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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed 12/08/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 are pending and being examined. Claim 4 is canceled. Claim 1 is amended and claims 10-11 are newly added with no new subject matter being introduced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2003/0089594 A1) in view of Hepburn (US 8968450 B1).
Considering claims 1 and 9, Kato teaches a device for removing a VOC (i.e., trichloroethylene) from a gas stream comprising a reaction chamber (5 of Fig. 3 and 8) for exposing the target gas to a halogen gas and a light (4 of Fig. 3 and 8) from a suitable light source having a wavelength sufficient to activate halogen gas to halogen radicals; an inlet (3 of Fig. 3, 19 of Fig. 8) for receiving the target gas; an outlet (6 of Fig. 3 and stream from top of 5 to 52 of Fig. 8) for providing the target gas with a removed concentration of the VOC; a light source (4 of Fig. 3 and 8) for providing a wavelength sufficient to activate halogen gas to halogen radicals; a scrubber (31 of Fig. 3, 52 of Fig. 8) for decreasing or removing unreacted halogen and other contaminants before the target gas with the removed VOC concentrations leaves through the outlet (32 of Fig. 3 and 8) (Kato, Figures 1-10, [0073], [0147]-[0153]).
The claim is directed to a device and the purpose or intended use does not impart any additional structural limitations on the device. The device of Kato is capable of being operated/used to remove methane concentrations in a target gas comprising methane.
Kato teaches a scrubber (31 of Fig. 3, 52 of Fig. 8) for decreasing or removing unreacted halogen and other contaminants. Kato teaches contacting an alkali solution with the gas (Kato, [0076]-[0078]) using any means such as a batch system or a continuous system (Kato, [0085]). In a continuous system, Kato teaches contacting by circulating the solution in a gas-liquid tower (Kato, [0093]). Kato teaches the scrubber is a wet scrubber configured to use water as the solution in the means for entrapping the acidic substances (Kato, Fig. 8 and [0216] and [0219]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a solution supply (i.e., water) adapted for supplying solution (i.e., water) into the scrubber. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to have a supply of solution on hand for feeding/circulating through the gas-liquid contactor and remove unreacted halogen and other contaminants with a reasonable expectation of success. It should be noted that the claims are directed to device comprising a supply of a solution into the scrubber. Kato teaches/obviates supplying a solution to the scrubber and the specific type of solution does not impart any structural limitations to the device. Kato’s system/device is capable of using any solution including water in the scrubber.
Kato teaches an inlet for providing halogen gas (3 of Fig. 1 and 3) into the reaction chamber, the inlet being separate from the inlet for receiving the target gas (1 of Fig. 1 and 3) (Kato, Fig. 1 and 3).
Considering claim 2, Kato teaches the device comprising a recycle element for recycling halogen gas regenerated from the halogen acid gas formed during the reaction, to the reaction chamber wherein the halogen gas is regenerated from the halogen acid gas formed during the reaction by teaching recycling the chlorine gas/solution to the reaction chamber after the scrubber (Kato, [0150]-[0155], Figures 2-10).
Considering claim 3, Kato teaches a second scrubber (31 of Fig. 8) following the first scrubber is present wherein the contact solution is circulated in the second gas-liquid contact tower via pump 66 (Kato, [0221], Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a solution supply (i.e., water) adapted for supplying solution (i.e., water) into the scrubber. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to have a supply of solution on hand for feeding/circulating through the gas-liquid contactor and remove unreacted halogen and other contaminants with a reasonable expectation of success. It should be noted that the claims are directed to device comprising a supply of a solution into the second scrubber. Kato teaches/obviates supplying a solution to the second scrubber and the specific type of solution does not impart any structural limitations to the device. Kato’s system/device is capable of using any solution including water in the second scrubber.
Considering claim 6, Kato teaches a prefilter (46 of Fig. 10) adapted for filtering the target gas is located before the reaction chamber (111 of Fig. 10) (Kato, [0228]-[0229], Fig. 10).
Considering claim 7, Kato teaches the light source used can be sunlight or fluorescent lamp (Kato, [0071]).
Considering claim 8, Kato teaches the light source provides the claimed wavelength by teaching a wavelength of 300 to 500 nm (Kato, [0069]).
Considering claim 10, Kato teaches a gas-liquid contact tower (i.e., wet scrubber) wherein the gaseous products introduced into the gas-liquid contact tower and the solution circulated are facilitated to be contacted in packed materials (Kato, [0093] and Fig. 10), he does not explicitly teach a nozzle adapted for spraying the solution (i.e., water) into the set scrubber.
However, Hepburn teaches wet scrubber conventionally operate by introducing droplets of liquid to get gas by means of a series of spray nozzles; proper mixing improves the efficiency of pollutant removal (Hepburn, Col. 1 lines 22-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the wet scrubber to comprise a water supply comprising a nozzle adapted for spraying water into the wet scrubber. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the efficiency of the wet scrubber through better mixing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 2003/0089594 A1) in view of Hepburn (US 8968450 B1) and Shen (Shen et al., “Decomposition of Gas-Phase Chloroethenes by UV/O3 Process”, Wat. Res. Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 2669-2679, 1998).
Considering claim 5, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for an inlet providing ozone into the reaction chamber.
Kato does not explicitly tach an inlet for providing ozone into the reaction chamber.
However, Shen teaches that addition of ozone improves the removal of trichloroethylene in air streams by ultraviolet irradiation (Shen, abstract and conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an inlet for providing ozone in to the reaction chamber of Kato. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the removal of trichloroethylene in the air stream with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Kato fails to teach two structurally separate inlets have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is based on one embodiment (i.e., Fig. 8) which is a narrowing of Kato’s teachings. Kato clearly teaches two structurally separate inlets in other embodiments such as figures 1 and 3.
In addition, Applicant’s argument regarding Kato’s apparatus is designed for highly concentrated organic chlorine compounds in contrast to the claimed invention being directed to ambient-air treatment is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. All of the structural limitations of the claimed device are met by the cited references; the claim language does not include any structural limitations which would differentiate a device designed for ambient air versus one designed for a concentrated pollutant stream.
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 ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734