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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 28, 2026 has been entered.
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rexaei et al. (US 2019/0083954 A1).
Rezaei et al. ‘954 disclose 3D printed adsorbent honeycomb monoliths including a clay binder and a rigid plasticizing organic binder such as methyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol (see abstract, paragraphs 5, 6, 35, 36). The adsorbent can include zeolite 13X or 5A, which can adsorb moisture. The methyl cellulose and PVA is optionally burned off (paragraphs 43, 53, 54) and adsorbed moisture can be desorbed (paragraphs 47, 54).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaei et al. ‘954 in view of Smith et al. (US 2004/0060444 A1).
Rezaei et al. 954 disclose all of the limitations of the claim except that the desiccant is in thermal communication with an encapsulant containing a phase change material. 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). 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.
Claim(s) 21, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al. (US 5,443,623) in view of Herbison (US 4,741,697).
Jonas et al. ‘623 disclose an air treatment system comprising adsorbent particles that are bound to one another in a self-supporting mass by a binding agent (col. 2, lines 54-58. The adsorbent can be 13X molecular sieve, activated alumina, or silica gel and can be regenerated using a valve assembly and thermal swing adsorption (col. 3, lines 19-59). The system can be used with a compressed air dryer (col. 1, lines 28-32, col. 4, line 50). The adsorbent extends between the inlet and outlet sides of a bed (13,14) and will inherently have an open space allowing air to flow through. It is implicit that the binder is rigid if a self-supporting mass is disclosed, and that there is some kind of heat exchanger to send heat to the desiccant during regeneration in a thermal swing adsorption process. The instant claims differ from the disclosure of Jonas et al. ‘623 in that the desiccant is configured to change color based on a moisture content, that there is a transparent portion containing the desiccant.
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 a compressed 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). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the desiccant of Jonas et al. ‘623 by giving it a color change property and transparent housing portion in order to provide a viewable indicator of when the moisture content can no longer be desorbed.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Perry et al. (US 2015/0101483 A1).
Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 disclose all of the limitations of the claim except that the binding material includes a ceramic (the binder type is not disclosed). Perry et al. ‘483 disclose a honeycomb adsorbent media that includes a binder such as ceramic, clay or a resin binder (see abstract, paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the 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) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Rezaei et al. ‘954.
Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 disclose all of the limitations of the claim except that the binder comprises a plastic (the binder type is not disclosed). Rezaei et al. ‘954 disclose adsorbent monoliths as described in paragraph 5 above. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the binder of the primary references by using a plastic binder in order to provide a material that is known to form an adsorbent powder into a coherent mass without excessively blocking pores and affecting the adsorption properties.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Friesen et al. (US 2020/0122083 A1).
Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 disclose all of the limitations of the claims except that a MOF desiccant is used. Friesen et al. ‘083 disclose 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 the primary references in order to prove a material that adequately removes moisture from a given gas stream.
Claim(s) 32, 33, 36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Smith et al. ‘444.
Jonas et al. ‘623 in view of Herbison ‘697 disclose 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. Smith et al. ‘444 disclose an air treatment unit 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 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 and the source of air does not structurally distinguish the claims over the prior art structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 37 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the prior art of record, applicant argues that none of the previously cited references disclose a self-supported desiccant structure with a desiccant embedded within a binding material and distributed from a first side to a second side. The examiner agrees with this point with respect to each of the previously cited references except for Rezaei et al. ‘954, which discloses the use of a bentonite or clay binder. While the PVA or methyl cellulose secondary binder can be burned off, this is disclosed as an optional step. Additionally, before burning off, the organic binders will exist in the intermediate product, which also anticipates the 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
Prosecution Insights