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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim requires an ending period so that it forms a complete sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
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 34 is 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 34 recites the limitation "the at least one moisture battery" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 21, 26, 31, 34, 35 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbison (4,741,697).
Herbison ‘697 teaches a compressed air moisture filter comprising a transparent housing (14) defining an open space, a desiccant powder material in the space, and a valve (V) that regulates air flow through the housing and over the desiccant, wherein the desiccant changes from pink to blue to show that moisture is absorbed (see figure 1, col. 3, lines 33-43, col. 4, lines 2-31). The source of air (claim 40) does not structurally distinguish the claim over the prior device, which is capable of treating ambient air.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (2004/0060444 A1).
Smith et al. ‘444 teach an air treatment unit comprising a housing (122), a silica gel or zeolite desiccant (116) in the housing, a fan (122) for directing air over the desiccant, and an encapsulated phase change material (112) in thermal contact with the desiccant in the housing, wherein the phase change material acts as a heat exchanger and is liquid when heated (see figure 1, paragraphs 22, 24, 27, 31, 41, 42, 48).
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) 23-26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbison ‘697 in view of Rezaei et al. (2019/0083954 A1).
Herbison ‘697 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that the desiccant is a 3D printed structure with a plastic rigid binding material. Rezaei et al. ‘954 disclose 3D printed adsorbent monoliths including a rigid plasticizing organic binder such as methyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol (see abstract, paragraphs 5, 6, 35, 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the desiccant of Herbison ‘697 by using the 3D printed structure of Rezaei et al. ‘954 in order to provide excellent mechanical and adsorption properties in separation processes.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbison ‘697 in view of Rezaei et al. ‘954 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Mark et al. (2019/0270254 A1).
Herbison ‘697 in view of Rezaei et al. ‘954 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that the binding material includes a ceramic (PVA, methyl cellulose and bentonite are disclosed). Mark et al. disclose a 3D printing composition including a ceramic powder and a second removable binder (see abstract, claims). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the 3D printed desiccant of the primary references by using a ceramic binder in order to provide a binding material that is stable in high temperatures.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbison ‘697 in view of Friesen et al. (2020/0122083 A1).
Herbison ‘697 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that a preferred desiccant is used (only a “conventional desiccant” is disclosed). Friesen et al. ‘083 discloses desiccants such as silica gel, alumina, zeolite and metal-organic frameworks for removing moisture from air (see abstract, paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use any conventional known desiccant in the device of Herbison ‘697 in order to prove a material that adequately removes moisture from a given gas stream.
Claim(s) 21 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (6,311,511) in view of Herbison ‘697.
Maeda ‘511 discloses a dehumidifying arrangement comprising a flow-through desiccant rotor (103), a condenser (120), an evaporator (115), and a heat exchanger (300) that is in thermal communication with the desiccant rotor, the evaporator, and also the condenser via the rotor (see figure 1, col. 5, lines 33-63). The instant claims differ from the disclosure of Maeda ‘511 in that desiccant is configured to change color based upon a moisture content. Herbison ‘697 discloses a color-changing desiccant as described in paragraph 8 above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the desiccant of Maeda ‘511 by giving it a color change property in order to provide an indicator of when the moisture content can no longer be desorbed.
Claim(s) 32, 33, 36, 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbison ‘697 in view of Smith et al. ‘444.
Herbison ‘697 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that there is an encapsulated phase change material or heat exchanger with a heat transfer fluid in thermal communication with the desiccant, and that there is a fan (compressor is disclosed). Smith et al. ‘444 disclose an air treatment unit as described in paragraph 10 above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Herbison by using the phase change material of Smith et al. in order to provide an arrangement that allows for extraction of the heat of adsorption so that the loading capacity of the desiccant is increased. The use of a fan would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a positive flow of air through the desiccant.
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 desiccant arrangements.
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 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