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 1-7, 9, 13, 21, 26, 27, 32-34, 37, 38 and 40-42 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.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 26, 34, 37 and 42, “the gas processor” is unclear since the claims previously recite “at least one gas processor”. It is unclear which gas processor “the gas processor is referring to, since the claims allow for more than one.
Likewise, claim 38 recite “the processor”. It is unclear which gas processor this is referring to.
Regarding claim 2, “the non-aerial unit” is indefinite. The claim previously recites “at least one non aerial unit”. It is therefore unclear which non-aerial unit “the non-aerial unit” is referring to.
Regarding claim 13, “the at least one storage container” is indefinite. Claim 1, upon which claim 13 recites, recites a storage container, but not “at least one” storage container.
Regarding claim 13, “the non-aerial unit” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 38, “said stored gas” lacks antecedent basis 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 21, 34, 38 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konigorski USPA 2009/0238741 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Konigorski discloses an airborne gas processing system (paragraph 26; figure 1), comprising: (i) at least one aerial unit configured to be airborne and to carry a payload compartment (paragraph 28; figure 5: 18); (ii) at least one gas processor configured to form a part of the payload compartment (paragraph 29; figure 5: units 5, 6, 8 and 9); (iii) a storage container configured to form a part of the payload compartment (paragraph 29: figure 5: containers 7); (iv) a controller configured to control the system's operation (paragraphs 6, 10, 27 and 31); and (v) an energy source configured to enable the system's operation (paragraph 16 and 30), wherein the gas processor is configured to process separated gaseous matter such that the separated gaseous matter is converted into a desirable substance (paragraph 31) by utilizing unique high-altitude conditions (paragraph 11), and wherein the desirable substance synthesis process is designed to reduce the concentration of the separated gaseous matter in the atmosphere (paragraphs 12 and 29).
Regarding claim 2, Konigorski discloses at least one non aerial unit, wherein the aerial unit is configured to transfer desirable substance stored within the storage container to the non-aerial unit (paragraphs 11 and 31).
Regarding claim 5, Konigorski discloses that the processor operates at various altitudes (paragraph 31). It is structurally capable of operating to at least some degree at an altitude of 5-40 km. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 6, Konigorski discloses that the gas-processor comprises at least one pressure increasing apparatus (paragraph 29: figure 5: units 5).
Regarding claim 7, Konigorski discloses that the gas processor comprises chemical catalysts configured to utilize a gas processing procedure (paragraphs 15 and 29).
Regarding claim 21, Konigorski discloses that the system is configured to exploit the low temperatures at high altitudes in order to liquefy or solidify the separated gaseous matter and/or the desirable substance (paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 34, Konigorski discloses contained hydrogen, wherein carbon dioxide and hydrogen are configured to be processed by the gas processor in a desired stoichiometric ratio in order to create water (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 38, Konigorski discloses that the aerial unit comprises a balloon filled with gas (paragraph 7). The processor of Konigorski is deemed to be configured to utilize said stored gas as a feedstock along with the separated gaseous matter in order to synthesize the desirable substance (paragraphs 11 and 31). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 42, Konigorski discloses a method for gas processing (paragraph 26; figure 1) comprising: the steps of: i providing an airborne gas processing system comprising: at least one aerial unit configured to be airborne (paragraph 28; figure 5: 18), and at least one gas processor (paragraph 29; figure 5: units 5, 6, 8 and 9), (ii) separating at least one gaseous matter from the air using an the aerial unit (paragraph 31), (iii)processing the separated gaseous matter using the gas processor forming a part of the aerial unit (paragraph 31), and (iv) converting the separated gaseous matter into a desirable substance by utilizing high-altitude conditions (paragraphs 11 and 31).
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, 4, 13 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konigorski USPA 2009/0238741 A1.
Konigorski is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 41, Konigorski does not expressly state that the gas removed is carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, but does disclose that harmful gases removed include greenhouse gases and carbon-based gases (paragraphs 3-5). Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are well-know carbon-based greenhouse gases. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the system of Konigorski be capable of removing carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from the atmosphere, and storing the carbon monoxide as the desired component.
Regarding claim 13, Konigorski does not disclose that the at least one storage container is configured to be released from the aerial unit and reach the non-aerial unit. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to allow the containers to be configured to be released, for the purpose of transferring the capture gas, as is generally well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konigorski USPA 2009/0238741 A1 in view of Borchert USPA 2015/0175997 A1.
Konigorski is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 9, Konigorski does not disclose biological enzymes configured to utilize a desired substance synthesis. Borchert discloses the use of biological enzymes in CO2 extraction (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konigorski to include biological enzymes configured to utilize a desired substances synthesis, as generally disclosed by Borchert, for the assistance in CO2 extraction.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konigorski USPA 2009/0238741 A1 in view of Olah USPA 2013/0331616 A1.
Konigorski is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Konigorski does not disclose that the gas processor is configured to convert captured carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons, wherein the hydrocarbons are methanol/ethanol/formic acid/isopropanol/butyl alcohol. Olah discloses that capture carbon dioxide can be converted into methanol (see Olah claim 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konigorski so that the gas processor is configured to convert the CO2 into methanol, as disclosed by Olah, since this is a well-known use for such capture CO2.
Claims 32, 33 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konigorski USPA 2009/0238741 A1 in view of FR 3075665-A1 [translation provided by Applicant].
Konigorski is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 32, 33 and 40, Konigorski does not disclose that the conversion to desirable substance is configured to be utilized by photocatalysis using sunlight absorbing materials, at least one radiation augmentation device, or a panel configured to enable radiation penetration which, in turn, plays a role in the synthesis of the desired substance. FR 3075665 discloses a similar invention utilizing a photocatalyst utilizing sunlight adsorbing materials (pages 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konigorski to include photocatalysis using sunlight absorbing materials, as taught by FR 3075665, for the purpose in assisting the capturing and conversion of harmful gases. Furthermore, the use of a radiation augmentation device or panel to enable radiation penetration, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to concentrate the sunlight, as is generally well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konigorski USPA 2009/0238741 A1 in view of Wright USPA 2007/0217982 A1.
Konigorski is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 37, Konigorski does not disclose that the gas processor is configured to convert captured carbon dioxide into plastics/carbon fibers/carbon nano tubes. Wright discloses that captured atmospheric CO2 can be converted to plastic (see Wright claim 16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Konigorski so that the gas processor is configured to convert the CO2 into plastic, as disclosed by Wright, since this is a well-known use for such captured CO2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776