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 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application, filed May 19, 2023, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/343,610, filed May 19, 2022.
Response to Amendment
The submission of claims by Applicants’ representative Stephen J. Domingue on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claim 1-15) in the reply by Applicants’ representative Stephen J. Domingue on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) responding to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-15 are under examination on the merits.
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 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, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al., Energy & Fuels, (2011), v.25, p.3825-3834.
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 reservoir; and a collection chamber coupled to the reservoir.
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. Therefore, Han et al. anticipates applicant’s claim 1.
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 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.
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 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 2-8, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of 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.
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.
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_image2.png
642
906
media_image2.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_image3.png
619
673
media_image3.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 2 and Han et al. is that the prior art does not teach the injector includes to a fan that directs the polluted air to the reservoir.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, Applicant’s claim 2 would have been obvious over Han et al. because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `632 publication. 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 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 13, wherein further comprising a return line for recycling the solvent separated from the calcium carbonate back to the reservoir, the `632 publication [0035] teaches calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) and/or can be recycled into the absorber at appropriate regeneration plants.
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.
Conclusions
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
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.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731