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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to because the text is centered in the transition paragraph between pages 1 and 2, when it should be aligned with the left margin.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in on page 1 of the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 1–3 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.
Claims 1–3 recite:
1. A Carbon Sequestering Exhaust Filtration System that consists of the following:
2. A porous composite exhaust pipe encasement featuring Air Conditioning attachments and a Hydrogen-permeable pipe lining that delivers dried air to the second part of said system:
3. A Carbon Sequestering Exhaust Fume Filtration Port that holds within it replaceable and biodegradable Carbon particulate filtering bags that purify exhaust fumes of Carbon particulate matter. Emphasis added.
Claims 1–3 are indefinite because the punctuation makes it unclear if it is intended to be three separate claims or a single claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claims are intended to be a single claim. Note that a single claim should not include a claim number. See MPEP 608.01(j) (in a single claim case, the claim is not numbered).
Claims 1–3 are also indefinite because it is unclear if the transitional phrase “featuring” is intended to be open-ended (as in “comprising”) or closed (as in “consisting of”). See MPEP 2111.03 for more information regarding transitional phrases.
Claims 1–3 are further indefinite because (assuming they are a single claim) they are a single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. Specifically, the single claim is an apparatus claim because it is to a “system.” But the claim also recites method steps for using the apparatus in the limitations “that delivers dried air to the second part of said system” and “that purify exhaust fumes of Carbon particulate matter.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when one creates a system that allows these steps to be performed, or whether infringement actually requires that these steps are performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
Claims 1–3 are further indefinite because “the second part” lacks antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e) for more information. It is also unclear whether the “Carbon Sequestering Exhaust Fume Filtration Port” is included in the “second part of the system.”
For the purpose of compact prosecution, claims 1–3 are interpreted to read:
[[1.]] A Carbon Sequestering Exhaust Filtration System that consists of the following:
a porous composite exhaust pipe encasement comprising Air Conditioning attachments and a Hydrogen-permeable pipe lining that is configured to deliver a second part of said system:
wherein the second part of the system comprises a Carbon Sequestering Exhaust Fume Filtration Port that holds within it replaceable and biodegradable Carbon particulate filtering bags that are configured to purify exhaust fumes of Carbon particulate matter.
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 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.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, US 6,644,515 B1 in view of Shanks et al., US 6,402,811 B1 and in further view of Lagaron Cabello et al., US 2021/0322907 A1.
Regarding claims 1–3, Campbell teaches a filter valve assembly 20, which reads on the claimed “system.” See Campbell Fig. 3, col. 2, ll. 27–31. Note that the preamble limitation describing the system as being used for “carbon sequestering exhaust” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the “system.” See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction where the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention).
The filter valve assembly 20 consists of a “porous composite exhaust pipe encasement” which is the mounting-valve-unit housing 40 and first stage filter 62. See Campbell Fig. 3, col. 3, ll. 1–6, col. 4, ll. 14–19. The “porous composite exhaust pipe encasement” includes mounting adaptor 26, screw bores 32 and plug portion 36, which read on the “Air Conditioning attachments.” Note that the limitation indicating that the attachment is for “Air Conditioning” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114, subsection II (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art). The “porous composite exhaust pipe encasement” also includes a coalescing filter member 68 that is configured to deliver dried air to a second stage filter 64. See Campbell Fig. 3, col. 4, ll. 1–19. The coalescing filter member 68 is hydrogen-permeable because it is permeable to fumes from a liquid container, and the fumes are larger than hydrogen. Id. at col. 1, ll. 43–52. The coalescing filter 68 reads on the “Hydrogen-permeable pipe lining” and the second stage filter 64 reads on the “second part.”
The second stage filter 64 comprises a housing 70, which reads on the “Carbon Sequestering Exhaust Fume Filtration Port.” See Campbell col. 4, ll. 6–19. The housing 70 holds granular carbon 72 held between downstream and upstream porous filter members. Id. The downstream and upstream porous filter members are capable of purifying exhaust fumes of carbon particulate matter because they prevent dust from getting into the granular carbon 72. Id. at col. 6, ll. 6–19; MPEP 2114, subsection IV (Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function).
PNG
media_image1.png
841
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Campbell differs from claims 1–3 because it is silent as to the downstream and upstream porous filter members that hold the the granular carbon 72 being replaceable and biodegradable carbon particulate filtering bags, as claimed.
But, as noted, the downstream and upstream porous filter members are provided to prevent dust from getting into the granular carbon 72. See Campbell col. 4, ll. 6–19.
With this in mind, Shanks teaches a sorbent filter 10 comprising a plurality of storage regions 34 (“filtering bags”) with each storage region 34 holding granular sorbent material 32. See Shanks Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 26–34. Each storage region 34 is made of a porous material, such as polyester, with a porosity that is sufficiently small to capture dust particles. Id. at col. 5, ll. 58–65. While Shanks is silent as to the porous material being biodegradable, Lagaron Cabello teaches a filter material made form biodegradable polyesters. See Lagaron Cabello [0019]. It would have been obvious to manufacture the porous material of Shanks from biodegradable polyester to reduce environmental impact. The sorbent filter 10 of Shanks is beneficial because it is cost effective and generates little or no dust during installation or use. See Shanks col. 2, ll. 41–49.
PNG
media_image2.png
728
1196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the sorbent filter 10 of Shanks (with the porous material made from biodegradable polyester) as the granular carbon 72 held between downstream and upstream porous filter members of Campbell to reduce cost and to ensure that little or no dust is generated during installation or use.
With this modification, the storage regions 34 of Shanks read on the “replaceable and biodegradable Carbon particulate filtering bags.” The storage regions 34 are bags because they are individual containers made of the porous material, separated from each other by strips 52 of impermeable material. See Shanks Fig. 4, col. 5, ll. 34–40. The storage regions 34 are capable of purifying exhaust fumes of carbon particulate matter, at least because carbon particulate matter could be captured in the pores of the porous material of each storage region 34.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776