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 Invention I, claims 1–18 in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite:
1. A system comprising:
a first sorbent structure and a second sorbent structure, each of the first structure and the second structure comprising sorbent;
a linkage configured to couple the first sorbent structure to the second sorbent structure;
a desorption chamber comprising a desorption chamber door having an open position and a closed position,
wherein, when the first sorbent structure or the second sorbent structure is within the desorption chamber and the desorption chamber door moves from the open position to the closed position, the first sorbent structure is decoupled from the second sorbent structure. Emphasis added.
9. A system comprising:
sorbent structures comprising sorbent;
linkages disposed between the sorbent structures configured to couple the sorbent structures together;
a track configured to move the sorbent structures between adsorption stations in which the sorbent in the sorbent structures adsorbs gas(es), vapor(s), or a mixture thereof from a gas stream, and at least one desorption station in which desorption is performed on the sorbent in the sorbent structures; and
a desorption chamber disposed at the desorption station comprising a desorption chamber door having an open position and a closed position;
wherein, when a first sorbent structure of the sorbent structures is within the desorption chamber and the desorption chamber door moves from the open position to the closed position, the first sorbent structure is decoupled from a second sorbent structure of the sorbent structures that is adjacent to the first sorbent structure. Emphasis added.
Claims 1 and 9 are each indefinite because each claim is to a system (an apparatus) but the italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, each claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a system is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement would require that the method steps actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite). To overcome the rejections, claims 1 and 9 could be amended to read:
1. A system comprising:
a first sorbent structure and a second sorbent structure, each of the first structure and the second structure comprising sorbent;
a linkage configured to couple the first sorbent structure to the second sorbent structure;
a desorption chamber comprising a desorption chamber door having an open position and a closed position,
wherein[[,]] the system is configured such that when the first sorbent structure or the second sorbent structure is within the desorption chamber and the desorption chamber door moves from the open position to the closed position, the first sorbent structure is decoupled from the second sorbent structure.
9. A system comprising:
sorbent structures comprising sorbent;
linkages disposed between the sorbent structures configured to couple the sorbent structures together;
a track configured to move the sorbent structures between adsorption stations in which the sorbent in the sorbent structures adsorbs gas(es), vapor(s), or a mixture thereof from a gas stream, and at least one desorption station in which desorption is performed on the sorbent in the sorbent structures; and
a desorption chamber disposed at the desorption station comprising a desorption chamber door having an open position and a closed position;
wherein[[,]] the system is configured such that when a first sorbent structure of the sorbent structures is within the desorption chamber and the desorption chamber door moves from the open position to the closed position, the first sorbent structure is decoupled from a second sorbent structure of the sorbent structures that is adjacent to the first sorbent structure.
Claims 2–8 and 10–18 are indefinite because they depend from claims 1 or 9.
Also, claims 2 and 10 recite:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first sorbent structure is coupled to the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the first sorbent structure is coupled to the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position.
Claims 2 and 10 are each indefinite because they are each a single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II. To overcome this rejection, claims 2 and 10 could be amended to read:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured such that the first sorbent structure is coupled to the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the system is configured such that the first sorbent structure is coupled to the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position.
Claims 4 and 12 are indefinite because they depend from claims 2 or 10.
Claims 3 and 11 recite:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the linkage comprises a linkage arm that is pushed by the desorption chamber door when the desorption chamber door is moved from the open position to the closed position to decouple the first sorbent structure from the second sorbent structure. Emphasis added.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the linkage comprises a linkage arm that is pushed by the desorption chamber door when the desorption chamber door is moved from the open position to the closed position to decouple the first sorbent structure from the second sorbent structure. Emphasis added.
Claims 3 and 11 are indefinite because they are each a single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II. To overcome this rejection, claims 3 and 11 could be amended to read:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the linkage comprises a linkage arm that is configured to be pushed by the desorption chamber door when the desorption chamber door is moved from the open position to the closed position to decouple the first sorbent structure from the second sorbent structure.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the linkage comprises a linkage arm that is configured to be pushed by the desorption chamber door when the desorption chamber door is moved from the open position to the closed position to decouple the first sorbent structure from the second sorbent structure.
Claims 4 and 12 recite:
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the linkage comprises a compression spring that is decompressed to move a linkage arm of the linkage to couple the first sorbent structure and the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position. Emphasis added.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the linkage comprises a compression spring that is decompressed to move a linkage arm of the linkage to couple the first sorbent structure and the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position. Emphasis added.
Claims 4 and 12 are each indefinite because they are each a single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II. To overcome this rejection, claims 4 and 12 could be amended to read:
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the linkage comprises a compression spring that is configured to be decompressed to move a linkage arm of the linkage to couple the first sorbent structure and the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position.
12. The system of claim 10, wherein the linkage comprises a compression spring that is configured to be decompressed to move a linkage arm of the linkage to couple the first sorbent structure and the second sorbent structure when the desorption chamber door moves from the closed position to the open position.
Claim 18 recites:
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the sorbent structures are connected by the linkages so as to form a loop. Emphasis added.
Claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitation of “a loop” is the same as the “loop” introduced in claim 17. To overcome this rejection, claim 18 could be amended to read:
18. The system of claim 17, wherein the sorbent structures are connected by the linkages so as to form [[a]] the loop.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6–10 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eisenberger, US 2015/0273385 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Eisenberger teaches a system for removing carbon dioxide from air, which reads on the claimed “system.”
The system comprises an upper section comprising ten monoliths 21. See Eisenberger Fig. 1, [0035]. One monolith 21 reads on the “first sorbent structure” and another monolith 21 reads on the “second sorbent structure.” Each monolith 21 comprises a sorbent material (the “sorbent”). Id. at [0010].
The system also comprises a track with each monolith 21 being connected to the track so that when the track is driven, all of the monoliths 21 rotate in a closed loop. See Eisenberger [0064]. The track reads on the “linkage configured to couple the first sorbent structure to the second sorbent structure.”
The system further comprises a regeneration box 25 for desorbing carbon dioxide from an individual monolith 21 that is inserted into the regeneration box 25. See Eisenberger Fig. 1, [0035]. The regeneration box 25 reads on the “desorption chamber.” The regeneration box 25 comprises a structure that allows the box 25 to be open so that a monolith 21 can be inserted and removed from the box 25 with the structure also closing the box 25 to seal it after the monolith 21 is inserted into the box 25. Id. at [0033], [0102]. The structure for opening and closing the box reads on the “desorption chamber door having an open position and a closed position.”
When a monolith 21 (the “first sorbent structure or the second sorbent structure”) is within the regeneration box 25 and the “desorption chamber door” moves from the open position to the closed position, the monolith 21 in the box 25 is decoupled from the other monoliths 21 on the track because the monolith 21 is moved out from the track when it is inserted into the regeneration box 25. See Eisenberger [0033]. This reads on “when the first sorbent structure or the second sorbent structure is within the desorption chamber and the desorption chamber door moves from the open position to the closed position, the first sorbent structure is decoupled from the second sorbent structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
881
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Eisenberger teaches that the monolith 21 reading on the “first sorbent structure” is coupled to the monolith 21 reading on the “second sorbent structure” when the door of the regeneration box 25 moves from the closed position to the open position, when the monolith 21 reading on the “first sorbent structure” the monolith 21 reading on the “second sorbent structure” are attached to the track, and are not located in the regeneration box 25.
Regarding claim 6, Eisenberger teaches that the regeneration box 25 is coupled to a line 229 to storage and compression (the “desorption conduit”), such that when the door of the regeneration box 25 is in the closed position, the regeneration box 25 and the line 229 form an airtight flow loop, as claimed. See Eisenberger [0102].
Regarding claim 7, Eisenberger teaches that the system is configured to heat the monoliths 21 within the regeneration box 25 to release gases or vapors from the sorbent of the monoliths, as claimed. See Eisenberger [0102].
Regarding claim 8, Eisenberger teaches that the monoliths 21 are “sorbent carts” as claimed, because the monoliths comprise sorbent material and are designed to ride on a track. See Eisenberger [0064].
Regarding claim 9, Eisenberger teaches a system for removing carbon dioxide from air, which reads on the claimed “system.”
The system comprises monoliths 21 each comprising a sorbent material, which read on the “sorbent structures comprising sorbent.” See Eisenberger Fig. 1, [0010], [0035].
The system further comprises “linkages” disposed between the monoliths configured to couple the monoliths 21 together, which is the structure that connects adjacent monoliths 21 together, as seen in Fig. 1.
The system also comprises a track (reading on the claimed “track”) that is configured to move the monoliths 21 between positions where the sorbent material can adsorb carbon dioxide adsorbs gases from air (“adsorption stations in which the sorbent in the sorbent structures adsorbs gas(es), vapor(s), or a mixture thereof from a gas stream”) and an area where regeneration box 25 is located (the “at least one desorption station”) in which desorption is performed on the sorbent in the sorbent structures. See Eisenberger Fig. 1, [0033], [0035], [0064].
The regeneration box 25 reads on the “desorption station disposed at the desorption station.” See Eisenberger Fig. 1, [0035]. The regeneration box 25 comprises a structure that allows the box 25 to be open so that a monolith 21 can be inserted and removed from the box 25 with the structure also closing the box 25 to seal it after the monolith 21 is inserted into the box 25. Id. at [0033], [0102]. The structure for opening and closing the box reads on the “desorption chamber door having an open position and a closed position.”
When a monolith 21 (the “first sorbent structure of the sorbent structures”) is within the regeneration box 25 and the “desorption chamber door” moves from the open position to the closed position, the monolith 21 in the box 25 is decoupled from the adjacent monolith 21 on the track because the monolith 21 is moved out from the track when it is inserted into the regeneration box 25. See Eisenberger [0033]. This reads on “when a first sorbent structure of the sorbent structures is within the desorption chamber and the desorption chamber door moves from the open position to the closed position, the first sorbent structure is decoupled from a second sorbent structure of the sorbent structures that is adjacent to the first sorbent structure.”
PNG
media_image1.png
881
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Eisenberger teaches that the monolith 21 reading on the “first sorbent structure” is coupled to the monolith 21 reading on the “second sorbent structure” when the door of the regeneration box 25 moves from the closed position to the open position, when the monolith 21 reading on the “first sorbent structure” the monolith 21 reading on the “second sorbent structure” are attached to the track, and are not located in the regeneration box 25.
Regarding claim 14, Eisenberger teaches that the regeneration box 25 is coupled to a line 229 to storage and compression (the “desorption conduit”), such that when the door of the regeneration box 25 is in the closed position, the regeneration box 25 and the line 229 form an airtight flow loop, as claimed. See Eisenberger [0102].
Regarding claim 15, Eisenberger teaches that the system is configured to heat the monoliths 21 within the regeneration box 25 to release gases or vapors from the sorbent of the monoliths, as claimed. See Eisenberger [0102].
Regarding claim 16, Eisenberger teaches that the monoliths 21 are “sorbent carts” as claimed, because the monoliths comprise sorbent material and are designed to ride on a track. See Eisenberger [0064].
Regarding claim 17, Eisenberger teaches that the track forms a loop and the track is configured to move the monoliths 21 between the “adsorption stations” and the regeneration box 25 continuously in a loop, as claimed. See Eisenberger Fig. 1, [0035].
Regarding claim 18, Eisenberger teaches that the monoliths are connected by the linkages so as to form a loop, as seen in Fig. 1.
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 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger, US 2015/0273385 A1 in view of Lackner et al., US 2023/0119882 A1.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Eisenberger teaches that the door of the regeneration box 25 creates an airtight seal when in the closed position. See Eisenberger [0102].
Eisenberger differs from claims 5 and 13 because it is silent as to structure of the regeneration box 25. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the door of this box 25 creates the airtight seal between the door and a flange of the box 25.
But Lackner teaches a vessel 102 that is used to regenerate a sorbent structure, with a seal being created between a lid 120 and a flange of the vessel (at the top of the vessel 102 seen in Fig. 1B) when the lid 120 is closed. See Lackner Fig. 1B, [0053]. The structure is beneficial because it allows a seal to be created between in the vessel so that the sorbent can be regenerated. Id.
PNG
media_image2.png
641
748
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the regeneration box 25 to have the same structure as Lackner of a lid that creates a seal with a flange of the box 25 to create the airtight seal so that the monolith 21 can be regenerated.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cadieu et al., US 2025/0312709 A1; Suhail et al., US 2025/0153091 A1; Badhan et al., US 2025/0153089 A1; Gabig et al., US 2025/0043971 A1; Lackner et al., US 2022/0355238 A1; Zhang, US 2021/0268426 A1; Anand et al., US 2014/0026751 A1; Lackner, US 2012/0220019 A1; Klobucar, US 5,693,123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights