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 . 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 Group I, claims 1-7, drawn to a porous medium for a gas-liquid system in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no serious search burden and that the restriction would be contrary to . This is not found persuasive because a search burden is present, and there is no current policy on determining restrictions based on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s backlog.
There are two criteria for a proper requirement for a restriction between patentably distinct inventions (see MPEP § 803.I):
The inventions must be independent or distinct as claimed; and
There would be a serious search burden and/or examination burden on the examiner if the restriction is not required.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on the absence of search burden, Group II has a different classification (B01F 53/38) than Groups I and III (B01D 53/00). This shows that Group II and Groups I/III have attained recognition in the art as separate subjects for incentive effort. Furthermore, each group requires a different field of search. For instance, Group I requires a porous medium with a horizontal zigzag pattern along the surface of the porous medium, which is not required by Group II nor Group III. Therefore, there would be a serious search burden if the restriction is not maintained.
In regards to applicant’s remarks regarding the agency’s policy, there is currently no policy on or criteria for making a proper restriction based on the agency’s backlog status. The two criteria necessary for requiring a restriction are mentioned above, where neither criterium mentions the determination of a restriction based on the agency’s policy or backlog. See MPEP § 803.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 – 7 have been full considered in examination.
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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pellegrin-1, et. al. 2012 (US 20120237420 A1), referred to as Pellegrin from herein.
Regarding claim 1, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium (Fig. 3D shows layers of mesh screens, labeled as 61a, 61b, and 61c, where a mesh screen is considered to be a porous medium) for gas-liquid system (the Abstract describes adding gas, such as CO2 gas, a flowing gas stream, or flue gas with a solvent, where together they would be considered as a “gas-liquid system”) comprising:
a screen having a top surface, an opposite bottom surface, and a peripheral surface (Fig. 3B shows a plurality of screens, where it necessarily follows that each screen has a top surface, a bottom surface, and a peripheral surface)
the screen comprising a porous wall forming alternating ridges and valleys connected by ridge sidewalls extending from the bottom surface of the screen to the top surface of the screen (Fig. 3D shows a corrugated patten, i.e. alternating ridges and valleys connected by sidewalls extending from the bottom surface of the screen to the top of the screen), wherein the porous wall comprises more than one porous layer (Fig. 3D shows three mesh layers, which is more than one porous layer), and each pair of the adjacent porous layers define a microchannel therebetween (Fig. 3D shows spacers, labeled as 66, in between mesh layers, creating microchannels between them; Fig. 10 A also shows spacers that are 0.25 inches).
Regarding claim 2, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium for a gas-liquid system according to claim 1 and further teaches the porous medium further comprising a frame sealing the peripheral surface of the screen ([0016] describes a “full diameter” embodiment which includes packs of corrugated screens are held together with support rings and grids where support rings are considered to be a frame).
Regarding claim 7, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium for a gas-liquid system according to claim 1 and further teaches a porous assembly comprising of the porous media arranged in a vertical direction (Fig. 3B, Fig. 6, Fig. 10A - 10B, and Fig. 11A – 11F show the screens arranged in a vertical direction).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellegrin-1, as applied in claim 1 (see section “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102” above), in view of Sun, et. al. 2021 (Study on Hydrodynamic Performance of Structured Packings for Gas-Liquid Flow: Effects of Geometry Parameters, Chemical Engineering Research and Design 2021, 167, 318 – 326), referred to as Sun from herein.
Regarding claim 3, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium for a gas-liquid system according to claim 1 but does not teach the ridges arranged horizontally in a zigzag pattern along the top of the surface of the screen.
Sun investigates how structural properties of packing material of both commercial and replicated versions of the commercial packings prepared using 3D printing (Table 1 describes which packing materials are investigated) such as zigzag angles, plate thickness, and packing transitions, affect their hydrodynamic performance (see Abstract; also see Section 5 titled “Conclusion” on Page 325). Sun discloses that corrugated plates with acute angles between 45º and 60º have a relatively lower pressure drop, high operating capacity, and high mass transfer efficiency (see first paragraph in Section 1 titled “Introduction”). Sun also teaches that the two commercially available structured packing materials have a zigzag angle of 45º (Table 1 shows that the zigzag angle, described as “corrugation angle,” for both Mellapak 250Y and Montz B1-500 is 45º).
Sun is analogous to the present invention as both are in the same field of characterizing porous media used in gas-liquid systems.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pattern along the top surface of the porous medium of Pellegrin-1 to have a horizontal zigzag pattern along the top surface in order to achieve lower pressure drops, higher operating capacity, and high mass transfer efficiency, as taught by Sun. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Sun. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the porous medium of Pellgrin-1 with the commercial structured packing materials of Sun as the disclosed structured packing material is already available for purchase. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 4, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium for a gas-liquid system according to claim 1, and Pellegrin-1 in view of Sun teaches the ridges being arranged horizontally in a zigzag pattern along the top of the surface of the screen. Sun further teaches the zigzag angle is 45º (Table 1 shows all of the studied packings have a corrugation angle of 45º, which is within the claimed range of about 30º to about 60º) and a zigzag segment length of 0.44 or 0.86 inches (Table 1 shows that the commercial and replicated Mellapak 250Y have a zigzag segment, described as “corrugated side,” of 22 mm, which is equal to 0.86 inches; Table 1 also shows that the commercial and replicated Montz B1–500 have a zigzag segment of 11.3 mm, which is equal to 0.44 inches; both 0.44 and 0.86 inches are within the claimed range of about 0.4 inch to 0.9 inch).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellegrin-1, as applied in claim 1 (see section “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102” above), in view of Pellegrin, et. al. 2017 (US 20170136406 A1), referred to as Pellegrin-2 from herein.
Regarding claim 5, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium for a gas-liquid system according to claim 1 but does not teach the distance between the adjacent porous layers is about 1% to about 50% of an average pore size in the porous medium. Pellegrin-2 teaches that the distance between adjacent porous layers is a result effective variable.
Pellegrin-2 teaches a similar porous medium ([0101] – [0104] describe using mesh screens, where mesh is considered to be a porous medium) for a gas liquid system (Abstract describes the invention as an absorber), comprising:
a screen having a top surface, an opposite bottom surface, and a peripheral surface (Fig. 8 a screen with a top surface, a bottom surface, and a peripheral surface)
the screen comprising a porous wall forming alternating ridges and valleys connected by ridge sidewalls extending from the bottom surface of the screen to the top surface of the screen (Fig. 8 shows a corrugated patten, i.e. alternating ridges and valleys connected by sidewalls extending from the bottom surface of the screen to the top of the screen), wherein the porous wall comprises more than one porous layer ([0167] specifically states “the present absorber consists of a plurality of corrugated screens that are separated by spacers,” suggesting that the porous wall comprises of more than one layer).
Pellegrin-2 further discloses how the distance between screens optimizes system performance by balancing gas velocity and pressure drop (see [0197]), suggesting that the distance between screens influences the gas velocity and pressure drop when the porous media are assembled inside of an absorber.
Pellegrin-2 is analogous to the present invention as both are in the field of characterizing porous media for gas-liquid systems.
While Pellegrin-2 does not explicitly teach distance between adjacent porous layers in relation to average pore size, Pellegrin-2 does teach distance between adjacent layers is related to the pressure drop and gas velocity when used in an absorber. Therefore, as pressure drop and gas velocity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the distance between adjacent porous layers, the precise distance between adjacent layers, and more specifically the distance between adjacent porous layers in relation to average pore size, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between adjacent porous layers cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between adjacent layers in Pellegrin-2, including its percentage with respect to average pore size, to obtain the desired balance between pressure drop and gas velocity. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2144.05(II). Therefore, the claimed range of about 1% to about 50% of the distance between adjacent porous layers to average pore size merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the pressure drop and gas velocity as taught by Pellegrin.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pellegrin-1, as applied in claim 1 (see section “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102” above), in view of Wang, et. al. 2018 (Continuously Tunable Pore Size for Gas Separation via a Bilayer Nanoporous Graphene Membrane, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2019, 2, 379 – 384), referred to as Wang from herein.
Regard claim 6, Pellegrin-1 teaches a porous medium for a gas-liquid system according to claim 1 but does not teach the percent of overlap of pores in adjacent porous layers. Wang teaches that the overlap of pores in adjacent layers is a result effective variable.
Wang investigates how structural properties of a porous medium (Abstract describes the medium as “a nanoporous graphene membrane”) such as pore size (see Abstract) and overlap between pores in adjacent layers (Abstract describes “lateral position of one graphene layer against the other;” Figure 1 provides a visual of the offset between layers) affect gas permeation (the last paragraph of the Section titled “Introduction” on Page 379 describes using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to demonstrate “selective gas permeation” with bilayer graphene). Wang further teaches that the offset between pores of adjacent porous layers affects the number of gas molecules that can pass through the porous medium (see Figure 2).
Wang is analogous to the present invention because Wang teaches how gas molecules move through porous materials, which affects the functionality and performance of the porous medium for gas-liquid systems in the present invention.
While Wang does not teach a percentage of overlap of pores in adjacent porous layers, Wang does teach how overlap between pores of adjacent porous layers affect the amount of gas molecules that can pass through the porous medium (Figure 2 shows the number of gas molecules that pass through the bilayer graphene membrane as a function of time at various offset values). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the overlap of the pores in adjacent porous layers to, in turn, optimize the number of gas molecules that can pass through the porous medium, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of about 0% to about 50% merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the overlap between pores in adjacent porous layers and the amount of gas molecules that can pass through as taught by Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN F CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:00PM, Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/V.F.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights