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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 19, in the reply filed on April 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 – 4, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0041688 to Eisenberger (hereinafter referred to as Eisenberger).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figures 10b-1 and 10b-2, Eisenberger discloses a system having a duct (not numbered) extending from a first environment at the “Fresh Air Inlet” to a second environment at the “Air Outlet”. A fan (1010) is configured to move air through the duct. Eisenberger includes an upstream CO-2 capture structure (1000) and a downstream CO2 capture structure that each include a sorbent structure (1004). The sorbent structure (1004) can be in an adsorption configuration in the duct, as shown by the upstream sorbent structure, or in a desorption configuration in a regeneration box (1014), as shown by the downstream sorbent structure. The upstream sorbent structure forms a first CO2 removal assembly having a CO2 adsorption configuration and a CO2 desorption configuration, and the downstream sorbent structure forms a second CO2 removal assembly having a CO2 adsorption configuration and a CO2 desorption configuration. As discussed in paragraph [0068], the system can be controlled by a controller. The controller is capable of operating the first CO2 removal assembly in the adsorption configuration to receive at least some of the air moving through the duct and the second CO2 removal assembly in the desorption configuration that does not receive air moving through the duct while CO2 is removed and then operating the first CO2 removal assembly in the desorption configuration that does not receive air moving through the duct while CO2 is removed and the second CO2 removal assembly in the adsorption configuration to receive at least some of the air moving through the duct.
In regard to claim 2, as shown in figure 10b-1, the air flows along a long axis of the duct and the duct has a cross-sectional area measured transverse to the long axis. In the CO2 adsorption configuration the first C02 removal assembly covers all of the cross-sectional area, and in the CO2 adsorption configuration the second C02 removal assembly covers all of the cross-sectional area.
In regard to claim 3, as shown in figure 10b-1, the first CO2 removal assembly and the second CO2 removal assembly are positioned in series along the long axis.
In regard to claim 4, as shown in figure 10b-1, the desorption configuration of each CO2 removal assembly is in the regeneration box (1014), which is positioned outside of the duct. The adsorption configuration of each CO2 assembly is positioned inside of the duct. The first CO2 removal assembly can be in the desorption configuration while the second CO2 removal assembly is in the adsorption configuration, and vice versa.
In regard to claim 6, as shown in figure 10b-1, the air flows along a long axis of the duct and the duct has a cross-sectional area measured transverse to the long axis and wherein the first CO2 removal assembly and the second CO2 removal assembly collectively cover all of the cross-sectional area of the duct.
In regard to claim 19, as shown in figures 10b-1 and 10b-2, Eisenberger discloses a system having a duct (not numbered) capable of extending from an external environment to an internal environment. A fan (1010) is configured to move air through the duct. The upstream and downstream sorbent structures (1004) form first and second CO2 removal assemblies capable of alternatively transitioning between CO2 adsorption mode and CO2 desorption mode so that one of either the first and second CO2 removal assemblies is in CO2 adsorption mode and receiving at least some of the air moving through the duct while the other of the first and second CO2 removal assemblies is not receiving air moving through the duct while CO2 is removed in desorption mode.
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.
Claims 11 – 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger.
Eisenberger is discussed above in section 4. In regard to claim 11, Eisenberger does not disclose the sorbent structure (1004) forming the CO2 removal assemblies to comprise multiple adsorbent beds. There is no evidence the sorbent structure would function differently if it is formed of a single bed or multiple beds having the same size as the single bed when assembled together. This can be considered an example of mere duplication of parts, where multiple beds function together equivalently to a single bed. As discussed in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eisenberger to form the CO2 removal assembly from multiple adsorbent beds as this represents a mere duplication of parts and can allow for easier assembly of different beds into the desired overall size.
In regard to claim 12, Eisenberger discloses sorbent structure having a planar shape. Predictably, if multiple beds are used, they can be formed by multiple planar beds in parallel. There is no evidence the shape of the multiple beds is critical. Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eisenberger to form the multiple adsorbent beds in a planar shape as multiple planar beds can predictably form a larger planar adsorbent structure. Further, it has been held that a particular shape of a structural feature or object is matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47.
In regard to claim 13, Eisenberger does not disclose multiple adsorbent beds and this cannot disclose how multiple adsorbent beds can be attached together. Predictably, pins that extend through individual adsorbent planar beds perpendicular to a plane of the individual adsorbent planar beds could be used to link together at least some of the beds into a single adsorbent structure. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eisenberger to attach the multiple planar beds together using pins that extend through individual adsorbent beds perpendicularly to a plane of the individual adsorbent beds as this represents a known means for attaching structures together.
In regard to claim 18, Eisenberger only shows first and second CO2 removal assemblies (1004). Eisenberger does not specifically disclose a third CO2 removal assembly. Using an additional CO2 removal assembly can be considered a mere duplication of parts. Having a third CO2 removal assembly can help ensure there is always one available to be used in the adsorption configuration, for example if maintenance has to be performed on one of the assemblies. This, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eisenberger to include a third CO2 removal assembly given this represents a mere duplication of parts that help ensure an assembly is always available to operate in the adsorption configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 – 10, and 14 – 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 4175932 discloses a similar adsorbent system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights