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 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.
Claims 8 and 18 are 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.
The term “similar” in claims 8 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims are therefore indefinite.
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 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0069635 A1 to Skomurski et al. (hereinafter referred to as Skomurski).
Regarding claim 1, Skomurski teaches a contaminant removal system (Abstract “A contaminant removal system for removing a contaminant from an environment”) comprising: a humidity management system configured to remove water vapor from a cabin air stream to produce a dehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives cabin air stream 410 to produce dried cabin air stream 462) and add water vapor to a decontaminated air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives clean air stream 416 and adds water vapor to produce humidified clean air stream 464), wherein the humidity management system includes a membrane dehumidifier (Fig. 4A, membrane dehumidifier 460); and a carbon dioxide removal system downstream of the humidity management system (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 is downstream of dehumidifier 460) and configured to remove carbon dioxide from the dehumidified air stream using a liquid sorbent and discharge a decontaminated air stream (¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide” ; Abstract “The scrubber-separator is configured to absorb the contaminant from the concentrated cabin air stream into a liquid sorbent and discharge a clean air stream to the environment.” ; Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 produces clean air stream 416). Skomurski does not teach wherein the humidity management system includes two or more membrane dehumidifiers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above, where the carbon dioxide removal system comprises: a scrubber configured to absorb one or more contaminants from the dehumidified air stream into the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 receives concentrated cabin air stream 412 which is produced from dried cabin air stream 462), wherein the one or more contaminants include carbon dioxide (¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide”); and a stripper configured to desorb the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, stripper-separator 408 ; Abstract “The stripper-separator is configured to desorb the contaminant from the liquid sorbent”).
Regarding claim 3, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers comprises a hollow fiber membrane dehumidifier (¶0033 “For example, a membrane separator may include a plurality of parallel membrane contactors. In some examples, a membrane contactor may include a cylindrical module filled with parallel or woven hollow porous fibers.”).
Regarding claim 4, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising a manifold system configured to selectively couple each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to receive the cabin air stream (¶0055 “In some examples, a controller (not shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B) may be configured to control a humidity within the environment of cabin 402. For example, the controller may be configured to control various components of the cabin air circuit to increase a humidity of humidified clean air stream 464 using dehumidifier 460.”).
Regarding claim 7, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the contaminant removal system as taught by Skomurski may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have a different capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 8, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the contaminant removal system as taught by Skomurski may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have a similar capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 9, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein a removal rate of water by the humidity management system is independent of a removal rate of carbon dioxide by the carbon dioxide removal system (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 can release two gas streams – dried cabin air stream 462 or humidified air stream 464 ; ¶0021 “As such, a portion of cabin air stream 110 may permeate through one or more membranes of gas separator 104 and discharge from gas separator 104 as concentrated cabin air stream 112 (permeate stream), while the remained of cabin air stream 110 may pass through and discharge from gas separator 104 as diluted cabin air stream 114 (retentate stream).” The ability for the dehumidifier (gas separator) to send a permeate stream to a carbon dioxide scrubber or recycle directly back to the cabin as a retentate stream demonstrates that the removal rate of water is independent of the removal rate of carbon dioxide).
Regarding claim 10, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising a Sabatier reactor configured to generate one or more hydrocarbons using the removed carbon dioxide (¶0039 “In examples in which the contaminant includes carbon dioxide, contaminant removal system 100 may include a Sabatier system 150 configured to convert the carbon dioxide to methane.”).
Regarding claim 11, Skomurski teaches a method for removing contaminants from an environment (¶0005 “In some examples, the disclosure describes a method for removing a contaminant from an environment”), comprising: removing, by a humidity management system, water vapor from a cabin air stream to produce a dehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives cabin air stream 410 to produce dried cabin air stream 462), wherein the humidity management system includes a membrane dehumidifier (Fig. 4A, membrane dehumidifier 460); adding, by the humidity management system, water vapor to a decontaminated air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives clean air stream 416 and adds water vapor to produce humidified clean air stream 464); removing, by a carbon dioxide removal system, carbon dioxide from the dehumidified air stream using a liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 ; ¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide” ; Abstract “The scrubber-separator is configured to absorb the contaminant from the concentrated cabin air stream into a liquid sorbent and discharge a clean air stream to the environment.”); and discharging, by the carbon dioxide removal system, a decontaminated air stream (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 produces clean air stream 416). Skomurski does not teach wherein the humidity management system includes two or more membrane dehumidifiers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, wherein removing carbon dioxide comprises: absorbing, by a scrubber, one or more contaminants from the dehumidified air stream into the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 receives concentrated cabin air stream 412 which is produced from dried cabin air stream 462), wherein the one or more contaminants includes carbon dioxide (¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide”); and desorbing, by a stripper, the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, stripper-separator 408 ; Abstract “The stripper-separator is configured to desorb the contaminant from the liquid sorbent”).
Regarding claim 13, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, wherein each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers comprises a hollow fiber membrane dehumidifier (¶0033 “For example, a membrane separator may include a plurality of parallel membrane contactors. In some examples, a membrane contactor may include a cylindrical module filled with parallel or woven hollow porous fibers.”).
Regarding claim 14, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, further comprising selectively coupling, by a manifold system, each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to receive the cabin air stream (¶0055 “In some examples, a controller (not shown in FIGS. 4A and 4B) may be configured to control a humidity within the environment of cabin 402. For example, the controller may be configured to control various components of the cabin air circuit to increase a humidity of humidified clean air stream 464 using dehumidifier 460.”).
Regarding claim 17, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method as taught by Skomurski may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have a different capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 18, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method as taught by Skomurski may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have a similar capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 19, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, wherein a removal rate of water by the humidity management system is independent of a removal rate of carbon dioxide by the carbon dioxide removal system (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 can release two gas streams – dried cabin air stream 462 or humidified air stream 464 ; ¶0021 “As such, a portion of cabin air stream 110 may permeate through one or more membranes of gas separator 104 and discharge from gas separator 104 as concentrated cabin air stream 112 (permeate stream), while the remained of cabin air stream 110 may pass through and discharge from gas separator 104 as diluted cabin air stream 114 (retentate stream).” The ability for the dehumidifier (gas separator) to send a permeate stream to a carbon dioxide scrubber or recycle directly back to the cabin as a retentate stream demonstrates that the removal rate of water is independent of the removal rate of carbon dioxide).
Regarding claim 20, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, further comprising generating, by a Sabatier reactor, one or more hydrocarbons from the removed carbon dioxide (¶0039 “In examples in which the contaminant includes carbon dioxide, contaminant removal system 100 may include a Sabatier system 150 configured to convert the carbon dioxide to methane.”).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skomurski, and further in view of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Economics Group. Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations [online]. 7th edition. Research Triangle Park, NC, 2018 [retrieved on 2025-05-01]. Retrieved from the Internet: < https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/final_carbonadsorberschapter_7thedition.pdf> Chapter 1. (hereinafter referred to as Sorrels).
Regarding claim 5, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in parallel with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that when the adsorption chambers are placed in parallel, the beds are capable of treating large gas flows (Section 1.6.2 “Multiple beds, operating in parallel, would be needed to treat large gas flows, as there are practical limits to the sizes to which adsorber vessels can be built.”).
Skomurski and Sorrels are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using beds for gas separation. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski in parallel in order to treat large gas flows, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 6, Skomurski teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in series with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that placing the adsorption chambers in series can decrease the likelihood of breakthrough (Section 1.6.3.2 “placing multiple vessels in a series can substantially decrease concerns of breakthrough.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski in series in order to prevent breakthrough while running the feed stream through the adsorption chambers, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 15, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in parallel with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that when the adsorption chambers are placed in parallel, the beds are capable of treating large gas flows (Section 1.6.2 “Multiple beds, operating in parallel, would be needed to treat large gas flows, as there are practical limits to the sizes to which adsorber vessels can be built.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski in parallel in order to treat large gas flows, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 16, Skomurski teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in series with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that placing the adsorption chambers in series can decrease the likelihood of breakthrough (Section 1.6.3.2 “placing multiple vessels in a series can substantially decrease concerns of breakthrough.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski in series in order to prevent breakthrough while running the feed stream through the adsorption chambers, as supported by Sorrels.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamire (US 2021/0061475 A1) teaches a contaminant removal system comprising a humidity management system and a carbon dioxide removal system downstream of the humidity management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776