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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A (fig. 1), claims 1-2 and 4 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of all claims could be made at one time without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Francis et al (WO 2021180645; hereinafter Francis; see English equivalent US 20230024571).
As regarding claim 1, Francis discloses the claimed invention for a direct air capture system (abstract) comprising: a first direct air capture device (110 of fig. 1 and [0101]-[0102]) that recovers carbon dioxide from an atmosphere (“1” – ambient outside air); a second direct air capture device (120) in which an intake port is installed to be located at a side of an exhaust port of the first direct air capture device, and that recovers carbon dioxide from an atmosphere; and a stirring plate ([0021] – “… fan for propelling said incoming said first gas stream through the first inlet, the first sorbent station the second sorbent station and the first exhaust.”) installed between the first direct air capture device and the second direct air capture device and configured to stir air discharged from the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device and an atmosphere.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the stirring plate installed between the first direct air capture device and the second direct air capture device in order to enhance DAC performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen locations or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen locations are critical and unexpected results.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Francis et al (WO 2021180645; hereinafter Francis; see English equivalent US 20230024571), as applied supra, and further in view of Stark, Jr. (US 11389761; hereinafter Stark).
As regarding claim 2, Francis as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Francis as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the stirring plate is provided in such a manner that one end closer to the first direct air capture device is located in a region higher than the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device, and another end is located in a region lower than the one end such that a part of an atmosphere in an upper layer than the air discharged from the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device falls toward the air discharged from the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the stirring plate is provided in such a manner that one end closer to the first direct air capture device is located in a region higher than the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device, and another end is located in a region lower than the one end such that a part of an atmosphere in an upper layer than the air discharged from the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device falls toward the air discharged from the exhaust port of the first direct air capture device in order to enhance DAC performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Stark (col 16 ln 17-22).
Claim 4 is likewise rejected for reasons similar to those set forth with respect to claim 2. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the stirring plate is provided such that, when seen from a top view, one end closer to the first direct air capture device is located in a region deviated from a flow path from the first direct air capture device to the second direct air capture device, and another end is located in a region closer to the flow path than the one end is in order to improve airflow mixing and DAC performance, since it has been held that rearrangement or reorientation of known components to obtain predictable results is generally consider within the ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 L. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights