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 Invention I, drawn to claims 1-7, in the reply filed on August 27th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that examination without election would not present an undue search burden and that the request for election is burdensome to the Patent Office, applicant, and the public. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons set forth on page 4 in the Office Action mailed June 30th, 2026 regarding serious search and/or examination burden. As to the argument that the request for election is burdensome to the Patent Office, applicant, and the public, applicant is respectfully reminded that upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 19th, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “the system having a cycle including a first stage of sorbing CO2 from incoming air onto the solid CO2 sorbent; and a second state of regenerating the solid CO2 sorbent by injecting the exchange fluid into the cylindrical body from the injector, spinning the cylindrical body to draw the exchange fluid through a volume of the solid CO2 sorbent while detaching CO2 from the solid CO2 sorbent and binding the detached CO2 to the chemical component.” Claim 1 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 1 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “carbon dioxide direct air capture system.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the cycle further includes a third state of regenerating the chemical component by detaching CO2 from the chemical component and releasing the CO2 from the ssytem.” Claim 2 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 2 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “system.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein a temperature of the solid CO2 sorbent is maintained at a constant value throughout the first, second, and third states of the cycle.” Claim 4 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 4 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “system.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the injector injects the exchange fluid into the central aperture.” Claim 6 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 6 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “system.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii).
Claims 3, 5, and 7 are dependent upon claim 1 and are therefore similarly 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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0007957 A1 to Wright et al. (hereinafter referred to as Wright), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0322923 A1 to Bumb et al. (hereinafter referred to as Bumb).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches a carbon dioxide (CO2) direct air capture (DAC) system (Abstract) comprising: a body housing a solid CO2 sorbent (Fig. 8 depicts CO2 uptake in a closed 128 L container ; ¶0011 “In one aspect, the invention employs a solid anionic exchange membrane as the primary CO2 capture matrix. The ion exchange material may comprise a solid matrix formed of or coated with an ion exchange material.”); an exchange fluid path through the solid CO2 sorbent (¶0090 “The ion exchange media will over time become saturated with CO2 and must be regenerated. This is achieved by passing a liquid amine solution through the bed”); an exchange fluid including a chemical component with a preferential affinity towards CO2 (¶0090 “The ion exchange media will over time become saturated with CO2 and must be regenerated. This is achieved by passing a liquid amine solution through the bed” ; amines are selective towards CO2), the system having a cycle including a first state of sorbing CO2 from incoming air onto the solid CO2 sorbent (¶0077 “In one aspect our invention employs solid anionic exchange membranes as the primary capture matrix for the capture and subsequent delivery of atmospheric CO2. The membranes are spaced closely together … This spacing allows for the passage of ambient air”); and a second state of regenerating the solid CO2 sorbent by injecting the exchange fluid into the solid sorbent (¶0090 “The ion exchange media will over time become saturated with CO2 and must be regenerated. This is achieved by passing a liquid amine solution through the bed”) to draw the exchange fluid through a volume of the solid CO2 sorbent while detaching CO2 from the solid CO2 sorbent and binding the detached CO2 to the chemical component (¶0090 “The liquid amine solution will release an OH- to the ion exchange resin, which in turn releases the CO2, effectively regenerating the ion exchange media. The amine-CO2 solution is then removed and the process is repeated as a cyclic system.”). Wright does not teach wherein the solid CO2 sorbent is housed within a centrifuge having a cylindrical body and wherein the second state of regenerating the solid CO2 sorbent is conducted by injecting the exchange fluid into the centrifuge and spinning the body to draw the exchange fluid through the solid CO2 sorbent.
However, Bumb teaches a system for capturing carbon dioxide (Abstract) that comprises a centrifuge having a cylindrical body housing a CO2 sorbent (¶0021 “According to a first aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a process of capturing carbon dioxide from flue gases, the process comprising the step of: feeding a flue gas comprising CO2 to at least one Rotary Packed Bed (RPB) absorber rotating circularly, wherein a solvent provided through an inner radius of the at least one RPB absorber moves towards an outer radius” ; the RPB reads on a “centrifuge”), wherein both a CO2 liquid sorbent and a CO2 gas stream are introduced into the centrifuge (¶0027 “Advantageously, wherein the solvent reacts with the flue gas in a counter-current flow to remove CO2 from the flue gas and form CO2 rich solvent.”) and wherein the exchange fluid is introduced into the centrifuge via an injector (¶0070 “A solvent may be fed through an inner radius of the RPB absorber 204.”). Bumb further teaches that the centrifugal force generated by the spinning bed allows for improved mass transfer of CO2 to the liquid (¶0070 “Upon application of the centrifugal force, the solvent may move radially from the inner radius of the RPB absorber 204 towards an outer radius of the RPB absorber 204. The solvent may thus contact with the flue gas 202 comprising CO2, in a cross or counter-current configuration. Such rotation of the RPB absorber 204 increases mixing between the flue gas 202 and the solvent, leading to improved mass transfer of CO2 present in the flue gas 202 to the solvent present in the liquid phase.”).
Wright and Bumb are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide capture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the CO2 direct air capture system as taught by Wright could be modified to incorporate the centrifuge as taught by Bumb to improve the contact between the solid CO2 sorbent and the exchange fluid. Such an improvement would result in a more efficient regeneration of the solid sorbent as taught by Wright.
Regarding claim 2, Wright and Bumb teach the system as applied to claim 1 above. Wright further teaches wherein the cycle further includes a third state of regenerating the chemical component by detaching CO2 from the chemical component and releasing the CO2 from the system (¶0091 “The amine-CO2 solution must also go through a recovery step in order to complete the cycle. The amine-CO2 recovery is accomplished in a distillation in which the CO2 is separated and captured in the gas phase and the amine-OH solution is returned to the bed.” ; Fig. 5, step 256).
Regarding claim 3, Wright and Bumb teach the system as applied to claim 1 above. Wright further teaches the use of an amine wash solution to recover the CO2 sorbent (¶0013 “In yet another embodiment of the invention, carbon dioxide is removed from the air using an ion exchange material which is regenerated using a liquid amine solution.”). Although Wright does not explicitly disclose that the amine is dissolved in an aqueous solution, of the possible amine-based solutions, there are only two options available – aqueous or non-aqueous. Amines are soluble in water and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an aqueous amine solution could be used with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E). Furthermore, Bumb teaches that aqueous amine solutions for carbon dioxide capture are known in the art (¶0047-0050).
Regarding claim 4, Wright and Bumb teach the system as applied to claim 2 above. Wright further teaches wherein a temperature of the solid CO2 sorbent is maintained at a constant value throughout the first, second, and third states of the cycle. As there are no temperature differential steps included in the system as taught by Wright, the system as taught by Wright is capable of maintaining the temperature throughout the states of use. See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 5, Wright and Bumb teach the system as applied to claim 1 above. Bumb further teaches wherein the centrifuge further includes a central aperture defined by the cylindrical body (¶0076 “A small portion of stripping CO2 240 may be fed through a penetration in the wall of the casing and passes under pressure, counter currently, from the radius of the packed bed to the center of the packed bed. A penetration may be present at the center of the packed bed.”).
Regarding claim 6, Wright and Bumb teach the system as applied to claim 5 above. Bumb further teaches wherein the injector injects the exchange fluid into the central aperture (¶0070 “A solvent may be fed through an inner radius of the RPB absorber 204.” ; as the solvent is capable of being fed through the inner radius of the RPB absorber, the solvent is therefore capable of being “injected”).
Regarding claim 7, Wright and Bumb teach the system as applied to claim 1 above. Bumb further teaches wherein the centrifuge further includes an exchange fluid collection sheath (¶0076 “While the solvent leaves an edge of the packing bed, the solvent strikes a wall of the casing of the packing bed and then drains into a sump.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights