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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14 and 16-20, drawn to a contactor assembly, classified in B01D 53/0415.
II. Claim 15, drawn to a contactor vessel and sorbent bed, classified in B01D 54/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require a sorbent bed with a thickness that is varied. The subcombination has separate utility such as in a contactor vessel that is not divided into compartments with a wall.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Based on the current disclosure, separate search strategies within multiple classes and subclasses would be required given the distinct set of elements and components between the two different inventions that must be given patentable weight. Given the scope of the potentially relevant classes and subclasses, the examiner’s search would necessitate consideration of a wide and divergent range of art.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Keith Murphy on January 27, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse (traverse was not specified) to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14 and 16-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
In the claims, a “thickness” of a sorbent bed is taken to mean the thickness of the bed not including spaces or gaps within the bed. For example, a hollow cone has an outer diameter that increases in thickness, however the bed thickness (wall thickness) not including the interior space can change or remain constant.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4 it appears that “contact” should be changed to “contactor.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lacey (2003/0140793 A1).
Lacey ‘793 teaches a molded core adsorbent filter drier, comprising a contactor vessel (12) containing an adsorbent bed that has a conical wall portion that tapers from one end of the bed to the other end (see figures 1, 9, paragraphs 43, 44, 60). The adsorbent can be activated carbon and is not used for carbon dioxide adsorption, however it is inherently capable of adsorbing at least some carbon dioxide from a fluid flow. The patent to Sircar et al. (4,077,779) is cited as evidentiary to show activated carbon is used to adsorb carbon dioxide from gas mixtures.
Claim(s) 1-4, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundaram et al. (10,449,479).
Sundaram et al. ‘479 teach a carbon dioxide separation arrangement comprising a contactor vessel with an internal baffle that is angled to define two adsorbent beds that have a tapered thickness that increases or decreases between one end adjacent to an inlet face of the vessel and another end adjacent to an outlet face of the vessel (see figures, col. 4, lines 31-39, col. 7, lines 19-50, col. 16, lines 28-40). The bed can include zeolites or activated carbon and have a monolith sheet form (figure 1b). Regarding claim 4, one skilled in the art will understand that the bed will inherently be removeable from the vessel, even if the vessel must be destroyed. In use, a fluid flows from the vessel inlet to its outlet.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram et al. ‘479 in view of Hechinger et al. (2005/0045041 A1).
Sundaram et al. ‘479 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that the sorbent is in a removable, slidable cartridge that has a reinforcement support with openings, a sealing place engageable with a vessel sealing face plate, and a flange configured to seal with a sealing surface on the first face of the vessel. Hechinger et al. ‘041 disclose an adsorbent bed cartridge (220) including support walls (228) and screens (240), wherein the walls have a flange portion (236 or 244) with an o-ring (238) that seal the cartridge to the inner wall of a contactor vessel and the vessel face plate (138’) via the vessel wall (see figures 13, 15, paragraphs 125-127, 129, 130, 135). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the adsorbent bed of Sundaram et al. ‘479 by using the support cartridge arrangement of Hechinger et al. ‘041 in order to provide a bed that can be quickly removed and replaced with a new cartridge.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 13, 19 and 20 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. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose adsorbent gas separation arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl