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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 12th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 6-15 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims and figures have overcome the objection to the drawings and the 112(b) rejection of claim 15 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 25th, 2025. The amendment to claim 14 has not addressed the relative term of “similar” and the rejection under 112(b) has therefore been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with regards to the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), filed November 12th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 14 still recites the term “similar” and the claim is therefore still indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed November 12th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0262766 A1 to Oyelakin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Oyelakin) and the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oyelakin, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 6293998 B1 to Dolan et al. (hereinafter referred to as Dolan) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Oyelakin, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0119882 A1 to Lackner et al.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) are: “and by means of which a first and a second fluid can be alternately directed into the filter” in claim 10 and “heating the adsorbent material by means of the heating device” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Applicant may also consider amending the claim limitations to remove the word “means” to avoid confusion.
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 1, 3, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0262766 A1 to Oyelakin et al. (hereinafter referred to as Oyelakin), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0119882 A1 to Lackner et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lackner).
Regarding claim 1, Oyelakin teaches an adsorption device (Fig. 1, adsorption vessel 110) for adsorption of CO2 (¶0011 “An emission control system may allow for removal of uncontrolled emissions of vapor mixtures such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and other inert gases”) for an elemental analyzer (Fig. 8, gas analyzer 810), the adsorption device comprises a filter (Fig. 7, adsorbent vessel 602) having an inlet for a fluid (Fig. 7, inlet 603), an outlet for the fluid (Fig. 7, outlet 604), and an adsorbent material through which the fluid can flow (Fig. 7, adsorbent bed 612), and a heating device for heating the adsorbent material (Fig. 7, heater cartridge 614 ; ¶0040 “The heater cartridge 614 disposed within the chamber may be used to heat the adsorbent bed 612.”), wherein the heating device extends along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 7, heater cartridge 614 runs vertically through the adsorbent bed), and the filter is arranged coaxially to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 7, adsorbent bed 612 runs along the same longitudinal axis). Oyelakin does not teach wherein the filter is arranged along a longitudinal direction in a spiral around the heating device.
However, Lackner teaches a capture device for adsorption of CO2 (Fig. 1A, device 100) that comprises a filter that is arranged along a longitudinal direction in a spiral (Fig. 1A, helical sorbent structure 108). Lackner further teaches the importance of maximizing surface area when capturing CO2 (¶0007 “The task of efficiently collecting atmospheric carbon dioxide using sorbent materials/surfaces typically means maximizing the surface area of the sorbent material”).
Oyelakin and Lackner are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide adsorption devices. 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 adsorption device as taught by Oyelakin to include the helically-shaped sorbent as taught by Lackner to expand the surface area of the sorbent and increase capture efficiency. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the adsorption of carbon dioxide) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Oyelakin and Lackner teach the adsorption device as applied to claim 1 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the inlet and outlet are arranged on opposite sides of the filter with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 7, inlet 603 and outlet 604 are positioned opposite to one another with respect to the longitudinal axis of the filter).
Regarding claim 8, Oyelakin and Lackner teach the adsorption device as applied to claim 1 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the heating device is formed by an electric heating wire (¶0040 “The heater cartridge 614 may be powered electrically”) arranged spirally around a rod-shaped base (In Fig. 7 it can be seen that the heater cartridge 614 has an exterior spirally component and a center rod-shaped base).
Regarding claim 9, Oyelakin and Lackner teach the adsorption device as applied to claim 8 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the rod-shaped base comprises a temperature sensor (¶0036 “Where the sensors include a heater cartridge sensor, data from the heater cartridge sensor may be used to raise the temperature of the adsorption bed during desorption).
Regarding claim 10, Oyelakin and Lackner teach the adsorption device as applied to claim 1 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the adsorption device comprises a first valve (Fig. 6, valve 640) which is connected to the inlet (¶0040 “the valve 640 in fluid communication with the feed stream inlet 620 and the inlet 602 of the adsorbent vessel 600”) and by means of which a first and a second fluid can be alternately directed into the filter (¶0019 “In some embodiments, the feed stream is a fluid, emission gas, or other combusted fuel.” ; With the feed stream being an emission gas or combusted fuel, the composition of said fluid will change between samples and therefore reads on the “first and second fluid” ; For example, a first fluid may be low in CO2 concentration, while a second fluid may be high in CO2 concentration and therefore constitute two different compositions). In the alternative that Oyelakin does not sufficiently teach “and by means of which a first and second fluid can be alternately directed into the filter”, this limitation recites a purpose or intended use of the valve. As Oyelakin teaches the structural limitations of the claim, the prior art is capable of performing the intended use and the instant application is therefore not patentably distinct over Oyelakin. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II).
Claims 6-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyelakin and Lackner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0235719 A1 to Magni et al. (hereinafter referred to as Magni).
Regarding claim 6, Oyelakin and Lackner teaches the adsorption device as applied to claim 1 above. Oyelakin and Lackner do not teach wherein the adsorption device comprises a cooling device for cooling the adsorbing material.
However, Magni teaches a CO2 absorption device for elemental analysis (Abstract “The invention relates to a CO2-absorption device within an elemental analysis instrument”) that contains a filter for absorption of CO2 (Fig. 1, device 26; ¶0015-0016 “Line 22 then feeds gas to the device 26 which handles the absorption of CO2 … The device 26 has two filters”). Magni further teaches a cooling device for cooling the adsorbing material (¶0025 “A fan assists with speeding up the filter cooling process, in order to complete the regeneration process in ties that are essentially equal to those required for analysis.”).
Oyelakin, Lackner, and Magni are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of CO2 adsorption devices. 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 adsorption device as taught by Oyelakin and Lackner to further include the cooling device as taught by Magni to expedite the cooling process of the adsorption device following regeneration. Decreasing the time it takes for regeneration of a vessel will decrease the time said vessel is offline and improve the efficiency of such a system.
Regarding claim 7, Oyelakin, Lackner, and Magni teach the adsorption device as applied to claim 6 above. Magni further teaches wherein the cooling device is formed by a fan (¶0025 “A fan assists with speeding up the filter cooling process, in order to complete the regeneration process in ties that are essentially equal to those required for analysis.”).
Regarding claim 11, Oyelakin teaches an elemental analyzer (Fig. 2, emission control system 100) comprising a combustion reactor for burning a sample (¶0019 “In some embodiments, the feed stream is a fluid, emission gas, or other combusted fuel.” ; The source of the “other combusted fuel” from which the feed stream arises reads on the “combustion reactor” of the claim), an optional reduction reactor, an optional water separator, and a detector (¶0045 “In some embodiments, the sensors for measuring VOC levels may be positioned in communication with the exit valve assembly 860.”), wherein the elemental analyzer comprises an adsorption device for adsorbing CO2 according to claim 1 (Fig. 7; see Oyelakin and Lackner as applied to claim 1 above), and the elemental analyzer comprises a valve control for alternately passing an analysis fluid from the combustion reactor through the adsorption device for adsorption of CO2 (Fig. 6, valve 640 ; ¶0019 “a valve system for selectively routing a feed stream to a selected vessel”) and to the detector (¶0034 “In some embodiments, each adsorption vessel 110 may have a second valve assembly 152 comprising one or more valves connected to the outlet 118.” ; As previously stated, the detector is located in communication with an exit valve assembly of another embodiment, 860) or a flushing fluid through the adsorption device for adsorption of CO2 (Because “flushing fluid” is not defined in the claim, any composition of fluid will read on the “flushing fluid” and the feed stream of Oyelakin therefore reads on the “flushing fluid” as claimed). In the alternative that Oyelakin does not sufficiently teach “and the elemental analyzer comprises a valve control for alternately passing an analysis fluid … or a flushing fluid through the adsorption device”, this limitation recites a purpose or intended use of the valve control. As Oyelakin teaches the structural limitations of the claim, the prior art is capable of performing the intended use and the instant application is therefore not patentably distinct over Oyelakin. See MPEP § 2111.02 (II).
In the alternative that Oyelakin and Lackner do not sufficiently teach the presence of a combustion reactor based off of the existence of a combusted fuel itself, Magni teaches a CO2-absorption device within an elemental analysis instrument comprising at least one combustion reactor (Abstract “The invention relates to a CO2-absorption device within an element analysis instrument, comprising at least one combustion reactor”).
Oyelakin, Lackner, and Magni are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide removal. 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 elemental analyzer as taught by Oyelakin and Lackner to include the combustion reactor as taught by Magni. Integration of the combustion reactor directly into the system would allow for direct analysis of the combusted sample and remove the need for transfer from a different facility.
Regarding claim 12, Oyelakin, Lackner, and Magni teach the elemental analyzer as applied to claim 11 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the flushing fluid can also be passed through the detector (¶0045 “In some embodiments, the sensors for measuring VOC levels may be positioned in communication with the exit valve assembly 860.” ; As the detector is in communication with the exit valve assembly, any fluid that passes through the adsorbent bed may pass through the detector) or through a separate detector detecting CO2 or carbon in the flushing fluid (¶0045 “A plurality of sensors 850 may be provided to obtain information regarding pressure, temperature, VOCs, and other parameters for monitoring the feed stream.” ; ¶0041 “The gas analyzer 810 may monitor the lower hydrocarbon vapor concentrations and speciation, while VOC sensor may monitor the heavier hydrocarbon component concentrations”).
Regarding claim 13, Oyelakin, Lackner, and Magni teach the elemental analyzer as applied to claim 11 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the elemental analyzer comprises at least two adsorption devices for adsorption of CO2 (Fig. 4, adsorption vessels 110a, 110b) and the valve control is configured such that the analysis fluid can be passed in parallel over two or more adsorption devices (¶0012 “A pair or more of emission control vessels, in some embodiments, may be connected in parallel.” ; ¶0019 “In at least one embodiment, an emission control system comprises a plurality of vessels; a valve system for selectively routing a feed stream to a selected vessel of the plurality of vessels”).
Regarding claim 14, Oyelakin, Lackner, and Magni teach the element analyzer as applied to claim 11 above. Oyelakin further teaches wherein the elemental analyzer comprises at least two adsorption deices for adsorption of CO2 (Fig. 4, adsorption vessels 110a, 110b) and the valve control is configured such that the analysis fluid of similar samples is passed over the same adsorption device of the at least two adsorption devices (¶0019 “In at least one embodiment, an emission control system comprises a plurality of vessels; a valve system for selectively routing a feed stream to a selected vessel of the plurality of vessels”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyelakin and Lackner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6293998 to Dolan et al. (hereinafter referred to as Dolan).
Regarding claim 15, Oyelakin teaches a method for removing CO2 from a fluid stream (¶0011 “An emission control system may allow for removal of uncontrolled emissions of vapor mixtures such as VOCs, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and other inert gases from crude oil and natural gas production wells by, using adsorption, desorption and condensation processes.”) comprising the steps of: providing an adsorption device for adsorbing CO2 as applied to claim 1 above (Fig. 1, adsorption vessel 110 ; see Oyelakin and Lackner as applied to claim 1 above); passing a fluid stream containing CO2 through the adsorbent device so that CO2 is adsorbed from the fluid stream by the adsorbent material (Fig. 1, feed stream inlet 120); stopping the CO2-containing fluid stream (¶0036 “When breakthrough occurs, the control unit may trigger a valve to close”); heating the adsorbent material by means of the heating device (¶0014 “The regeneration process for the bed may be initiated, in some cases automatically, as a result of a control system … In some embodiments, the control system may control the in-vessel heat source to enhance the desorption of the VOCs and other gases from the adsorbent”). Oyelakin does not teach passing a flushing fluid stream through the adsorption device so that adsorbed CO2 is flushed out of the adsorbent material and stopping the flow of flushing fluid.
However, Dolan teaches first thermally purging an adsorption bed (Col. 6, lines 52-53 “The process further comprises thermally purging the adsorption zone”) followed by purging the adsorption zone with a purge stream (Col. 6, lines 56-58 “Simultaneously or subsequently the adsorption zone is purged with a purge stream and a second adsorption effluent is recovered.”). Purging the adsorbent bed through a thermal step and with a flushing stream results in the recovery of two adsorption effluents, ensuring that all captured material is efficiently desorbed.
Oyelakin, Lackner, and Dolan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorption devices. 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 as taught by Oyelakin to further include the step of flushing the adsorbent bed with a purge stream as taught by Dolan to ensure that all captured material has been adequately desorbed before putting the adsorbent bed back online for further adsorption cycles.
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776