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 and Species I (claims 1, 3-8, and 10) in the reply filed on 09 June 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction Requirement stating that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice a materially different method is not proper. This is not found persuasive because Examiner provide a specific example of a different method “such as a method of storing laundry or fibers/filaments in a cabinet.” Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the reasons for Restriction is a “mere statement of conclusion”, Examiner articulated a very specific and non-limiting example of another method that may be performed by the apparatus claim.
Applicant further argues that there is no “serious burden” to examine the apparatus and method together. Examiner disagrees. In accordance with MPEP §803: "For purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02. That prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the applicant." In the instant case, the Examiner has provided a prima facie showing of separate classification and different field of search as shown in the Restriction Requirement. Applicant's allegations of coextensive search and no "serious burden" include no appropriate showings or evidence and, therefore, are not persuasive. Accordingly, the restriction is considered proper in accordance with MPEP §803.
Regarding the Species restriction, Applicant argues that Species I-IV being mutually exclusive is incorrect. This is not persuasive because a cursory review of the Figures of the different Species I-IV clearly show various features and/or configurations in each Species that are not required for the others. Hence, the requirement of mutually exclusive features and/or configurations for each Species relative to another clearly indicates the mutual exclusivity of Species I-IV.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 9, and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the above reply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0043196 to Wright et al. (“Wright”).
Regarding claim 1, Wright (in Figs. 1-3 and 13-14) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a storage tank (12,17) configured to store liquid carbon dioxide (see ¶¶ [0093] and [0123]; note also the cabinet in Fig. 13 uses the condenser, distillation apparatus, filter, storage tank, and disposal means of Figs. 2-3);
a cabinet (shown in Fig. 1, not numbered; also in Fig. 13 as cabinet 201) configured to seal an interior space; and
a nozzle (43) configured to spray the liquid carbon dioxide from the storage tank into the sealed interior space of the cabinet such that the liquid carbon dioxide leaving the nozzle changes into a two-state flow (note the nozzle of Wright is configured to spray working fluids such as carbon dioxide, thus, has a configuration capable of the intended use of spraying carbon dioxide in a two-state flow of both liquid and gas state, such being conventional application of working fluids like carbon dioxide as liquid carbon dioxide converts to gaseous form).
Regarding claim 3, Wright further discloses a carbon dioxide recovery system configured to: draw gaseous carbon dioxide from the sealed interior space of the cabinet (pathway from chamber 16 to reclamation condenser 34 in Fig. 3); convert the gaseous carbon dioxide into a liquid state (via reclamation condenser 34); and return the carbon dioxide in the liquid state to the storage tank (see IWF storage 17 and pathway from reclamation condenser 34 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Wright further discloses wherein the carbon dioxide recovery system comprises a filter configured to remove gaseous or solid contaminants (see filters 35,21).
Regarding claim 6, Wright further discloses wherein the carbon dioxide recovery system comprises at least one compressor configured to pressurize the gaseous carbon dioxide (implicitly taught in reclamation system 34; note also use of compressor/condenser in ¶ [0088]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Wright further discloses wherein the carbon dioxide recovery system further comprises at least one condenser configured to cool the pressurized carbon dioxide from the at least one compressor (implicitly taught in reclamation system 34; note also use of compressor/condenser in ¶ [0088]), wherein the at least one condenser comprises a first condenser positioned within the cabinet and configured to transfer heat released from cooling the pressurized carbon dioxide into the cabinet (see Figs. 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of US 2007/0163093 to Wright et al. (“Wright ‘093”).
Wright, supra, discloses the claimed invention including a carbon dioxide recovery/removal system. Wright does not expressly disclose wherein the carbon dioxide recovery system comprises a desiccant dryer configured to remove water from the gaseous carbon dioxide drawn from the sealed interior space of the cabinet. Wright ‘093 discloses an art-related clothes treatment system using non-aqueous fluids, and that it is known to provide various fluid removal components including desiccants (see Wright ‘093 at ¶ [0103]).
Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious at the time of effective filing to provide the fluid recovery system of Wright with a desiccant, as taught in Wright ‘093, to yield the same and predictable results of drying a non-aqueous working fluid.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright.
Wright, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use of a compressor and condenser. Wright does not disclose plural compressors and condensers as recited in claim 10. However, providing duplicating such working parts would have been prima facie obvious absent an adequate showing of secondary considerations. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) regarding Obviousness and Duplication of Parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Michael E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights