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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 5th, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthias et al. WO-2024089116-A1 in view of Bonner et al. US-11874018-B1 and in further view of Roberts US-20070137484 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Matthias et al. teaches a carbon capture device represented by air cleaning device 100 (Fig. 1, pg. 14). The air cleaning device 100 comprises of the following elements of the claimed invention:
The specification does not define what a “filter” is. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), a “filter” is interpreted as being a piece of material. The direct air capture unit comprises of a carbon dioxide filter represented by adsorbing material 5 wherein “the adsorbing material may be any material that is capable of binding CO2 molecules from air” (Fig. 1, pg. 3).
An induction heating unit that recovers carbon dioxide gas in a concentration stream represented by an induction coil 6 and “the regenerating phase” where in the induction unit “heat[s] the adsorbing material 5 by induction heating” and “[desorbs] the CO2 from the adsorbing material” creating a concentration stream (Fig.1, pg. 4-5, 15, Abstract). Furthermore, the induction heating unit heating the carbon dioxide free, dehumidified air is a functional only limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).The induction coil 6 of the reference could inherently heat the carbon dioxide free, dehumidified air.
A direct air capture unit configured to receive ambient air is represented by air fan 12 which supplies environmental air 14 to the adsorber bed module 1 (Fig. 1, pg. 14). The reference further teaches “the gas for which the air cleaning device is used may, for example, be ambient air…or a technical gas or any other gas containing CO2” (pg. 4-5).
Matthias et al. does not teach a solid desiccant unit that removes moisture from the ambient air to result in dehumidified air prior to the dehumidified air passing through the carbon dioxide filter.
Bonner et al. teaches a solid desiccant unit that removes moisture from the ambient air to result in dehumidified air represented by desiccant wheel 104 wherein “the heated air 103 passes through the process section 120 of the desiccant wheel 104 causing moisture to be adsorbed onto the desiccant that coats the desiccant wheel 104” (Fig. 1A, [18,24]). Furthermore, the reference teaches the desiccant wheel 104 may be coated with “any type of hygroscopic substance, such as any type of metal-organic framework (MOF) compounds. In other examples, the desiccant wheel can be coated with silica gel zeolite, or temperature-responsive hygroscopic polymer” [20]. It is well known in the art that metal organic frameworks and zeolites are solids, rendering the desiccant wheel 104 to be a solid desiccant unit. The desiccant unit of Bonner et al. is beneficial to help the “removal of moisture in an air conditioning system” [8].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthias et al. with the teachings of Bonner et al. to incorporate the solid desiccant unit as it helps to remove moisture from the air.
Bonner et al. fails to teach the solid desiccant unit being upstream of the carbon dioxide filter.
Roberts teaches the solid desiccant unit being upstream of the carbon dioxide filter represented by “by having the desiccant upstream of the other filter mediums the efficacy of the other filter mediums one inhibits the water saturation of the filter mediums” (Fig. 4, [0026]). The reference clearly teaches the desiccant being upstream of a filter is beneficial to ensure “moisture is removed before it can adversely affect” the filter medium [0026].
Furthermore, arranging the solid desiccant unit to be upstream of the carbon dioxide filter is simply a design choice. The courts have previously ruled that matters of obvious engineering choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). Arranging the solid desiccant unit to be upstream of the carbon dioxide filter would be beneficial for simplification of the device.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthias et al. in view of Bonner et al. with the teachings of Roberts to incorporate the solid desiccant unit being upstream of the carbon dioxide filter to maintain the efficacy of the filter medium and to ensure moisture is removed before it can adversely affect the filter medium.
Regarding claim 2, Matthias et al. teaches the direct air capture unit configured to use temperate vacuum swing adsorption represented by “the CO2 gas is desorbed from the adsorbing material in a PTSA (Pressure Temperature Swing Adsorption) process” (pg. 5).
Regarding claim 3, the specification fails to define what an “HVAC system” is. Under broadest reasonable interpretation an “HVAC system” is interpreted as any cooling or heating system.
Matthias et al. in view of Bonner et al teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Bonner at al. further teaches an HVAC system represented by water harvesting system 120 (Fig. 1A, [18]). It is well known in the art HVAC systems are beneficial to help regulate the temperature, air quality, humidity, etc. of a space.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matthias et al. with the teachings of Bonner et al. to incorporate the HVAC system as it helps to regulate the temperature, air quality, humidity, etc. of a space.
Regarding claim 4, Bonner et al. teaches the solid desiccant unit including a desiccant wheel represented by desiccant wheel 104 where in desiccant wheel 104 may be a “MOF coated desiccant wheel” (Fig. 1A, [18]).
Regarding claim 5, Bonner et al. teaches the desiccant wheel 104 comprising of one of MOFS, Activated Carbon, or Zeolites represented by “the desiccant wheel coating can be any type of hygroscopic substance, such as any type of metal -organic framework (MOF)” (Fig. 1A, [20]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthias et al. WO-2024089116-A1 in view of Bonner et al. US-11874018-B1 and in further view of Roberts US-20070137484 A1 and in further view of Younas et al.: Feasibility of CO2 adsorption by solid adsorbents: a review on low-temperature systems. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13, 1839–1860 (2016).
Regarding claim 6, Matthias et al. in view of Bonner et al. and in further view of Roberts teaches all the claim limitations of claim 5.
Matthias et al. in view of Bonner et al. and in further view of Roberts does not teach the heat induction unit operating at about 12° C.
Younas et al. teaches the heat induction unit operating at about 12° C by critically analyzing “low-temperature (<100° C) adsorption processes for C02 capture” (Abstract). Younas et al. found that “MOFs adsorption is high at low temperature (<40° C)” (pg. 12). Therefore, it would be beneficial to operate the heating induction unit at about °12 C to promote high adsorption of the MOFs.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bonner at al. in view of Matthias et al. and in further view of Roberts with the teachings of Younas et al. to incorporate operating the heating induction unit at about 12° C to promote high adsorption of the MOFs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1-6, the new ground rejection is necessitated due to amendments made by the Applicant. The amendments filed on August 5, 2026, additionally limit the carbon dioxide capture device. Therefore, a new ground rejection is made using 35 USC § 103. Matthias et al. as modified teaches all the limitations of the amended claim 1 and subsequently all amended dependent claims (claims 2-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights