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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species A in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 uses comprising language and therefore covers embodiments with more than one pair of electrodes. This is not found persuasive because applicant is arguing Genus/Species, while the Examiner provided a restriction by election of species. Even if the Examiner takes into consideration the Genus/Species (combo/subcombo) argument, there is no limitations that state the electrodes (singular set or pairs) are within the container that contains the nanostructured surface. Thus the combo/subcombo is still able to be restricted as the genus does not require the specifics of the species and the species has use.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 7-13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1-2 and 14-15 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 14-15 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.
Claims 1 and 15 state that the nanotextured structure is configured to facilitate either nucleation of solid in the container or nucleation of carbon dioxide.
It is not clear if there are the same or different nanotextures on the surface. As per the specification, it seems that these are the same thing.
In relation to the interpretation of the claim (in light of the specification), any nanotexturing of the surface is capable of both nucleation of a solid or carbon dioxide.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the gas permeable article." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that the system further includes a gas permeable article that is permeable to carbon dioxide.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 11,413,578 of Sant et al.
As to claims 1 and 15, Sant teaches of a system comprising:
a fluid container (Sant, col 19 lines 11-19 and Figs. 9(a) and 9(b));
an electrode pair in the fluid container (Sant, col 19 lines 11-19 and Figs. 9(a) and 9(b)); and
a nanotextured surface in the container (Sant, col 21 line 9 thru col 22 line 57 and Table 1).
As stated within Sant, a flow thru cell is used that contains an electrode pair. The surface of the cathode is nanotextured.
As to claim 2, this describes the material being formed within the apparatus and thus does not further delineate the system.
Even with that said, Sant teaches a solid comprising a carbonate containing compound (calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate) (Sant, col 2 lines 50-53, col 3 line 19-40 and col 23 lines 38-41).
As to claim 14, Sant teaches the system includes a plurality of electroactive meshes, thus disclosing a gas permeable element as there are more than one mesh within the system (Sant, col 7 lines 65-67).
Sant also teaches a gas diffuser, thus being a gas permeable element (Sant, col 6 lines 28-29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights