12-22), wherein the apparatus is configured such that the first desiccant bed and the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed form a first train and the second desiccant bed and the second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed form a second train that is separate from the first train (Evident From Figure 1), wherein the first and second trains are capable of reversibly operating in (i) adsorption mode to adsorb water and CO2 from an incoming air stream and (ii) regeneration mode to release adsorbed water and C02 (Column 4 Lines 25-55 with Claim 8), wherein the first and second trains are configured such that the first train operates in adsorption mode when the second train operates in regeneration mode and the second train operates in adsorption mode when the first train operates in regeneration mode (Column 4 Lines 25-55 with Claim 8).
Regarding claim 4, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 where Jain would further disclose that the atmospheric water extraction unit and the direct air capture unit are configured such that water adsorbed by the first desiccant bed during adsorption mode is released and contacts the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed during regeneration mode to release adsorbed CO2 (Column 7 Line 65 through Column 8 Line 20).
Regarding claim 5, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Jain would further disclose that the first and second trains are configured such that water adsorbed by the first or second desiccant bed during adsorption mode is released and contacts the first or second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed during regeneration mode to release adsorbed CO2 (Column 7 Line 65 through Column 8 Line 20).
Regarding claim 18, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 where Jain would further disclose that the first and second trains are sealed from each other (Valves shown in Figure 1 of Jain).
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 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5914455 (Jain) in view of US 2008/0202339 (Nalette hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect that the first desiccant bed is thermally coupled to the second desiccant bed.
However, Nalette teaches air purification system that discloses a first desiccant bed (Figure 1, bed 12), a second desiccant bed (Figure 1, bed 14), and that the first desiccant bed is thermally coupled to the second desiccant bed (Figure 1 with ¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first desiccant bed and the second desiccant bed of Jain with the thermal connection of Nalette to increase the performance of the CO2 system per Nalette ¶ 7.
Regarding claim 19, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 3 where the combination of Jain and Nalette would further disclose that at least one heat transfer pipe thermally couples the first desiccant bed to the second desiccant bed (¶ 7 of Nalette).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5914455 (Jain) in view of US 2019/0208714 (Johansen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed.
However, Johansen teaches air handling system that discloses a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed (Figure 1 with 135/164 and ¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sorbent bed of Jain with the additional recovery desiccant bed of Johansen to ensure that the moisture is fully removed to the required levels.
Regarding claim 7, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect to a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed and a second recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed.
However, Johansen teaches air handling system that discloses a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed (Figure 1 with 135/164 and ¶ 40). The resultant combination would duplicate the recovery desiccant bed to apply a second recovery desiccant bed to the second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed of Jain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sorbent bed of Jain with the additional recovery desiccant bed of Johansen to ensure that the moisture is fully removed to the required levels.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5914455 (Jain) in view of US 2018/0171604 (Kim hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Jain would further disclose that the first desiccant bed adsorbs water from an air stream at a first pressure and releases water when subjected to a second pressure wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure (The feed into 2 is at a compressed air pressure [read first pressure] and the regen is done at atmospheric pressure [read second pressure]).
Jain is silent with respect that the first desiccant bed comprises a nanostructured porous material.
However, Kim teaches an atmospheric water harvester that discloses a first desiccant bed comprises a nanostructured porous material (¶ 88 disclosing the use of MOF-801).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant bed of Jain with the nanostructured porous structure of Kim to assist in capturing water vapor.
Regarding claim 9, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 where Jain would further disclose that the first and second desiccant beds adsorbs water from an air stream at a first pressure and releases water when subjected to a second pressure wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure (The feed into 2 is at a compressed air pressure [read first pressure] and the regen is done at atmospheric pressure [read second pressure]).
Jain is silent with respect that the first and second desiccant beds comprise a nanostructured porous material that adsorbs water from an air stream.
However, Kim teaches an atmospheric water harvester that discloses a first desiccant bed comprises a nanostructured porous material (¶ 88 disclosing the use of MOF-801). The resultant combination between Jain and Kim would apply the nanostructured porous material of Kim to both desiccant beds of Jain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant bed of Jain with the nanostructured porous structure of Kim to assist in capturing water vapor.
Regarding claim 10, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 8 where the combination of Jain and Kim would further disclose that the nanostructured porous material comprises a metal-organic framework material (MOF-801 of Kim ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 11, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 10 where the combination of Jain and Kim would further disclose that the metal-organic framework material is selected from the group consisting of Fe-MIL-100, MOF-303, MOF-801, MOF-841, and combinations thereof (MOF-801 of Kim ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 12, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 6 where Jain would further disclose that the first recovery desiccant bed adsorbs water from an air stream at a first pressure and releases water when subjected to a second pressure wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure (The feed into 2 is at a compressed air pressure [read first pressure] and the regen is done at atmospheric pressure [read second pressure]).
Jain is silent with respect that the first desiccant bed comprises a nanostructured porous material.
However, Kim teaches an atmospheric water harvester that discloses a first desiccant bed comprises a nanostructured porous material (¶ 88 disclosing the use of MOF-801).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant bed of Jain with the nanostructured porous structure of Kim to assist in capturing water vapor.
Regarding claim 13, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 7 where Jain would further disclose that the first and second desiccant beds adsorbs water from an air stream at a first pressure and releases water when subjected to a second pressure wherein the second pressure is lower than the first pressure (The feed into 2 is at a compressed air pressure [read first pressure] and the regen is done at atmospheric pressure [read second pressure]).
Jain is silent with respect that the first and second desiccant beds comprise a nanostructured porous material that adsorbs water from an air stream.
However, Kim teaches an atmospheric water harvester that discloses a first desiccant bed comprises a nanostructured porous material (¶ 88 disclosing the use of MOF-801). The resultant combination between Jain and Kim would apply the nanostructured porous material of Kim to both desiccant beds of Jain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant bed of Jain with the nanostructured porous structure of Kim to assist in capturing water vapor.
Regarding claim 14, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Jain and Kim would further disclose that the nanostructured porous material comprises a metal-organic framework material (MOF-801 of Kim ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 15, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 12 where the combination of Jain and Kim would further disclose that the metal-organic framework material is selected from the group consisting of Fe-MIL-100, MOF-303, MOF-801, MOF-841, and combinations thereof (MOF-801 of Kim ¶ 88).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5914455 (Jain) in view of US 2015/004084 (Goldberg hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed comprises a porous carbon material that is functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups.
However, Goldberg teaches a system for capturing carbon dioxide that discloses a first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed comprises a porous carbon material that is functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups (¶ 13 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sorbent beds of Jain with the teachings of Goldberg to increase the moisture and CO2 capture rate.
Regarding claim 17, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect that the first and second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent beds comprise a porous carbon material that is functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups.
However, Goldberg teaches a system for capturing carbon dioxide that discloses a first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed comprises a porous carbon material that is functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups (¶ 13 and 26). The resultant combination would duplicate the use of a porous carbon material that is functionalized with quaternary ammonium groups taught by Goldberg to each of the first and second sorbent beds of Jain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sorbent beds of Jain with the teachings of Goldberg to increase the moisture and CO2 capture rate.
Claim 20-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5914455 (Jain) in view of US 2021/0146299 (Besarati hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 2 but are silent with respect to a vacuum source alternately in communication with the first desiccant bed and then the second desiccant bed.
However, Besarati teaches an air dehumidification system that discloses a vacuum source alternately in communication with the first desiccant bed and then the second desiccant bed (Vacuum pump 16 in Figure 2 being applied in the alternating manner of Jain when alternating which side is operating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant beds of Jain with the teachings of Besarati to assist in vapor removal.
Regarding claim 21, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 20 where the combination of Jain and Besarati would further disclose a CO2 compressor alternately in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed and then the second moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed (CO2 compressor 17 in Figure 2 being applied in the alternating manner of Jain when alternating which side is operating).
Regarding claim 22, Jain’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a condenser positioned downstream of and in communication with first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed (Column 5 Lines 12-23).
Jain is silent with respect to a vacuum pump positioned downstream of and in communication with the condenser, and a CO2 compressor positioned downstream of and in communication with the vacuum pump.
However, Besarati teaches an air dehumidification system that discloses a vacuum pump positioned downstream of and in communication with the condenser (Vacuum pump 16 in Figure 2 is in communication with the beds and therefore the condenser of Jain), and a CO2 compressor positioned downstream of and in communication with the vacuum pump (Compressor 17 in Figure 2 of Besarati).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant beds of Jain with the teachings of Besarati to assist in vapor removal.
Regarding claim 23, Jain teaches a method of operating the apparatus of claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above for the structure required) that discloses in (A) adsorption mode to remove water and CO2 from a first air stream and (B) regeneration mode to release adsorbed water and CO2 (Column 5 Lines 12-32 and Column 5 Line 54 through Column 6 Line 36), wherein adsorption mode comprises: (a) contacting the first air stream with the first desiccant bed to reduce the water content of the stream and create a second air stream having a reduced water content relative to the first stream (Column 5 Lines 12-53); (b) contacting the second air stream with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed to reduce the CO2 content of the stream (Passage of fluid to the “C” and “D” units of Jain) and release water from the bed to create a third stream having a reduced CO2 content relative to the first and second air streams (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12), and a water content that is higher than the water content of the second stream but lower than the water content of the first stream (Interpretation of Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12); and (c) exhausting the third stream to ambient atmosphere (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12); and wherein regeneration mode comprises: (a) releasing water adsorbed by the first desiccant bed to create a water vapor stream (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12); (b) contacting the water vapor stream with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed to release CO2 adsorbed by the bed and to adsorb water from the water vapor stream to create a discharge stream comprising water vapor and CO2 (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12).
Jain is silent with respect to passing the discharge stream through one or more condensers and compressors to create (i) a liquid water condensate discharge and (ii) a CO2 stream.
However, Besarati teaches an air dehumidification system that discloses a discharge stream through one or more condensers and compressors to create (i) a liquid water condensate discharge and (ii) a CO2 stream (Figure 2 with water condensers and CO2 condenser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant beds of Jain with the teachings of Besarati to assist in vapor removal.
Regarding claim 25, Jain teaches a method of operating the apparatus of claim 2 (See the rejection of claim 2 above for the structure required) that discloses in (A) adsorption mode to remove water and CO2 from a first air stream and (B) regeneration mode to release adsorbed water and CO2 (Column 5 Lines 12-32 and Column 5 Line 54 through Column 6 Line 36), wherein adsorption mode comprises: (a) contacting the first air stream with the first desiccant bed to reduce the water content of the stream and create a second air stream having a reduced water content relative to the first stream (Column 5 Lines 12-53); (b) contacting the second air stream with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed to reduce the CO2 content of the stream (Passage of fluid to the “C” and “D” units of Jain) and release water from the bed to create a third stream having a reduced CO2 content relative to the first and second air streams (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12), and a water content that is higher than the water content of the second stream but lower than the water content of the first stream (Interpretation of Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12); and (c) exhausting the third stream to ambient atmosphere (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12); and wherein regeneration mode comprises: (a) releasing water adsorbed by the first desiccant bed to create a water vapor stream (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12); (b) contacting the water vapor stream with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed to release CO2 adsorbed by the bed and to adsorb water from the water vapor stream to create a discharge stream comprising water vapor and CO2 (Column 6 Line 65 through Column 7 Line 12).
Jain is silent with respect to passing the discharge stream through one or more condensers and compressors to create (i) a liquid water condensate discharge and (ii) a CO2 stream.
However, Besarati teaches an air dehumidification system that discloses a discharge stream through one or more condensers and compressors to create (i) a liquid water condensate discharge and (ii) a CO2 stream (Figure 2 with water condensers and CO2 condenser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desiccant beds of Jain with the teachings of Besarati to assist in vapor removal.
Regarding claim 26, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 25 where the combination of Jain and Besarati would further disclose that operating the apparatus such that the first train operates in adsorption mode when the second train operates in regeneration mode and the second train operates in adsorption mode when the first train operates in regeneration mode (Jain Column 4 Lines 25-55 with Claim 8).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5914455 (Jain) in view of US 2021/0146299 (Besarati) and further in view of US 2019/0208714 (Johansen).
Regarding claim 24, Jain’s modified teachings are described above in claim 23 but are silent with the apparatus further comprises a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed, the method further comprising contacting the third air stream with a recovery desiccant bed to reduce the water content of the third air stream before exhausting it to ambient atmosphere.
However, Johansen teaches air handling system that discloses a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed (Figure 1 with 135/164 and ¶ 40). The resultant combination would be such that a first recovery desiccant bed arranged downstream of and in communication with the first moisture-responsive CO2 sorbent bed, the method further comprising contacting the third air stream with a recovery desiccant bed to reduce the water content of the third air stream before exhausting it to ambient atmosphere.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sorbent bed of Jain with the additional recovery desiccant bed of Johansen to ensure that the moisture is fully removed to the required levels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762