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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Matthias et al. WO-2024089116-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:
A direct air capture unit is represented by air fan 12 which supplies environmental air 14 to the adsorber bed module 1 (Fig. 1, pg. 14).
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 represented by an induction coil 6 which “heat[s] the adsorbing material 5 by induction heating” (Fig.1, pg. 15, Abstract).
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).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner et al. US-11874018-B1 in view of Matthias et al. WO-2024089116-A1.
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.
Bonner at al. teaches an HVAC system represented by water harvesting system 120 (Fig. 1A, [18]). The water harvesting system 120 includes a desiccant unit represented by a MOF coated desiccant wheel 104 (Fig. 1A, [18]).
Bonner et al. does not teach a carbon dioxide capture device including a direct air capture unit having a carbon dioxide capture device including a direct air capture unit having a carbon dioxide filter, and an induction heating unit coupled with the direct air capture unit.
Matthias et al. teaches a carbon dioxide 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:
A direct air capture unit is represented by air fan 12 which supplies environmental air 14 to the adsorber bed module 1 (Fig. 1, pg. 14).
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 represented by an induction coil 6 which “heat[s] the adsorbing material 5 by induction heating” (Fig.1, pg. 15, Abstract).
The carbon dioxide capture device 100 is beneficial to “counteract the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere” (Matthias et al. pg. 1).
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 et al. with the teachings of Matthias et al. to incorporate the carbon dioxide capture device as it helps reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Regarding claim 4, Bonner et al. teaches the desiccant unit 104 including a desiccant wheel as the desiccant unit 104 is 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 Bonner et al. US-11874018-B1 in view of Matthias et al. WO-2024089116-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, Bonner et al. in view of Matthias et al. teaches all the claim limitations of claim 5.
Bonner et al. in view of Matthias et al. 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 6 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. with the teachings of Younas et al. to incorporate operating the heating induction unit 6 at about 12° C to promote high adsorption of the MOFs.
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