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 .
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.
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 chemical cell" in line 16.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1; and hence are likewise rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al (EP 3991827; hereinafter Umeda) in view of Higgins et al (US 10693165; hereinafter Higgins) and/or Space et al (US 20190100318; hereinafter Space).
As regarding claim 1, Umeda discloses the claimed invention for a carbon dioxide recovery system (figs. 1 and 7) which recovers carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by an electrochemical reaction, the system comprising: an electrochemical cell (figs. 2-4, 7 and 14), disposed within a housing, which adsorbs carbon dioxide and desorbs adsorbed carbon dioxide in response to an applied electrical potential; a collector unit (100) which recovers carbon dioxide desorbed from the electrochemical cell; and a control unit (14) configured to control the electrochemical cell and the collector unit to perform: applying an adsorption potential to the electrochemical cell to adsorb carbon dioxide contained in the atmosphere introduced into the housing to the electrochemical cell; applying a desorption potential to the electrochemical cell to desorb carbon dioxide from the electrochemical cell; and acquiring information about substances contained in the atmosphere that may adhere to the electrochemical cell, wherein the control unit is configured to switch, at least, between execution and non-execution of carbon dioxide recovery control based on the information acquired by the acquiring step ([0013]-[0018] and [0062]-[0065]).
Umeda does not disclose the control unit is configured to avoid execution of the control for carbon dioxide recovery in situations where the chemical cell may be contaminated with material. Higgins teaches the control unit (360 of figs. 1 and 5B; col 5 ln 32-39 and col 10 ln 22-40) is configured to avoid execution of the control for carbon dioxide recovery in situations where the chemical cell may be contaminated with material. Both Umeda and Higgins are directed to an adsorption filtration apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the control unit is configured to avoid execution of the control for carbon dioxide recovery in situations where the chemical cell may be contaminated with material as taught by Higgins in order to improve system reliability and protect the electrochemical cell by preventing operation when contamination, clogging, or malfunction conditions are detected.
Umeda as modified discloses the acquiring information step includes acquiring the information about the substances in air in the vicinity of the carbon dioxide recovery system that has not entered the carbon dioxide recovery system, and the substances are capable of accelerating deterioration of carbon dioxide adsorption performance of the electrochemical cell (Higgins – col 5 ln 5-21).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the acquiring information step includes acquiring the information about the substances in air in the vicinity of the carbon dioxide recovery system that has not entered the carbon dioxide recovery system, and the substances are capable of accelerating deterioration of carbon dioxide adsorption performance of the electrochemical cell in order to prevent exposure of electrochemical components to harmful substances, thereby protecting performance, efficiency, and system lifetime, since it was known in the art as shown in Space ([0055] and fig. 2).
As regarding claim 2, Umeda as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Umeda as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit is configured to block a path which introduces the atmosphere into the housing in the non-execution of carbon dioxide recovery control ([0031] and [0077]).
As regarding claim 3, Umeda as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Umeda as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein substances that may adhere to the electrochemical cell include at least one of salt, yellow sand, and fine particulate matter ([0057]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al (EP 3991827; hereinafter Umeda) in view of Higgins et al (US 10693165; hereinafter Higgins) and/or Space et al (US 20190100318; hereinafter Space), as applied supra, and further in view of Tagawa et al (EP 3667213; hereinafter Tagawa).
As regarding claim 4, Umeda as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Umeda as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control unit is configured to perform acquiring information about location where the carbon dioxide recovery system is installed, wind direction and wind speed as the information about the substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell, if the substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell may be salt, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform non-execution of carbon dioxide recovery control if the location where the carbon dioxide recovery system is installed is a coastal area, the wind direction is from the sea to the land, and the wind speed is equal to or higher than a first reference value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control unit is configured to perform acquiring information about location where the carbon dioxide recovery system is installed, wind direction and wind speed as the information about the substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell, if the substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell may be salt, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform non-execution of carbon dioxide recovery control if the location where the carbon dioxide recovery system is installed is a coastal area, the wind direction is from the sea to the land, and the wind speed is equal to or higher than a first reference value in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Tagawa ([0007] and claims 1-4).
As regarding claim 6, Umeda as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Umeda as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control unit is configured to perform acquiring information about an amount of yellow sand or fine particulate matter included in the atmosphere as information about substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell in a case that the substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell is yellow sand or fine particulate matter, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform non-execution of carbon dioxide recovery control if the amount of yellow sand or fine particulate matter included in the atmosphere is equal to or greater than a third reference value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control unit is configured to perform acquiring information about an amount of yellow sand or fine particulate matter included in the atmosphere as information about substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell in a case that the substance that may adhere to the electrochemical cell is yellow sand or fine particulate matter, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform non-execution of carbon dioxide recovery control if the amount of yellow sand or fine particulate matter included in the atmosphere is equal to or greater than a third reference value in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Tagawa ([0007] and claims 1-4).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda et al (EP 3991827; hereinafter Umeda) in view of Higgins et al (US 10693165; hereinafter Higgins) and/or Space et al (US 20190100318; hereinafter Space) and Tagawa et al (EP 3667213; hereinafter Tagawa), as applied supra, and further in view of WO 2022024937 (hereinafter WO ‘937).
As regarding claim 5, Umeda as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Umeda as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a blower unit which blows the atmosphere into the housing by forward rotation of a fan, wherein the blower unit can reverse flow of the atmosphere into the housing by rotating the fan in an opposite direction, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform a carbon dioxide recovery control and a control of the blower unit so that a direction of the atmosphere introduced into the housing is opposite to a wind direction from the sea to the land, if the wind speed is less than the first reference value and is greater than a second reference value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a blower unit which blows the atmosphere into the housing by forward rotation of a fan, wherein the blower unit can reverse flow of the atmosphere into the housing by rotating the fan in an opposite direction, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform a carbon dioxide recovery control and a control of the blower unit so that a direction of the atmosphere introduced into the housing is opposite to a wind direction from the sea to the land, if the wind speed is less than the first reference value and is greater than a second reference value in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in WO ‘937 (fig. 5 and [0150]-[0155]).
As regarding claim 7, Umeda as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Umeda as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a blower unit which blows the atmosphere into the housing by forward rotation of a fan, wherein the blower unit can reverse flow of the atmosphere into the housing by rotating the fan in an opposite direction, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform acquiring wind direction and wind speed as the information, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform a carbon dioxide recovery control and a control of the blower unit so that a direction of the atmosphere introduced into the housing is opposite to an acquired wind direction, if the amount of yellow sand or fine particulate matter is less than a third reference value and is greater than a fourth reference value and a wind speed is less than a fifth reference value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a blower unit which blows the atmosphere into the housing by forward rotation of a fan, wherein the blower unit can reverse flow of the atmosphere into the housing by rotating the fan in an opposite direction, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform acquiring wind direction and wind speed as the information, and wherein the control unit is configured to perform a carbon dioxide recovery control and a control of the blower unit so that a direction of the atmosphere introduced into the housing is opposite to an acquired wind direction, if the amount of yellow sand or fine particulate matter is less than a third reference value and is greater than a fourth reference value and a wind speed is less than a fifth reference value in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in WO ‘937 (fig. 5 and [0150]-[0155]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark argues that Umeda and Higgins (alone or in combination) fails to disclose or teach or suggest the acquiring information step includes acquiring the information about the substances in air in the vicinity of the carbon dioxide recovery system that has not entered the carbon dioxide recovery system, and the substances are capable of accelerating deterioration of carbon dioxide adsorption performance of the electrochemical cell. Specifically, Applicant asserts that, as shown in figs. 5A-5B of Higgins, the environment sensor array 360 senses contaminants only after the air has already entered the air intake 310.
The Examiner does not agree.
Higgins expressly discloses acquiring information about contaminants present in ambient atmospheric air prior to entry into the electrochemical system. In particular, Higgins teaches an environmental sensor array configured to monitor pre-filter airflow (135 of fig. 3) from the surrounding atmosphere, stating: “monitoring … pre-filter airflow to a fuel cell … sensing amounts of … air contaminants in the monitored pre-filter airflow” (col 5 ln 5-21). Higgins further explains that the environmental sensor array “monitor[s] air contamination levels in the atmosphere (e.g., sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitric oxide …)” (col 5 ln 5-21). In addition, Higgins discloses that the environmental sensor array may monitor and communicate other environmental conditions and attributes, such as temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, and global positioning system location (col 9 ln 8-23).
Therefore, Higgins explicitly describes sensing contaminants present in atmospheric air before filtration and before entry into the fuel cell system, i.e., air in the surrounding environment. Monitoring pre-filter airflow necessarily corresponds to monitoring air prior to entry into to system, as filtration occurs upstream of the electrochemical device. Therefore, Higgins teaches acquiring information about substances contained in the ambient atmospheric air in the vicinity of the system before the air enters the system.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim language “acquiring information about substance contained in the atmosphere … in air in the vicinity of the CO2 recovery system that has not entered the system” reasonably encompassed monitoring ambient or upstream air prior to processing by system components such as filters or electrochemical cells. Higgins’ monitoring of pre-filter airflow necessarily refers to airflow before filtration occurs, which corresponds to air originating from the surrounding atmosphere prior to entering the functional components of the electrochemical system. In other words, the airflow being monitored is atmospheric air that has not yet undergone system processing and therefore corresponds to air in the vicinity of the system prior to entry into the operative electrochemical components.
Applicant’s reliance on the depiction of the air intake in figs. 5A-5B is not persuasive because the claim does not require that the sensing occur strictly outside a physical intake opening. Rather, the claim only requires that the information be acquired from atmospheric air that has not yet entered the CO2 recovery system, which, under BRI, reasonably includes upstream or pre-filter airflow drawn from the surrounding atmosphere before reaching the electrochemical cell or capture components. Higgins explicitly identifies the monitored airflow as “pre-filter airflow” and further characterizes the monitored contaminants as air contamination levels in the atmosphere, confirming that the sensed air corresponds to ambient atmospheric air surrounding the system prior to system processing.
Accordingly, the combination of Umeda and Higgins teaches or at least suggest the claimed limitation of acquiring information about substances contained in the atmosphere in air in the vicinity of the CO2 recovery system before the air enters the electrochemical capture components, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773