DETAILED ACTION
Claims 17-32 are pending
Claims 17-32 are subject to a restriction requirement
Claims 30-32 are withdrawn from consideration
Claims 17-29 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 17-29, drawn to a method for removing radioactive noble gas
Group II, claims 30-32, drawn to an apparatus for removing a radioactive noble gas
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
3. Groups I-II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of removing a radioactive noble gas from a gas volume comprising a bed of a microporous molecular sieve comprising a transition metal disposed on and/or in the microporous molecular sieve;
wherein the radioactive noble gas is Rn, and
wherein the microporous molecular sieve is an ETS-10 or ZSM-5.
, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Wang et. al. (CN 107519844 A) (Wang).
4. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 107519844 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
5. Wang discloses a preparation method of efficient antibacterial gas absorption material (Wang, Abstract) for absorption of radon gas (i.e. radioactive noble gas) (Wang, p. 2, paragraph 3) that comes from construction material or a building lot (Wang, p. 2, paragraph 4)
wherein the sorbing material is respectively in 1 cubic meter of a glass box (Wang, p. 3, paragraph 6, “3, assay of the absorbing material”) (i.e. a bed).
Wang further teaches the gas adsorption material comprises a ZSM-5 molecular sieve (i.e. microporous molecular sieve) (Wang, Abstract);
wherein the ZSM-5 molecular sieve (i.e. microporous molecular sieve) is taken out as an adsorption carrier (Wang, p. 2, paragraph 14)
wherein the absorption carrier includes alkali metal oxide, transition metal oxide, and adhesive oxides (Wang, p. 2, paragraph 14).
Wang further teaches absorption of radon (i.e. radioactive noble gas) (Wang, p. 2, paragraph 1) and the microporous molecular sieve is a ZSM-5 (Wang, Abstract).
6. Therefore, since the limitations fail to define a contribution over Wang, they failed to
constitute a special technical feature and hence there is lack of unity between the cited claims.
7. During a telephone conversation with Garrett Winkel on January 27, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 17-29. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 30-31 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
8. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
9. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
10. Claims 20-21 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of each claims 20 and 21, "A3" there appears to be typographic error, in light of Specification [059], it is suggested to amend "A3" to "A3".
In line 3 of claim 25, it is suggested to amend “removing from the gas volume a substance that is poisonous” to “removing a substance that is poisonous from the gas volume”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. Claims 17-29 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.
13. Claim 17 recites the term, “dew point of the gas volume at a gas temperature of 20 °C is of –20 °C or less”. However, it is unclear how the temperature of the gas volume would affect the dew point of the gas volume since it is primarily tied to the relative humidity of the gas volume in the specification [076], and whether gas temperature of 20 °C is required or optional. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as dew point of the gas volume is of –20 °C or less. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
14. Regarding dependent claims 18-29, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 17 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
15. Claim 23 recites the limitation " the noble gas adsorbent" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as the bed of a microporous molecular sieve according to claim 17. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
16. Claim 23 recites the limitation "the moisture adsorbent bed" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as the moisture adsorbent bed according to claim 22. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
17. Regarding dependent claim 24, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 23 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
18. Claim 24 recites the limitation " the noble gas adsorbent" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as the bed of a microporous molecular sieve according to claim 17. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
19. Claim 24 recites the limitation "the moisture adsorbent bed" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as the moisture adsorbent bed according to claim 22. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
20. Claim 25 recites the limitation " the noble gas adsorbent" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as the bed of a microporous molecular sieve according to claim 17. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
21. Claim 25 recites the limitation "the moisture adsorbent bed" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets the phrase refers to as the moisture adsorbent bed according to claim 22. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Claims 17-19, 22-25, 27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 20180065078 A1) (Hayes) further in view of Kuznicki et al. (US 20120144999 A1) (Kuznicki).
25. Regarding claim 17, Hayes teaches a method for collecting, purifying, and measuring Xe isotopes from air (i.e. a gas volume) (Hayes, Abstract) that includes a collection trap (Hayes, [0036])
wherein the collection trap captures xenon (Hayes, [0036]) isotopes that are radioactive (Hayes, [0025]) and radon (Hayes, [0036]) that is radioactive.
Hayes further teaches an air dryer system (Hayes, [0031]) with a dew point sensor to indicate if the air (i.e. gas volume) is dry or not (Hayes, [0032])
wherein the system requirement is to achieve a dew point value of at least –85 °C (Hayes, [0032]), that falls within the claimed range of 20 °C or less.
Hayes further teaches a separation column where gases present in the trap, such as Ra, are separated from Xe using gas chromatography (Hayes, [0025]) by carrying the gas through the separation column (i.e. passing the gas volume over) (Hayes, [0057])
wherein the main components of the separation column system are a long column (i.e. a bed) packed with a 13× molecular sieve.
However, Hayes does not explicitly teach that the molecular sieve is a microporous molecular sieve comprising a transition metal disposed on and/or in the microporous molecular sieve, as presently claimed.
With respect to the difference, Kuznicki teaches selectively adsorbing a noble gas from a gaseous mixture or stream (i.e. passing the gas volume) (Kuznicki, [0050]) over adsorbents in a column (i.e. a bed) (Kuznicki, [0059]);
wherein the adsorbent comprises ETS zeolites (Kuznicki, [0022]) that are porous (Kuznicki, [0019]) (i.e. a microporous molecular sieve)
wherein metal nanodots are formed on a ETS zeolite surface (Kuznicki, [0018])
wherein the metal nanodots comprise a transition or noble metal (i.e. a transition metal disposed on the microporous molecular sieve) (Kuznicki, [0019]).
Kuznicki expressly teaches that in general silver exchanged zeolites exhibit unusual adsorption properties, especially toward the noble gases (Kuznicki, [0050]) and that the Ag-ETS zeolite (i.e a transition metal disposed on the microporous molecular sieve) provide more selective or stronger adsorption properties than prior art silver zeolites (Kuznicki, [0050]).
wherein Ag-ETS zeolites selectively adsorb a noble gas from a gaseous mixture or stream (Kuznicki, [0050]).
Hayes and Kuznicki are analogous art as they are all drawn to methods to adsorb a noble gas from a gaseous mixture or stream.
In light of the motivation for the Ag-ETS zeolite (i.e. a transition metal disposed on the microporous molecular sieve) by Kuznicki, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify molecular sieve of Hayes to be an Ag-ETS zeolite to provide more selective or stronger adsorption properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hayes further teaches that adsorption of radon (i.e. radioactive noble gas) is primarily toward the input side of the column (i.e. a bed) (Hayes, [0057]).
Kuznicki further teaches that the ETS zeolite (i.e. microporous molecular sieve) comprises an ETS-10 zeolite (Kuznicki, [0018]).
26. Regarding claim 18, Kuznicki further teaches metal nanodots are formed on a ETS zeolite surface (i.e. microporous molecular sieve) (Kuznicki, [0018])
wherein the metal nanodots comprise a transition or noble metal (Kuznicki, [0019]).
Kuznicki further teaches performing ion-exchange with a solution of metal ions and an ETS zeolite (i.e. metal-exchanged microporous molecular sieve) (Kuznicki, [0025]) to form a metal nanoparticulate material (Kuznicki, [0024]) with silver nanodots (Kuznicki, [0023]).
27. Regarding claim 19, Kuznicki further teaches metal nanodots are formed on a ETS zeolite surface (Kuznicki, [0018])
wherein the metal nanodots comprise a transition or noble metal (i.e. a transition metal disposed on the microporous molecular sieve) (Kuznicki, [0019]).
28. Regarding claim 22, Hayes further teaches a dryer system (Hayes, [0032])
wherein the process gas flows (i.e. passing gas volume over) through the alumina dryer column that removes humidity from the process air (i.e. moisture absorbent bed) (Hayes, [0032])
29. Regarding claim 23, Hayes further teaches the separation column system (Hayes, [0056])
wherein one of the last components to come off of the separation column is radon (i.e. noble gas adsorbent bed) undergoes regeneration (Hayes, [0057]).
Hayes further teaches alumina dryer column (i.e. moisture absorbent bed) undergoes regeneration (Hayes, [0032]).
30. Regarding claim 24, Hayes and Kuznicki further teach the method according to claim 23 (see article 20 above).
Hayes further teaches the separation column system (Hayes, [0056]) includes a heater to bring the column up to the correct temperature for the separation process and regeneration of the column media (Hayes, [0056])
wherein the separation column with adsorbed radon (i.e. noble gas adsorbent bed) is regenerated at a temperature of 175° C (Hayes, [0056]).
Hayes further teaches that separation column with adsorbed radon (i.e. noble gas adsorbent bed) undergoes regeneration by back-flushing the column with nitrogen (i.e. regeneration gas) (Hayes, [0056]).
31. Regarding claim 25, Hayes further teaches that before the dryer system step (Hayes, [0032]) there is an air filtration step to remove water from the compressed air stream (Hayes, Claim 1)
wherein the excess air now has a lower humidity after passing through the water separator and provides a load reduction on the dryer columns (i.e. moisture adsorbent bed) (Hayes, [0030]).
32. Regarding claim 27, Hayes teaches the separation column system (Hayes, [0056]) with mixed gas components differing in retention time causing the individual components to come off of the column in discrete peaks of higher concentration (Hayes, [0057])
wherein since radon has a longer retention time than the other gas components introduced to the column, radon is adsorbed primarily toward the input side of the column (Hayes, [0057]).
Hayes further teaches a user may inject a high concentration of radon (i.e. adsorbed radioactive noble gas) to perform a radon rejection to test for the concentration of radon (i.e. collected for further storage or utilization) (Hayes, [0029]).
33. Regarding claim 29, Hayes teaches the separation column system (Hayes, [0056]) with mixed gas components (i.e. gas volume differing in retention time cause the individual components to come off of the column in discrete peaks of higher concentration (Hayes, [0057])
wherein radon (i.e. radioactive noble gas) is separated in the column (Hayes, [0057])
wherein radon is radioactive (i.e. nuclear environment).
34. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes and Kuznicki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 102508285 A) (Wu), taken in view of evidence by Mason, E. A., et al., Transport Properties of Ions in Gases. Copyright © 1988 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1988) (Mason).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 102508285 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
35. Regarding claims 20-21, Hayes and Kuznicki teach the method according to claim 17 (see article 16 above).
Hayes further teaches that the air (i.e. gas volume) required to move the xenon gas in the gas chromatograph comprises a nitrogen carrier gas to traverse the separation column (Hayes, [0025])
wherein the polarizability of nitrogen gas is 1.74 Å3 (Mason, p. 533, Table III-3), which falls outside the recited range.
Wu teaches a low temperature enriched sampling method and device of xenon in atmosphere (Wu, Abstract);
wherein the xenon samples are radioactive (i.e. a radioactive noble gas) (Wu, [0061])
wherein the xenon in air (i.e. gas volume) is enriched at low temperature us a 4-stage adsorption column (i.e. a bed) (Wu, Abstract).
Wu further teaches that the nitrogen or helium gas (Wu, [0027])
wherein the polarizability of helium gas is 0.205 Å3 (Mason, p. 531, Table III-3), which falls within the recited range.
In light of the disclosure of Wu of the equivalence and interchangeability of using nitrogen or helium as a carrier gas as disclosed in Hayes, with a nitrogen carrier gas with a polarizability of 1.74 Å3 as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use helium with a polarizability of 0.205 Å3 as a carrier gas in the removal of a radioactive noble gas, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
36. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes and Kuznicki as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Perl-Oshvang et al. (WO 2017087699 A1) (Perl-Oshvang).
Hayes and Kuznicki teach the method according to claim 17 (article 16 above).
Hayes further teaches a separation column system to separate different components of the gas that is carried through the separation column (i.e. noble gas adsorbent) (Hayes, [0057])
wherein different components are adsorbed on the column at different rates (Hayes, [0057] including xenon and radon (i.e. adsorbed radioactive noble gas)
However, Hayes does not explicitly teach that the adsorbed radioactive noble gas is held until it is effectively decayed.
With respect to the difference, Perl-Oshvang teaches a method for reducing radon (i.e. radioactive noble gas) contained in indoor air from an indoor area (Perl-Oshvang, Abstract);
wherein the method comprises at least one layer of adsorbent medium (i.e. a bed) configured for capturing radon from air (i.e. gas volume) (Perl-Oshvang, [008]);
wherein the adsorbent is a molecular sieve (Perl-Oshvang, [008], additional features/functionality).
wherein the radon accumulates on the adsorbent and eventually decay (Perl-Oshvang, [0055[])
Perl-Oshvang expressly teaches Radon-222 are naturally forming indoor air contaminants and a leading cause of lung cancer (Perl-Oshvang, [003])
wherein allowing for the decay of radioactive radon mitigation remains an important part of indoor air quality and public health (Perl-Oshvang, [003]).
Hayes, Kuznicki, and Perl-Oshvang are analogous art as they are all drawn to methods to adsorb a noble gas from a gaseous mixture.
In light of the motivation for increasing the air quality by mitigation of radioactive decay as disclosed by Perl-Oshvang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method to adsorb a radioactive noble gas from a gaseous mixture of Hayes and Kuznicki to have an adsorbent wherein radon accumulates on the adsorbent and eventually decay, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
37. Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
38. While Hayes teaches the limitation of the method according to claim 27, Hayes does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 28. Specifically, Hayes teaches the separation column system (Hayes, [0057]) operates at a collection temperature of -120 to -100 °C (Hayes, [0036]), which would be outside the claimed range.
Conclusion
39. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732