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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of typo “a CO2 sorbet”. Additionally, the limitation of “in the amount of 5 wt% to 40 wt%” should be “in an [[the]] amount of 5 wt% to 40 wt%”.
Claim 5 is objected because the limitation of “any one or more” should be “[[any]] one or more”. Similar issue with claim 6 and claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17–18, 20 and 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.
Claim 17 is indefinite because the limitation of “the matrix” lacks antecedent basis. Assuming the recited “a matrix material” in claim 17 is different from what is recited in claim 1, and the limitation “the matrix” is referring to “the matrix material”. It is unclear which matrix material is the claimed “the matrix”.
Claims 18, 20 and 22 are indefinite because the limitation of “the CO2 sorbent precursor” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 26 is indefinite because it is unclear what the term “the particle size” refers to. Particulate aluminum oxide could have multiple particles sizes, such as average particle size, median particle size, maximum particle size, etc.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–2, 4–6, 9–10, 12–22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 1795979 A (“Liu”) in view of Perera et al., US 2020/0338493 A1 (“Perera”).
Regarding claim 1:
Liu discloses that a gas filter (Liu’s dry regenerated carbon dioxide adsorbent, Liu p. 2) comprising:
an active element (Liu discloses as solid sorbent, Liu p. 5) comprising:
a matrix material (Liu discloses as “carrier”, Liu p. 5) present in an amount of 20 wt% to 95 wt% based on the total weight of the active element (Liu discloses 70 weight percent or less of carrier, Liu p. 12, Liu’s range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I));
a CO2 sorbet or a precursor thereof (Liu’s active component, Liu p. 5), present in an amount of 5 wt% to 80 wt% based on the total weight of the active element (Liu discloses a weight ratio of 5–70 wt%, Liu p. 4, Liu’s ratio falls within the claimed range); and
water (Liu discloses its active component react with CO2 and water, and therefore, water is necessary for the carbon dioxide adsorber to be “active” and therefore water is an essential component of the “active element” Liu p. 5) present in the amount of 5 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the active element (assuming Liu’s matrix material is in the amount of 60 wt%, and CO2 sorbent in the amount of 10 wt%, both falls within the disclosed range by Liu, Liu’s water content would have to be less than 30 wt% such that total weight percentage is 100 wt%, such range falls within the claimed range); and
a housing structure (Liu discloses as “fluid bed”, Liu p. 5) for the active element, said housing structure comprising:
a gas inlet (Liu discloses its regenerable adsorbent captures carbon dioxide before discharging power plant exhaust, and therefore, where Liu’s exhaust enters Liu’s fluid bed that accommodates the regenerable adsorbent is the claimed “gas inlet”, Liu p. 4); and
a gas outlet (Liu discloses its regenerable adsorbent captures carbon dioxide before discharging power plant exhaust, and therefore, where cleaned exhaust exits Liu’s fluid bed is the claimed “gas outlet”, Liu p. 4),
wherein the C02 sorbent is an alkali metal carbonate (Liu discloses the sorbent material can be alkali earth metal carbonate, Liu p. 4), and
wherein at least some of the C02 sorbent is embedded within the matrix material (Liu discloses a step where water is added to the sorbent, and Liu discloses its carrier and its active substance has the same structure, Liu p. 11, Liu discloses its active substance is porous, which means the carrier is porous to accommodate the sorbent, which means the sorbent is embedded within the carrier).
Liu does not disclose that the matrix material comprises a foamed polymer.
In the analogous art of air filter adsorbing carbon dioxide, Perera discloses an air filter (as shown in Perera Fig. 1A, [0071]) comprising a matrix material (Perera’s polymer foam), a CO2 sorbent (Perera’s adsorbent material, Perera Fig. 1A, [0006]). Perera discloses its polymer foam provide at least ante bacterial and/or antiviral properties, Perera [0001]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu’s matrix material to be Perera’s polymer foam such that Liu’s air filter could have antibacterial property.
Regarding claim 2:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the matrix material further comprises a ceramic material (Liu discloses its carrier could be ceramic, Liu p. 4; and Perera discloses aluminosilicate may be present in combination with the polymer in the form of a polymer adsorbent form, aluminosilicate is ceramic, Perera [0062]).
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 2, wherein the ceramic material comprises a clay material (Liu discloses an inorganic binder would be added to the fluidized bed to imparting strength, and such inorganic binder could be a clay material, Liu p. 4, the inorganic binder located between the sorbent and carrier is considered part of the carrier, and therefore, reads on “the ceramic material comprises a clay material”).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 4, wherein the clay material is selected from any one or more of kaolinite, montmorillonite-smectite, ilite, chlorite clay or clays (Liu discloses that the clay could be Kaolin, Liu p. 4).
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 4, wherein the clay material is selected from any one or more of clinoptalite, palygorskite, attapulgite, bentonite (Liu discloses its clay could be bentonite, Liu p. 4).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Liu discloses the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises one or more, or any combination of polyurethane (PU), poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP), polyimide (PI), polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIMs), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyethersulfone (PES), cellulose or bio-degradable polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) (Perara discloses the polymer is polyimide, Perera [0011]).
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Liu discloses the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the polymer comprises a polyimide (Perara discloses the polymer is polyimide, Perera [0011]).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the CO2 sorbent is selected from one or more of K2C03, Na2CO3, Li2CO3 (Liu discloses its active component could be potassium carbonate, Liu p. 10).
Regarding claim 13:
While modified Liu does not explicitly disclose that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the water is embedded within the matrix material, Liu discloses that the adsorbent material is uniformly distributed in the carrier for an improved reactivity, and the adsorbent has a required water content, Liu p. 4. It would therefore have been obvious for some of the water to be embedded within them matrix material because the adsorbent with a required water content has to be uniformly distributed in a porous carrier, which would necessarily require some of the adsorbent (with water content) to be embedded within the carrier.
Regarding claim 14:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein at least some of the water or all of the water is provided by an additional solid material (Liu discloses its adsorbent has hydrophilic and comprising silica dioxide and alumina, which are known desiccant that would contain water when exposed to water, and Liu also discloses its sorbent is mixed with water, Liu p. 4, it is therefore understood that some of the water is provided by an additional solid material silica dioxide).
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 14, wherein the additional solid material is particulate and is selected from one or more of aluminum oxide, zeolite, silicate, metal organic framework (MOF), clay (Liu discloses alumina, which is aluminum oxide, Liu p. 4).
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 14, wherein the additional solid material is selected from particulate aluminium oxide (Liu discloses aluminum oxide powder, Liu p. 10).
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the active element further comprises a matrix material which is a ceramic material (Liu discloses its carrier could be ceramic, Liu p. 4; and Perera discloses aluminosilicate may be present in combination with the polymer in the form of a polymer adsorbent form, aluminosilicate is ceramic, Perera [0062], Modified Liu therefore could have a second matrix material made of ceramic material), a CO2 sorbent (Liu discloses as alkaline earth metal carbonate and so on, Liu p. 4), and water (Liu discloses a step where water is added to the sorbent, Liu p. 4) wherein at least some of the CO2 sorbent is embedded within the matrix (Liu discloses its active substance is porous, which means the carrier is porous to accommodate the sorbent, which means the sorbent is embedded within the carrier, Liu p. 4).
Regarding claim 18:
Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the CO2 sorbent precursor is present in the form of at least one bicarbonate (Liu discloses bicarbonate, Liu p. 12).
Regarding claim 19:
Liu discloses that a method of removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream comprising passing the gas stream through the gas filter in accordance with claim 1 (Liu’s process of CO2 capture in combustion gas flow using the sorbent particles in fluidized bed, Liu p. 12).
Regarding claim 20:
Liu discloses that the method according to claim 19, wherein the gas filter or active matrix is heated in order to (re)generate the CO2 sorbent form the CO2 sorbent precursor (Liu discloses dry adsorbent is regenerated by heating, and most of the invention are alkali and alkaline earth metal, p. 5).
Regarding claim 21:
Liu discloses that an active element (Liu discloses as solid sorbent, Liu p. 5) suitable for use in a gas filter (Liu’s invention is about a gas filter adsorbs carbon dioxide, Liu p. 1), the active element comprising:
a matrix material (Liu discloses as “carrier”, Liu p. 5) present in an amount of 20 wt% to 95 wt% based on the total weight of the active element (Liu discloses 70 weight percent or less of carrier, Liu p. 12, Liu’s range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness; MPEP 2144.05(I));
a CO2 sorbent, or a precursor thereof (Liu’s active component, Liu p. 5), present in an amount of 5 wt% to 80 wt% based on the total weight of the active element (Liu discloses a weight ratio of 5–70 wt%, Liu p. 4, Liu’s ratio falls within the claimed range); and
water (Liu discloses its active component react with CO2 and water, and therefore, water is necessary for the carbon dioxide adsorber to be “active” and therefore water is an essential component of the “active element” Liu p. 5) present in an amount of 5 wt% to 40 wt% based on the total weight of the active element (assuming Liu’s matrix material is in the amount of 60 wt%, and CO2 sorbent in the amount of 10 wt%, both falls within the disclosed range by Liu, Liu’s water content would have to be less than 30 wt% such that total weight percentage is 100 wt%, such range falls within the claimed range),
wherein the CO2 sorbent is an alkali metal carbonate (Liu discloses the sorbent material can be alkali earth metal carbonate, Liu p. 4), and
wherein at least some of the CO2 sorbent is embedded within the matrix material (Liu discloses a step where water is added to the sorbent, and Liu discloses its carrier and its active substance has the same structure, Liu p. 11, Liu discloses its active substance is porous, which means the carrier is porous to accommodate the sorbent, which means the sorbent is embedded within the carrier).
Liu does not disclose that the matrix material comprises a foamed polymer.
In the analogous art of air filter adsorbing carbon dioxide, Perera discloses an air filter (as shown in Perera Fig. 1A, [0071]) comprising a matrix material (Perera’s polymer foam), a CO2 sorbent (Perera’s adsorbent material, Perera Fig. 1A, [0006]). Perera discloses its polymer foam provide at least ante bacterial and/or antiviral properties, Perera [0001]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Liu’s matrix material to be Perera’s polymer foam such that Liu’s air filter could have antibacterial property.
Regarding claim 22:
Modified Liu discloses that the active element according to claim 21, wherein the active element is further characterized by one or more of the following:
the matrix material further comprises a ceramic material;
the matrix material further comprises a ceramic material comprising a clay material;
the matrix material further comprises a ceramic material comprising a clay material selected from any one or more of kaolinite, montmorillonite-smectite, ilite, chlorite clay or clays, clinoptalite, palygorskite, attapulgite, bentonite;
the polymer comprises one or more, or any combination of polyurethane (PU), poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (PVP), polyimide (PI), polymers of intrinsic microporosity (PIMs), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyethersulfone (PES), cellulose or bio-degradable polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) ((Perara discloses the polymer is polyimide, Perera [0011]);
the matrix material comprises mesopores and/or macropores;
the CO2 sorbent is selected from one or more of K2CO3, Na2CO3, Li2CO3:
the water is embedded within the matrix material;
at least some of the water is provided by an additional solid material, wherein the additional solid material is particulate and is selected from one or more of aluminium oxide, zeolite, silicate, metal organic framework (MOF), clay;
the CO2 sorbent precursor is present in the form of at least one bicarbonate.
Regarding claim 26:
Modified Liu discloses that the gas filter according to claim 16, wherein the particle size of the aluminium oxide is less than 50 µm (Liu discloses alumina is an adsorbent suitable for its invention, Liu discloses its solid adsorbent has an average particle size of 40 to 180 microns, Liu p. 4, Liu therefore discloses a range overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Perera and in further view of Gebald et al., US 2021/0187480 A1 (“Gebald”).
Regarding claim 11:
Modified Liu does not disclose that the gas filter according to claim 1, wherein the matrix material comprises mesopores and/or macropores.
In the analogous art of CO2 sorbent carrier, Gebald discloses that the CO2 adsorption capacities increase with increasing mesopore surface of the support, Gebald [0023]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include mesopores in modified Liu’s matrix material for an increased adsorption capacity.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The examiner drops the current objection because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the current objection. New objection is made and please see details above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner drops the current rejection except for claim 17 because the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The examiner withdraws the current 35 USC § 112(d) rejection because the applicant has tendered an amendment to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and § 103
The applicant includes a further limitation in claim 1 and argues that Liu and the other cited prior art does not teach such limitation, Applicant Rem. dated Apr. 22, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) ps. 7–8.
The examiner relies on Perera to teach the amended limitation. See details above.
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 QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights