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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office action based on the 18516314 application filed 07/14/23
The Amendment filed 01/28/26 has been entered and fully considered
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22 are pending, of which claim(s) 6,7,9,15 were amended; The amendments of claim(s) 6,7,9,15 are supported by the originally filed disclosure; The new claim(s) 21,22 is supported by the originally filed disclosure
Claim(s) 7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22, non-elected/withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species B in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"ventilation system" in claim 1 drawn to instant specification para 23 "a ventilation system of a mobile atmosphere, such as a spacesuit or a cabin of a vehicle configured to operate in a space environment";
"a system" capable of "a regeneration" in claim 1 drawn to instant specification para 9 "In the regeneration mode, the liquid sorbent loop discharges the liquid sorbent to a system external to the mobile atmosphere, such as a liquid sorbent storage system or a liquid sorbent regeneration system".
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,4,5,6 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.
Claim(s) 1 has the phrase, “a system,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, capable of "a regeneration" unclear with the system has the function of regeneration, since does not positively recite whether the system has the funciton of regeneration? "In the regeneration mode, the liquid sorbent loop discharges the liquid sorbent to a system external to the mobile atmosphere, such as a liquid sorbent storage system or a liquid sorbent regeneration system" para 9 of ispec
Claim 1 limitation “a system” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim language is unclear whether the system has the function of regeneration, since the claim at least implies that the system has the function of regeneration, but does not positively recite whether the system has the function of regeneration. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim(s) 3 has the phrase, “wherein the liquid sorbent received by the mobile atmosphere has a lower concentration of the one or more contaminants than the liquid sorbent discharged from the mobile atmosphere,” which (in the context of the claim) is unclear what is included and excluded by the scope of claim language;
Particularly, the mobile atmosphere receiving liquid sorbent conflicts with instant claim 1 "wherein the at least one scrubber is configured to: receive a spent air stream from a ventilation system of the mobile atmosphere; absorb one or more contaminants from the spent air stream into a liquid sorbent"
Though one or more of the claim(s) are indefinite, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has done his best to ascertain their meaning for the following Double Patenting, 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103 rejection(s)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11628397 (herein known as HENSON397). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With regard to claim 1, HENSON397 sufficiently claims a "spacesuit" (mobile) contaminant removal system, comprising:, especially at claim 1
a contaminant sorption system of a mobile atmosphere,, especially at claim 1
wherein the contaminant sorption system comprises:, especially at claim 1
at least one scrubber comprising a membrane separator,, especially at claim 1
wherein the at least one scrubber is configured to:, especially at claim 1
receive a spent air stream from a ventilation system of the mobile atmosphere;, especially at claim 1
absorb one or more contaminants from the spent air stream into a liquid sorbent; and, especially at claim 1
discharge a clean air stream to the ventilation system;, especially at claim 1
a liquid sorbent "circuit configured to circulate" (loop) , especially at claim 1
in an absorption mode, circulate the liquid sorbent through the at least one scrubber in a closed loop; and, especially at claim 1
in a regeneration mode, discharge the liquid sorbent to a system external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at claim 1
With regard to claim 2, HENSON397 sufficiently claims
wherein the liquid sorbent loop is configured to, in the regeneration mode, receive liquid sorbent from the system external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at claim 1
With regard to claim 6, HENSON397 sufficiently claims
wherein the mobile atmosphere includes a spacesuit configured to operate in a space environment, especially at claim 1
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11628397 (herein known as HENSON397) in view of 20180243682 (herein known as ISOBE).
With regard to claim 5, HENSON397 does not specifically claim wherein the liquid sorbent storage system is located on a vehicle external to the mobile atmosphere
But, ISOBE sufficiently teaches wherein the liquid sorbent storage system is located on a "spacecraft" (vehicle) external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to provide HENSON397 with wherein the liquid sorbent storage system is located on a "spacecraft" (vehicle) external to the mobile atmosphere of ISOBE for the benefit of excess capacity as determined as needed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 20180243682 (herein known as ISOBE)
With regard to claim 1, ISOBE sufficiently teaches a "spacecraft" (mobile) contaminant removal system, comprising:, especially at para 27,28 figs 1,2
a contaminant sorption system of a mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30 figs 1,2
wherein the contaminant sorption system comprises:, especially at para 4,27,28,30 figs 1,2
at least one scrubber 202 comprising a membrane separator, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50 figs 1,2
wherein the at least one scrubber is configured to:, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50 figs 1,2
receive a spent air stream from a "spacecraft" (structural equivalent of ventilation system) of the mobile atmosphere via 210, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50 figs 1,2
absorb one or more contaminants from the spent air stream into a liquid sorbent; and, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52 figs 1,2
discharge a clean air stream to the ventilation system via 203, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54 figs 1,2
a liquid sorbent loop (among 202 and 208) capable of:, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,58 figs 1,2
in an absorption mode, circulate via 212 the liquid sorbent through the at least one scrubber in a closed loop, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,58 figs 1,2
in a regeneration mode, discharge the liquid sorbent to a system (208 or 205, a structural equivalent) external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 2, ISOBE sufficiently teaches
wherein the liquid sorbent loop (among 212 and 202) is capable of, in the regeneration mode, receive liquid sorbent from the system external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
With regard to claim 3, ISOBE sufficiently teaches
a liquid sorbent storage system 205 external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2;
wherein the liquid sorbent storage system is capable of:, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
receive the liquid sorbent from the contaminant sorption system (as depicted), especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2;
discharge the liquid sorbent to the contaminant sorption system (as depicted), especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2;
wherein the liquid sorbent received by the mobile atmosphere has a lower concentration of the "CO2" (one or more contaminants) than the liquid sorbent discharged from the mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2;
With regard to claim 4, ISOBE sufficiently teaches
wherein the liquid sorbent storage system is located on a "spacecraft" (vehicle) external to the mobile atmosphere, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2;
With regard to claim 5, ISOBE sufficiently teaches
wherein the contaminant sorption system is capable of storing the one or more contaminants via 215, especially at para 4,27,28,30,50,52,54,56,58 figs 1,2; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g))
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180243682 (herein known as ISOBE) in view of US 20140283839 (herein known as WICKHAM)
With regard to claim 6, ISOBE does not specifically teach wherein the mobile atmosphere includes a spacesuit configured to operate in a space environment.
But, WICKHAM sufficiently teaches wherein the mobile atmosphere includes a spacesuit capable of operating in a space environment, especially at para 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (or at the time the invention was made; if pre-AIA ) to modify ISOBE with wherein the mobile atmosphere includes a spacesuit capable of operating in a space environment of WICKHAM in order to remove contaminates from a spacesuit as sufficiently taught by WICKMAN especially at para 3
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY R SHUMATE whose telephone number is (571)270-5546. The examiner can normally be reached on M,T,Th,F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (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.
/ANTHONY SHUMATE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights