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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Francis et al. US 20230024571 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Francis et al. teaches a direct air capture (DAC) device represented by system 100. The system 100 comprises of the following elements of the claimed invention:
A plurality of cartridges including upstream cartridges and downstream cartridges represented by first sorbent station 110, second sorbent station 120, and third sorbent station 130 wherein “the first and second sorbent materials described above are suitably arranged in a first and second sorbent cartridge for such sorbent rotors, respectively” (Fig. 1, [0052, 0101]). The upstream cartridge is represented by first sorbent station 110 and the downstream cartridge is represented by second sorbent station 120.
The upstream cartridge disposed to receive an incoming flow and to be interposed between the incoming flow and the downstream cartridges represented by first gas stream 1 and second gas stream 2 collectively being the incoming flow wherein “the first gas stream 1 is directed to the first sorbent station 110” (Fig. 1, [0101-0102]). The upstream cartridge is clearly shown to be between the incoming flow and the downstream cartridge (second sorbent station 120) as shown by Figure 1.
The upstream cartridge having a first type of sorbent suitable for engaging the incoming flow represented by “the first gas stream 1 is directed to the first sorbent station 110” and “the first and third sorbent stations 110 and 130 are provided with first and third sorbent material respectively which have a high affinity and capacity for adsorbing water vapour” (Fig. 1, [0101-0102]).
The downstream cartridge having a second type of sorbent suitable for engaging the incoming flow after that flow passes through the upstream cartridge represented by wherein “the reduced water vapour first gas stream 1’ is then directed to the second sorbent station 120” and “the second sorbent station 120 is provided with a second sorbent material having a high affinity and capacity for adsorbing carbon dioxide” (Fig. 1, [0101-0102]).
Regarding claim 12, Francis et al. teaches the plurality of cartridges further including a midstream cartridge represented by third sorbent station 130 (Fig. 1, [1001]). The reference is silent as to the midstream cartridge being disposed between the upstream cartridges and downstream cartridges; however, the limitation is simply a design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, Francis et al. teaches the second type of sorbent being further suitable for engaging the incoming flow after that flow passes through the midstream cartridges represented by “second gas stream 2 is directed to the third sorbent station 130 where water vapour is removed by the third sorbent material to provide reduced water vapour second gas stream 2′. The reduced water vapour second gas stream 2′ is then directed to the second sorbent station 120 where carbon dioxide is desorbed from the second sorbent material to provide reduced water vapour and enriched carbon dioxide gas stream 2″. (Fig. 1, [0104]).
Regarding claim 14, Francis et al. teaches a direct air capture (DAC) device represented by system 100. The system 100 comprises of the following elements of the claimed invention:
A plurality of cartridges having an upstream surface receiving an incoming flow and a downstream surface through which the incoming flow exits the plurality of cartridges represented by first sorbent station 110, second sorbent station 120, and third sorbent station 130 wherein “the first and second sorbent materials described above are suitably arranged in a first and second sorbent cartridge for such sorbent rotors, respectively” (Fig. 1, [0052, 0101]). The first sorbent station 110 is the upstream surface through which incoming flow is received is as first gas stream 1 is the incoming flow wherein “the first gas stream 1 is directed to the first sorbent station 110” (Fig. 1, [0101-0102]).The second sorbent station 120 is the downstream surface as “the first gas stream 1 is directed to the first sorbent station 110 where water vapour is removed by the first sorbent material to provide reduced water vapour first gas stream 1′. The reduced water vapour first gas stream 1′ is then directed to the second sorbent station 120 where carbon dioxide is removed by the second sorbent material to provide reduced water vapour and reduced carbon dioxide first gas stream 1″, which is then directed outside of the grow room” (Figure. 1, [0102]).
A flow path extending between the upstream surface and the downstream surface Is represented by “the system comprises ducting to direct said first gas stream from the first inlet to the first and second sorbent stations and out of the first exhaust” (Fig. 1, [0020]). The flow path is also clearly shown in Figure 1.
At least one gap disposed between the upstream and downstream surfaces is shown in Figure 1 as a gap between first sorbent station 110 (upstream surface) and the second sorbent station 120 (downstream surface). The reference further states “the system comprises ducting to direct said first gas stream from the first inlet to the first and second sorbent stations and out of the first exhaust,” verifying there is a gap between the first and second sorbent stations and there are ducts to fill the gaps and connect the cartridges (Figure. 1, [0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis et al. US 20230024571 A1 in view of He et al. US 11305229 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Francis et al. teaches a direct air capture (DAC) device represented by system 100. The system 100 comprises of the following elements of the claimed invention :
A plurality of cartridges disposed adjacent to each other represented by first sorbent station 110, second sorbent station 120, and third sorbent station 130 wherein “the first and second sorbent materials described above are suitably arranged in a first and second sorbent cartridge for such sorbent rotors, respectively” (Fig. 1, [0052, 0101]). The sorbent stations are adjacent to one another as shown in Figure 1.
An incoming flow having a first flow at a first flow rate represented by first gas stream 1 (Fig. 1, [0102]).
An incoming flow having a second flow at a second flow rate represented by reduced water vapour first gas stream 1’ (Fig. 1, [0102]).
The plurality of cartridges including a first cartridge type having a first type of sorbent suitable for the first flow rate and disposed to engage the first flow represented by first sorbent station 110 wherein “the first gas stream 1 is directed to the first sorbent station 110” and “the first and third sorbent stations 110 and 130 are provided with first and third sorbent material respectively which have a high affinity and capacity for adsorbing water vapour” (Fig. 1, [0101-0102]
The plurality of cartridges including a second cartridge type having a second type of sorbent suitable for the second flow rate disposed to engage the second flow represented by second sorbent station 120 wherein “the reduced water vapour first gas stream 1’ is then directed to the second sorbent station 120” and “the second sorbent station 120 is provided with a second sorbent material having a high affinity and capacity for adsorbing carbon dioxide” (Fig. 1, [0101-0102]).
Francis et al. does not teach the second flowrate being less than the first flowrate.
He et al. teaches the second flowrate being less than the first flowrate represented by “a flue gas feed stream comprising 14-20% CO.sub.2, 7-10% H.sub.2O vapor, 14-16% O.sub.2, and balanced with 50-60% N.sub.2 gas in the presence of water vapor, was passed through the sorbent material at a CO.sub.2 inlet concentration of 15% with a CO.sub.2 flow rate of 12 ml/min and air+water vapor flow rate at 66 ml/min” (Fig. 4, pg. 10). The second flow rate being less than the first flow rate is beneficial to help reduce pressure within the system as well as to ensure the stream containing carbon dioxide does not pass through the cartridge too quickly, allowing sufficient time for desorption.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Francis et al. with the teachings of He et al. to incorporate the second flow rate being less than the first flowrate as it helps reduce the pressure within the system as well as allowing sufficient time for desorption of carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 2, Francis et al. teaches the second cartridge type being disposed at a peripheral edge of the plurality of cartridges as viewed from the incoming flow as shown by Figure 1 where in second sorbent station 120 is at the edge of reduced water vapour first gas stream 1’ (Fig. 1). Furthermore, disposing the second cartridge type in this manner is simply a design choice and would not modify the operation of the device. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis et al. US 20230024571 A1 in view of He et al. US 11305229 B1 and in further view of Canino US 20210101105 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Francis et al. in view of He et al. teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Francis et al. in view of He et al. does not teach the following elements of the plurality of cartridges:
A frame structure having a plurality of first perforations facilitating a first directional fluid passage therethrough
A plurality of sorbent articles disposed therein and supported by the frame structure
A plurality of conduits having a plurality of second perforations facilitating a second directional fluid passage therethrough.
The specification fails to define “perforations.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “perforations” is interpreted as any hole or opening allowing the passage of air or fluids.
Canino teaches the plurality of cartridges including the following elements of the claimed invention:
A frame structure represented by cartridge 160 where in “the cartridge 160 may comprise a cartridge body 162 having a cartridge top portion 164 that connects with a removable top cap 166” (Fig. 3, [0029]). The removable top cap is beneficial to easily clean and perform maintenance on the cartridges.
A plurality of first perforations facilitating a first directional fluid passage therethrough represented by air inlet female pin 180 where in “the air inlet female pin 180 allows air to enter the cartridge” (Fig. 3, [0029]). This is beneficial to allow air into the cartridge.
A plurality of sorbent articles disposed therein and supported by the frame structure represented by “the cartridge 160 may be configured as a vessel with an internal volume capable of containing a CO.sub.2 absorbing liquid solid or semi-solid material such as ….” This is beneficial to help desorb the carbon dioxide from the air coming into the cartridge.
A plurality of conduits having a plurality of second perforations facilitating a second directional fluid passage therethrough represented by flexible tube 174 and air exit female pin 182 where in “air exit female pin 182 allows air to exit the cartridge 160 after passing through the CO.sub.2 absorbing solution, solid, or semi-solid material” (Fig. 3, [0029]). This is beneficial to help guide the air coming into the system through the sorbent articles and out of the cartridges.
The reference is silent as to a plurality of each of the stated elements. However, having a plurality of each element is merely duplication of parts. The courts have previously stated that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Francis et al. in view of He et al. with the teachings of Canino. to incorporate the plurality of cartridges having a frame structure, a plurality of first perforations, a plurality of sorbent articles disposed therein and supported by the frame structure, and a plurality of conduits having a plurality a second perforations to help clean and maintain the cartridges, allow air into the cartridge, help desorb the carbon dioxide from the air in the cartridge, and to help guide the air coming into the system out of the cartridge, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Canino teaches the first perforations facilitating the flow of air represented by air inlet female pin 180 where in “the air inlet female pin 180 allows air to enter the cartridge” (Fig. 3, [0029]). The reference further teaches second perforations represented by air exit female pin 182 where in “air exit female pin 182 allows air to exit the cartridge 160 after passing through the CO.sub.2 absorbing solution, solid, or semi-solid material” (Fig. 3, [0029]).
The reference is silent as to the second perforations facilitating flow of desorbing media; however, the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the air exit female pin 182 could inherently facilitate flow of desorbing media as well.
Regarding claim 5, Francis et al. teaches the plurality of cartridges being disposed with gaps located between neighboring cartridges as shown in Figure 1 where first sorbent station 110 and second sorbent station 120 clearly have a gap between them. The reference further states “the system comprises ducting to direct said first gas stream from the first inlet to the first and second sorbent stations and out of the first exhaust,” verifying there is a gap between the first and second sorbent stations and there are ducts to fill the gaps and connect the cartridges (Figure. 1, [0020]).
The reference is silent as to the gaps between cartridges facilitating the flow of desorbing media into the cartridges, however the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the ducts between each sorbing station could inherently facilitate the flow of desorbing media as well.
Regarding claim 6, Francis et al. teaches the plurality of cartridges being disposed with gaps located between neighboring cartridges as shown in Figure 1 where first sorbent station 110 and second sorbent station 120 clearly have a gap between them. The reference further states “the system comprises ducting to direct said first gas stream from the first inlet to the first and second sorbent stations and out of the first exhaust,” verifying there is a gap between the first and second sorbent stations and there are ducts to fill the gaps and connect the cartridges (Figure. 1, [0020]).
The reference is silent as to the gaps between cartridges facilitating the intermixing of flow of air to provide mixing or flow disturbance into the flow of air, however the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the ducts between each sorbing station could inherently facilitate the flow of air and mix and disturb the flow of air.
Regarding claim 7, Francis et al. teaches the gaps providing locations to facilitate the exiting of water from within the sorbent articles disposed in the cartridges represented by desorbing gas stream 3 where in “the desorbing gas stream 3 is desorbing water vapour from the first sorbent material, which was captured from the first gas stream 1” (Figure. 1, [0103]).
Regarding claim 8, the references are silent as to the cartridges being angled at an angle from 1 to 45 degrees with respect to a horizontal axis; however, the limitation is simply a design choice that does not produce any unexpected results. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, Canino teaches a perforation control mechanism represented by check valves 178 and 183 where in “the air inlet female pin 180 and the air exit female pin 182 may be connected to a check valves 178, 183” (Fig. 3, [0029]). The check valves are beneficial to “prevent the CO.sub.2 absorbing solution, solid, or semi-solid material from leaking from the cartridge 160” [0029].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Francis et al. in view of He et al. with the teachings of Canino. to incorporate a perforation control mechanism to help prevent the sorbent articles from leaking.
Claims 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis et al. US 20230024571 A1 in view of He et al. US 11305229 B1 and in further view of Canino US 20210101105 A1 and in further view of Harale et al. US 20210394152 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Francis et al. in view of He et al. and in further view of Canino teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Francis et al. in view of He et al. and in further view of Canino does not teach the DAC device comprising a plurality of integrated flexible resistive heaters disposed between the frame structure of the cartridge and the sorbent articles.
Harale et al. teaches the DAC device comprising a plurality of integrated flexible resistive heaters disposed between the frame structure of the cartridge and the sorbent articles represented by heat source 110 wherein “the heat source 110 may be electrical resistive heaters (e.g., electrical cartridge heaters) disposed as internal heaters in the annulus 106.” (Fig. 1, [0023]). Harale et al. teaches the heat source 110 is beneficial to “promote and advance the reforming reaction” [0046].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Francis et al. in view of He et al. and in further view of Canino with the teachings of Harale et al. to incorporate integrated flexible resistive heaters disposed between the frame structure of the cartridge and the sorbent articles to help promote and advance the reforming reactions.
Claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis et al. US 20230024571 A1 in view of Meirav et al. US 20170056812 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Francis et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 14.
Francis et al. does not teach the at least one gap interrupting the flow path with surfaces that disrupt a laminar flow property of the traversing flow.
Meirav et al. teaches the at least one gap interrupting the flow path with surfaces that disrupt a laminar flow property of the traversing flow represented by “in some embodiments, the inner wall may have any features that disrupt or impede air flow, such as protrusions, bumps, etc., of any shape” (Figs. 6A-D, [0039]). Meirav et al. teaches the disruption of laminar flow is beneficial to “increase the interaction of the flowing air with the sorbent material therein, and further assist in impeding air flow channels along the inner wall, which may result in part from settling or movement of the sorbent” [0039].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Francis et al. with the teachings of Meirav et al. to incorporate features to disrupt the laminar flow in the ducts in the at least one gap to help increase the interaction of the flowing air with the sorbent material.
Regarding claim 16, the references are silent as to the at least one gap having surfaces that cause the traversing flow to travel in a direction away from the downstream surface; however, the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the ducts having the surface to disrupt the flow between the gaps could cause the traversing flow to travel in a direction away from the downstream surface.
Regarding claim 17, the reference is silent as to the at least one gap interrupting the flow path with an introduction of an additional incoming flow that joins with the traversing flow; however, the claim limitation is functional only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Furthermore, the gap could interrupt the flow with an additional incoming flow as there is air moving in and around the system during operation that could enter the gap at any time.
Regarding claim 18, Francis et al. teaches the at least one gap defining a drain that removes water from the plurality of cartridges represented by desorbing gas stream 4 where in “the desorbing gas stream 4 is desorbing water vapour from the third sorbent material, which was captured from the second gas stream 2” (Figure. 1, [0105]).
Regarding claim 19, the drain being configured to equalize an upstream volume of water contained in the upstream cartridge and a downstream volume of water contained in the downstream cartridge is a functional limitation only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 20, Francis et al. teaches the plurality of cartridges being disposed at an angle to promote a pooling of water in at least one of the plurality of cartridges as shown in Figure 1 where the third sorbent station 130 is shown to be upright with the desorbing gas stream 4 being on the bottom , creating an angle in which gravity would help water pool at the bottom of third sorbent station 130. Furthermore, the plurality of cartridges being at an angle to promote the pooling of water is a functional limitation only. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights