DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, and 5 have been amended. Claims 13 and 17-20 are cancelled. New claims 21-25 are added. Claims 1-12, 14-16 and 21-25 are pending in the instant application. Claim 16 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 21-25 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 03/07/2024, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicant’s representative Stephen J. Domingue filed 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 by further including the element “a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle the solvent separated from a by-product back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation system” in the claimed system overcomes the rejection because the cited Han et al. does not teach the added element in the carbon dioxide filter system. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant amended claim 1 by further including the element “a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle the solvent separated from a by-product back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation system” in the filter system.
In addition, Applicant argued that the Office Action does not identify in Han et al. a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle separated solvent back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation system, as now expressly required by claim 1. Applicant’s amendment and argent have been fully considered, but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection further in view the new prior art Sanz-Pérez et al., Chem. Rev., (2016), v.116, p.11840-11876, necessitated by the amendment. The rejection is maintained and revised.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (revised)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Sanz-Pérez et al., Chem. Rev., (2016), v.116, p.11840-11876, US2014/0044632 (“the `632 publication”) to Zielinski et al. and Kapica-Kozat et al., New J. Chem., (2017), v.41, p.1549-1557, and Crake et al., Applied Catalysis B: Environmental, (2019), v.242, 369-378.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a carbon dioxide filter system configured to filter carbon dioxide out of polluted air, comprising: a reservoir; a solvent including a hydroxide disposed within the reservoir; an injector coupled to the reservoir; an exhaust port coupled to the reservoir; a collection chamber coupled to the reservoir; and a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle the solvent separated from a by-product back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation system.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Han et al. discloses a CO2-capture system using Ca(OH)2 aqueous solution as the absorbent, see Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
550
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the pyrex reactor (6) is a reservoir, the solvent including Ca(OH)2 within the reactor (6) or a reservoir, an injector coupled to the reservoir through the sparser (7), an exhaust port coupled to reservoir, wherein the exhaust port connect to by-pass or dehumidifier (13) to drain, and a collection chamber coupled to the reservoir, wherein the collection chamber is a dehumidifier (13) to drain the effluent.
Sanz-Pérez et al. discloses a review of methods of direct capture of CO2 from ambient air (DCA). Specifically, Sanz-Pérez et al. (Figures 3-4) discloses processes for DCA wherein a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle the solvent separated from a by-product back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation system, wherein Figure 3 is a scheme
PNG
media_image2.png
260
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and Figure 4(a) is a scheme
PNG
media_image3.png
352
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The `632 publication [0001] discloses a carbon dioxide (CO2) removal apparatus, and in particular to an apparatus for removing carbon dioxide from exhaust gases output from automobiles, trucks, busses and the like, and output during household heating and industrial processes. The `632 publication (FIGs. 1-2, and 11A-11C) discloses an exemplary arrangement of the CO2 removal system. For example, FIG. 1 discloses a general view of CO2 removal system
PNG
media_image4.png
642
906
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein each cartridge 102 houses an absorber for absorbing carbon dioxide. The absorber comprises one or more alkali hydroxides and/or alkali earth hydroxides, including, calcium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (see [0034]). In addition, FIG. 11C illustrates the CO2 removal system
PNG
media_image5.png
619
673
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which comprises a reservoir (1102); a solvent including a hydroxide disposed within the reservoir (1102); an injector (1110b) coupled to the reservoir; and an exhaust port (1114) coupled to reservoir. In addition, The `632 publication (FIGs. 5-6) shows a business system for removing carbon dioxide from exhaust using the system of FIG. 1 and providing replacement cartridges for the system of FIG. 1.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The differences between Applicant’s claim 1 and Han et al. is that the prior art does not teach the CO2 filter system comprising “a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle the solvent separated from a by-product back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation system”
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, Applicant’s claim 1 would have been obvious over Han et al. because the difference is further taught and/or suggested Sanz-Pérez et al. Specifically, Sanz-Pérez et al. (Figures 3 and 4a) discloses processes for DCA wherein a return line fluidly coupling the collection chamber to the reservoir and configured to recycle the solvent separated from a by-product back to the reservoir to define a closed-loop circulation.
In terms of claim 2, wherein the injector includes a fan that directs the polluted air to the reservoir, the `632 publication (FIG. 2) teaches the injector includes to the fan (215) that directs the polluted air to the reservoir.
In terms of claim 3 further comprising a hydraulic wind turbine system having a turbine, a hydrostatic transmission, and a hydraulic motor, wherein the hydraulic wind turbine system provides energy to the fan, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art because the fan (215) disclosed in the `632 publication (FIG. 2) is a powered fan, which must be powered by energy. In terms of the energy provided by a hydraulic wind turbine system having a turbine, a hydrostatic transmission, and a hydraulic motor, they are most common energy produced methods.
In terms of claims 4-5, and 8, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art because the fan (215) disclosed in the `632 publication (FIG. 2) is a powered fan, which must be powered by energy. In terms of the energy provided by a hydraulic wind turbine system coupled via shaft-to-shaft to the fan, or the turbine is at least partially coated with the photocatalytic coating to filter the polluted air, they both provide the same type energy.
In terms of claim 6 wherein the solvent includes titanium dioxide nanoparticles, Kapica-Kozat et al. teaches modification of TiO2 with a base such as amines enabling an increase in CO2 uptake (see Abstract at p.1549). One ordinay skilled in eth art would have been motivated to include titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the CO2 filter system in order to increase CO2 capture capacity.
In terms of claim 7 further comprising a UV radiation source configured to excite the titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the solvent, Crake et al. teaches using TiO2/carbon nanosheet nanocomposite for gas phrase CO2 photoreduction under UV-visible irradiation. One ordinary skilled in eth art would have been motivated to include titanium dioxide nanoparticles under UV-visible irradiation in the CO2 filter system in order to carry out photoreduction of CO2.
In terms of claim 9 wherein the hydroxide of the solvent is calcium hydroxide, Han et al. discloses a CO2-capture system using calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) aqueous solution.
In terms of claim 10 wherein the solvent is recycled wastewater, Han et al. teaches water can be recycled for CaO hydration in Ca looping, and heat absorbed into water during carbonation can be recovered in any process (see page 3826).
In terms of claim 11 wherein the polluted air reacts with the hydroxide of the solvent to form calcium carbonate, Han et al. teaches the theory of overall reaction for CO2 capture using Ca(OH)2 aqueous solution to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3) (see “2. THEORY” at p.3826).
In terms of claim 12, wherein the calcium carbonate is separated from the solvent and disposed in the collection chamber, Han et al. discloses the disposal of produced CaCO3 and water, and decantation may be effectively used to separate them (see p.3825-3826). The separated calcium carbonate is disposed in the collection chamber is an obvious step. In addition, the `632 publication (FIG. 5) teaches the spent cartridge containing calcium carbonate is disposed for regeneration.
In terms of claim 14 wherein the carbon dioxide filter system is directly coupled to a carbon dioxide producing source, Han et al. teaches the carbon dioxide filter system is directly coupled to a carbon dioxide producing source (4) in Figure 1.
In terms of claim 15, wherein the injector is coupled to a catalytic converter, the `632 publication (FIG. 2) teaches the injector is coupled to a catalytic converter.
In terms of claim 21, wherein the reservoir comprises a gas-aqueous mixing chamber configured to mix the polluted air with the solvent, the `632 publication (FIG. 1) teaches the reservoir comprises a gas-aqueous mixing chamber (6) configured to mix the polluted air with the solvent of Ca(OH)2.
In terms of claim 22, further comprising a supply tank configured to provide a hydroxide-rich solution to replenish the solvent in the reservoir, Sanz-Pérez et al. (Figure 4a) discloses a CO2 capture system comprising a supply tank configured to provide a hydroxide-rich solution (NaOH) to replenish the solvent in the reservoir of the PVC housing.
In terms of claim 23, further comprising a circulation pump configured to circulate the solvent between the reservoir and the collection chamber, Sanz-Pérez et al. (Figure 4a) discloses a circulation pump configured to circulate the solvent between the reservoir and the collection chamber.
In terms of claim 24, wherein the injector is configured to receive polluted air directly from a carbon dioxide producing source having a carbon dioxide concentration greater than ambient air, Han et al. discloses a CO2-capture system (Figure 1) wherein the injector (7) receives mixed N2 (1) and CO2 (2) having a carbon dioxide concentration greater than ambient air. The mixed gas taught by Han et al. is not a polluted air, but suggested by the prior art because Han et al. discloses the purpose for developing the method is for addressing global climate change, which is caused by polluted air. Therefore, one ordinary skilled in the art would have understand that the CO2-capture system disclosed by Han et al. is used for capture CO2 in a polluted air. The difference is further taught and suggested by Sanz-Pérez et al., see “1. INTRODUCTION” at p. 3825.
In terms of claim 25, wherein the calcium carbonate is separated from the solvent by precipitation, Han et al. discloses the disposal of produced CaCO3 and water, and decantation may be effectively used to separate them (see p.3825-3826), wherein CaCO3 is precipitated from the mixture in the pyrex reactor (6) because CaCO3 is quite insoluble in the aqueous solvent.
Conclusions
Claims 1-12, 14-15 and 21-25 are rejected.
Claim 16 is withdrawn.
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's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 10/17/2022 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 extension fee 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.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights