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 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Examiner’s note: Examiner suggests using some of these resources to properly write the claim. Applicant should try to wrote the claims so that the structure is clearly defined and it is suggested to go in order from one side of the system to the other in order to avoid any kind of antecedent basis issues that come out.
Claim 1: It is suggested that the claim be written from upstream to downstream in the device in order to avoid antecedent basis as well as indicating where each of the components are, such as something being in fluid connection with something else, or the valve being for the chamber. It is also suggested to maintain the same word for the limitation through the claim. The claim right now teaches a chamber and a tank, but it is unclear if there is both or if they are referring to the same thing.
Claim 2: Same suggestions as claim 1. This claim has a lot more parts that are unclear as to where they belong in the structure. For example the “splash plate for releasing scrubbed gasses from the wash fluid” can be written as “a splash plate in the chamber” or something similar. The term “configured to” is a better term than “used to”.
Claim 3: This should depend from either claim 1 or 2 and also be a single sentence. This claim has functional limitations that do not have any kind of structure tied into the claim. It is suggested to either cancel the claim or to indicate a controller that is doing something to the system of claims 1 and 2 based on some kind of data. This can be something like using the sampler and transmitter reading to control air flow or valves.
Examiner has also included some patents to help with formatting of claims.
US8137444B2, Farsad et al.
US5676715, Kalka et al.
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/February%20Info%20Chat%20-%20Claim%20Drafting.pdf
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilian (US20160089626) in view of Schwab (US5759233) further in view of Farsad (US20100230830).
Claim 1: Kilian teaches a hybrid exhaust gas treatment system with energy recovery and energy storage (Abstract teaches removing unwanted elements from a gas stream.) comprising:
a gaseous fluid;
a liquid fluid to be used as a wash fluid for the gas; a venturi pump used to mix the wash fluid and gas together for scrubbing (Abstract teaches a system for removing unwanted elements from a gas stream by combining a gas and water stream through a venturi device to produce a gas water mixture.); a chamber to allow the gasses to release from the wash fluid and pressurize (degas separator 32);
a liquid fluid reservoir to store wash fluid (Drain 38); a back pressure valve designed to provide the resistance necessary to maintain a predetermined pressure threshold within the tank (valve 36);
a valve to release scrubbed compressed air (valve 34);
an emergency relief valve to vent chamber (valve 30 can read upon this).
Kilian does not explicitly teach a hydraulic pump used to pump wash fluid through venturi pump;
a booster pump used to pump a high pressure wash fluid stream feed. Kilian teaches removing wanted elements from a gas that treats biogas with CO2 ([0001]) and uses a venturi (abstract).
Schwab teaches in figure 3 a venturi scrubber. Schwab teaches a venturi scrubber and method of cleaning a gas flow with scrubbing liquid (abstract). Schwab teaches in figure 3 the use of a pump 303 to move liquid from the venturi back to the venturi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a pump for pumping fluid to the venturi as taught by Schwab, as Schwab teaches an analogous art of using a venturi to clean a gas.
Kilian and Schwab do not explicitly teach a pressure exchanger or other energy recovery method such as a turbo charger, or turbine designed to recover the hydraulic energy of the discharge wash fluid from the chamber. Farsad teaches in [0104] that pressure exchange is a known energy recovery system in CO2 processing systems. The use of these can reduce the parasitic load on power providing industrial plants while maintaining CO2 processing capacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a pressure exchanger or other energy recovery method as Farsad teaches this is known in the art and is used to reduce load while maintaining CO2 processing capacity. Examiner suggests that the “such as” limitation be removed or changed as this makes it unclear whether the turbo charger or turbine is required by the invention or not.
Claim 3: The limitations of claim 3 are considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. There is no structure linked to this control system and it is unclear if this can be done by hand or if there is a computer or other processing device that is performing this action. It is unclear how this limitation is related to the structure of claims 1 or 2. This should also be a single sentence.
Examiner’s note: Applicant is invited to contact the examiner for an interview in order to help with properly drafting the claims and a response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20210313835, 20210170330, 20200376431, 20190055487, 20120312166, 20120211421, 20110094264, 20100219373, 20090169452, 5676715, 4957512, 4469493, 4141701.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 09/18/2025
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776