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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the one or more walls are integrated with the plurality of structural members within the plenum to define a tiered arrangement configured to intercept ingress prior to the ingress reaching the bottom basin” does not have support in the specification as filed.
Claims 2-18 depend upon claim 1.
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 1-18 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 “wherein the one or more walls are integrated with the plurality of structural members within the plenum to define a tiered arrangement configured to intercept ingress prior to the ingress reaching the bottom basin”. It is unclear the structure of the “tiered arrangement”, what is arranged to be tiered. And what the term “tier” means (for instance, if the structure are behind or below one another or if another arrangement is encompassed by the term).
Claims 2-18 depend upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Libert US 2020/0230548 published 23 Jul. 2020 and filed 23 Jan. 2020 (hereafter Libert).
Regarding claim 1, Libert a gas-liquid contacting system (Figs 1, 4) comprising:
a gas-liquid contactor comprising:
a housing (¶12 sheathing) coupled to a plurality of structural members (¶12 structure as shown in Fig 4);
one or more basins (21) positioned within the housing, the one or more basins comprising a bottom basin (21);
one or more packing sections (13) positioned at least partially above the bottom basin;
a fan (7) operable to circulate a gas through the one or more packing sections (¶51); and
a liquid distribution system (15) configured to flow a liquid solution onto the one or more packing sections (¶51), wherein the gas-liquid contactor comprises one or more materials of construction (MOCs) (¶12),
wherein the plurality of structural members define a plenum (interior of contactor where gas and liquid flows) comprising a containment (35) that is at least partially segregated from the bottom basin by one or more walls (walls separating containment 35 from basins 21, labeled below), the bottom basin positioned at least partially below the packing (as shown in Fig 4, where the basin catches the packing fluid), and wherein the one or more walls are integrated with the plurality of structural members within the plenum to define a tiered arrangement (as shown in Fig 4, where the basin and structural members are integrated into the gas-liquid contactor and the arrangement is tiered in that some elements are behind other and where some elements are above others) configured to intercept ingress prior to the ingress reaching the bottom basin (where ingress would be intercepted by the upper structural members and/or splash fill 13 before having the opportunity to reach the bottom basin 13).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wall)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches wherein the one or more MOCs comprise stainless steel (¶12).
Regarding claim 6, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches wherein the one or more walls comprise at least one of: concrete or stainless steel (¶12).
Regarding claim 7, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches wherein the plurality of structural members is mounted above a liquid level in the bottom basin (as shown below).
[AltContent: textbox (Structural members)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Structural members)][AltContent: textbox (Walls bordering the bottom basin)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Libert further teaches wherein the plurality of structural members is mounted on one or more walls bordering the bottom basin (as shown above in the Fig 4).
Regarding claim 9, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Libert further teaches wherein the one or more walls comprises one or more raised walls that extend above the liquid level of the bottom basin (as shown in Fig 4, where the walls would be expected to raise above the liquid level in order to separate the basin from the containment; see also MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.04(g)).
Regarding claim 12, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches wherein the one or more packing sections comprises a first packing section positioned at least partially above a second packing section (labeled below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First packing section)][AltContent: textbox (Second packing section)][AltContent: textbox (Second packing section)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Libert further teaches wherein at least one packing support (labeled below) intervenes the first packing section and the second packing section of the one or more packing sections.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Support)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches a set of slatted louvers (9 in Fig 4) upstream (with respect to air flow) of the one or more packing sections, set of slatted louvers oriented to block at least a portion of the CO2 capture solution (as shown in Fig 4 where the solution would be prevented from escaping out the sides due to the louvers).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ryota WO2019235063 published 12 Dec. 2019 as translated by EPO (hereafter Ryota).
Regarding claim 3, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches wherein the housing comprises one or more openings (47) and one or more cut ends (where Fig 4 shows multiple cut ends).
Libert does not teach where the one or more cut ends are lined with a sealant layer.
Ryota teaches a sealant (¶1) where sealant layer comprises vinyl ester resin (¶11) in order to provide a seal (¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more cut ends (where Fig 4 shows multiple cut ends) of Libert by incorporating the sealant layer (¶11) of Ryota in order to provide a seal (¶1).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drijfhout US 2016/0068707 (hereafter Drijfhout).
Regarding claims 4-5, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Libert does not teach a protective coating applied to at least one of: the plurality of structural members, the housing, or the one or more basins; wherein the protective coating comprises at least one of: vinyl ester, polyurethane, stainless steel, or epoxy.
Drijfhout teaches a protective coating (abstract) wherein the protective coating comprises at least one of: vinyl ester, polyurethane, stainless steel, or epoxy (¶12-16) in order to functionalize the coating (¶12-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of structural members, the housing, or the one or more basins (as shown in Figs 1-4) of Libert by applying the protective coating (abstract) of Drijfhout in order to functionalize the coating (¶12-16) and to provide a coating (¶1-3).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norton et al. US 2012/0280411 (hereafter Norton).
Regarding claims 10-11, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Libert further teaches a liquid distribution system (15).
Libert does not teach wherein the liquid distribution system comprises: one or more liquid distribution pipes each having a set of sparger holes; and a set of nozzles positioned below the one or more liquid distribution pipes; the one or more basins comprises a top basin; and the set of sparger holes is oriented at least partially towards a bottom surface of the top basin.
Norton teaches a liquid distribution system (¶14-19) wherein the liquid distribution system comprises: one or more liquid distribution pipes (3) each having a set of sparger holes (holes at bottom of pipe 14); and a set of nozzles (bottom of 13) positioned below the one or more liquid distribution pipes; the one or more basins comprises a top basin (18 in Fig 8); and the set of sparger holes is oriented at least partially towards a bottom surface of the top basin (as shown in Fig 8).
Norton teaches where the liquid distribution system provides simple and convenient feed and an even liquid distribution (¶14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid distribution system (15) of Libert by incorporating the liquid distribution system (Figs 8 and 10) of Norton in order to provide simple and convenient feed and an even liquid distribution (¶14).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maurer et al. US 2017/0037650 (hereafter Maurer).
Regarding claim 14, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Libert does not teach wherein the one or more packing sections comprise one or more monolithic packing blocks.
Maurer teaches a heat exchange tower (abstract) wherein the one or more packing sections comprise one or more monolithic packing blocks (¶24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system (Fig 4) of Libert by incorporating the monolithic packing blocks (¶24) of Maurer in order to the packing to be one solid block instead of individual packing elements such as sheets. The arrangement would ease installation by reducing the number of parts installed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. US 2011/0217218 (hereafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 14, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Libert does not teach wherein the one or more packing sections comprise one or more monolithic packing blocks.
Gupta teaches a gas/liquid contactor (abstract) wherein the one or more packing sections comprise one or more monolithic packing blocks (¶27, ¶71, ¶96) in order to promote mixing (¶71), coalescence (¶71), and demisting (¶96).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system (Fig 4) of Libert by incorporating the monolithic packing blocks (¶27, ¶71, ¶96) of Gupta in order to promote mixing (¶71), coalescence (¶71), and demisting (¶96).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong et al. US 2014/0242680 (hereafter Wong).
Regarding claim 14, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Libert does not teach wherein the one or more packing sections comprise one or more monolithic packing blocks.
Wong teaches a gas/liquid contactor (abstract) wherein the one or more packing sections comprise one or more monolithic packing blocks (¶32), where Wong recognizes monolithic packing blocks as equivalent to several other conventional packing structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system (Fig 4) of Libert by incorporating the monolithic packing blocks (¶32) of Wong as an art recognized equivalent (MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandford US 2020/0306720 (hereafter Sandford).
Regarding claims 15-17, Libert teaches all the limitations of claim 12.
Libert does not teach a liquid redistributor positioned in between the one or more sections of packing; wherein the liquid redistributor comprises the second packing section of the one or more packing sections; wherein the liquid redistributor comprises one or more redistribution nozzles configured to flow the liquid solution to the second packing section.
Sandford teaches packing with a liquid distributor (abstract, ¶3)
a liquid redistributor (30 and 28) positioned in between the one or more sections of packing;
wherein the liquid redistributor comprises the second packing section of the one or more packing sections (as shown in Fig 1 where the distributor comprises the section 28);
wherein the liquid redistributor comprises one or more redistribution nozzles (50) configured to flow the CO2 capture solution to the second packing section (where the solution passes from the first packing section to the second packing section via nozzles 50).
Sandford teaches where the arrangement allows mass transfer and liquid distribution (¶2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system (Fig 4) of Libert by incorporating the one or more packing sections arrangement (Fig 1) of Sandford in order to allow mass transfer and liquid distribution (¶2).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 12 Feb. 2026:
Applicant argues that the specification recitations of “the bottom basin positioned at least partially below the packing” (¶25) and “the plurality of structural members define a plenum including a containment” (¶23) provides support for the newly amended limitation of “tiered arrangement”.
Examiner disagrees. The description does not provide support for the claim limitation. The term “tiered arrangement” is broader than the alleged support and further the exact structure of the term is unclear, as detailed above in the 112b section.
Applicant argues that support for the interception is provided for in ¶66.
Examiner disagrees. The specification describes ingress being prevented by cover plates (¶134), however the support is different than what is claimed.
Applicant argues that the material distinction provides support that the basin is a structural tier rather than a single partitioned floor.
Examiner disagrees. The material distinction does not provide support for the claimed feature concerning the “tiered arrangement”.
Applicant argues that the recitation “monolithic packing blocks” is supported by ¶138.
Examiner agrees.
The amendments to the specification are entered.
The previous 112b rejection is overcome by amendment.
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires “a multi-tiered structural hierarchy involving a specific vertical offset that is neither taught nor suggested by Libert”.
Examine disagrees. The features are not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “Claim 1 explicitly recites that the bottom basin is "positioned at least partially below the packing." This establishes a clear Y-axis baseline for the contactor's internal volume. The packing occupies an upper position, and the "bottom basin" defines the lowest structural limit of the housing.”
Examiner agrees that the limitation established that the bottom basin must be at least partially vertically below the packing. Examiner disagrees that the packing occupies an upper position. The position can be any position at least partially above the bottom basin. Examiner disagrees that bottom basin defines the lowest structural limit of the housing. The bottom basin can be any position at least partially below the packing section.
Applicant argues “Claim 1 further recites a "plenum comprising a containment." In gas-liquid contacting systems, the plenum is the air-distribution volume defined by the space between the air inlets and the packing sections. By reciting that the "plurality of structural members define a plenum," the Claim establishes the containment as a feature integrated into the tower's structural framework, creating a vertical offset relative to the floor-level basin.
Examiner disagrees that the claim establishes the containment as a feature integrated into the tower's structural framework, creating a vertical offset relative to the floor-level basin.
Applicant argues “The Examiner maps the claimed "one or more walls" to Libert's floor-level basin divider. However, Applicant's Specification clarifies that these walls do not merely partition a single reservoir, but rather segregate distinct functional volumes via a tiered arrangement.”
Examiner disagrees that these walls do not merely partition a single reservoir, but rather segregate distinct functional volumes via a tiered arrangement. The features are not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “In contrast to the present application, the divider in Libert depicted in Figure 4 is a floor- level dam. Libert's fluids both land on the same bottom floor of the unit; the divider merely keeps them from mixing side-by-side once they have already reached the lowest point of the system. Libert lacks the tiered architecture of the present invention, where the structural members of the plenum define an interception zone (the containment) that is physically separated from, and positioned to shield, a lower-tier bottom basin.”
Examiner disagrees. The features are not claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights