CTNF 18/303,601 CTNF 87394 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 4 is 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. As to claim 4, the claim recites a removing process, which requires the expeller opening and closing device to be open and an exhausting process which requires the expeller opening and closing device to be closed and then recites that this are simultaneous executed. It is unclear as to how the expeller opening and closing device can be simultaneously both opened and closed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0118401 A1 to Umeda et al. (Umeda) in view of JP 2021-058856 A to Haraoka et al. (Haraoka) . As to claims 1 and 6, Umeda teaches a carbon dioxide recovery system comprising a recovery unit (100) that includes an electrochemical cell device (101) that is configured to adsorb carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide containing gas to recover the carbon dioxide and configured to desorb the carbon dioxide to enable collection of the carbon dioxide desorbed from the electrochemical cell device, the electrochemical cell device (101) housed inside a container (housing) (Paragraphs 0025-0030) . Umeda further teaches that the apparatus comprises a collector unit including a utilization unit (13) which is configured to collect the caron dioxide desorbed from the electrochemical cell device and a collector pipe that connects between the inside of the housing and the utilization unit (13) the collector unit operating with a valve (12) controlled by a control device (14) for selectively sending the carbon dioxide after being desorbed to the carbon dioxide utilization device (13) (Paragraphs 0033-0024) . However, Umeda fails to further teach that the apparatus comprises an expeller unit or a connector unit. However, Haraoka also discusses recovery of carbon dioxide from a carbon dioxide containing gas where the carbon dioxide is first adsorbed and then desorbed for recovery (Paragraphs 0016 and 0020) and teaches that purity of the gases recovered can be an issue (Paragraph 0012) . Haraoka teaches that one source of impurities can come from gas remaining in the carbon dioxide discharge line (t o 12) , the collector pipe, and teaches that this can be mitigated by providing an expeller pipe (t o 11) which connects between an inside and an outside of a housing for the adsorption/desorption unit (101) and comprises an expeller valve (60) , providing a first collector valve (51) on the collector pipe (t 0 12) closer to the housing (101) than to the utilization unit (c2) and a second collector valve (82) on the collector pipe (t 0 12) closer to the utilization unit (c2) than the housing (101) , and a connector pipe comprising a connector valve (81) connecting between the expeller pipe (t o 11) downstream of the expeller valve (60) and the collector pipe (t 0 12) between the first and second collector valves (51 and 82) , each valve comprising an automatic valve configured to operate to remove impurities from the lines prior to desorbing the carbon dioxide by closing all of the first collector valve (51) , the second collector valve (82) and the expeller valve (60) in a closed state and placing the connector valve (81) in an open state and operating the expeller unit via an expeller/collector pump (120) to expel gas from the collector pipe (t o 12) through the connector pipe and the expeller pipe (t 0 11) to execute an exhausting process before executing a recovery process by desorbing the carbon dioxide from the adsorption unit and collecting the carbon dioxide at the utilization unit through the collector pipe after desorbing (Paragraph 0038; Figure 3E) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the outlet pathways of the recovery unit of Umeda with the expeller, collector and connector configuration of Haraoka in order to ensure purity of the recovered carbon dioxide gas as taught by Haraoka. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the existing controller of Umeda, already controlling valve, pump and electrochemical units, to control the system as modified without the need for additional separate components. As to claim 2, the combination of Umeda and Haraoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the controller unit is configured to execute the impurity exhausting process after a first adsorption step; however, this apparatus is reusable and would perform many cycles of adsorption and desorption and thus the controller would be configure to perform this exhausting process before at least one step of the controller performing the adsorbing process. As to claim 3, the combination of Umeda and Haraoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Haraoka further specifically teaches that the impurity removal process includes, prior to executing the exhausting process, performing a removing process that expels remaining gas from inside the adsorption unit (101) through the expeller pipe (t o 11) in a state where the carbon dioxide is adsorbed (Paragraphs 0035 and 0036; Figure 3C) . As to claim 4, the combination of Umeda and Haraoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. While presenting significant issues on clarity, the Examiner maintains that the controller and valve configuration of the combination would be able to open and close the valves as claimed in order to execute a removing process and an exhausting process stepwise, considered to meet the unclear claim language . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Umeda and Haraoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0256003 A1 to Ohtsubo et al. (Ohtsubo) . As to claim 5, the combination of Umeda and Haraoka teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As discussed above, the apparatus includes a collector pump configured to operate to feed carbon dioxide to the utilization inti and expel gas from the expeller, collector and connector pipes during the exhausting process. Haraoka teaches that the pipe is provided in a slightly shifted location, i.e. on the other side of the joint; however, the mere rearrangement of parts is not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 VI C) . However, the combination is silent as to specifically if the pump is a dry pump, Haraoka teaching merely a vacuum pump (Paragraph 0037) . However, Ohtsubo also discusses vacuum pumps for pumping gases and teaches that a dry pump should be utilized to avoid contamination (Paragraph 0117) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a dry pump for the pump of the combination to avoid contamination as taught by Ohtsubo. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM. 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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. /CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794 Application/Control Number: 18/303,601 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794
Prosecution Insights