DETAILED ACTION 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 2 and 13 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 claim 2, the term “flexible” is open to ambiguity since it is unclear what conditions are required or degree of bend may be acceptable for the term. The Examiner will consider that an article made from similar materials and thickness as claimed would inherently be flexible. Regarding claim 13, the term “generally” in “generally circular” and “generally oval” is considered indefinite because it is not clear what degree of curvature variation qualifies as circular and oval. The Examiner will consider a collapsed geometry relative to a full expanded channel. 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. Claims 1 , 3-5, 7- 10, 12, 15-19 , 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khiavi US Patent 11,766,634. Regarding claim 1 , Khiavi teaches a sorbent article comprising (See Figures 1 and 2) : a) A sorbent region comprising a first adsorbent layer 12 configured to absorb and desorb a substance comprising gas (column 5 lines 7-12); b) A desorbing media region, as second adsorbent material 14, which is adjacent to the sorbent region and configured to receive a desorbing media (desorption fluid such as steam) that desorbs the substance from the sorbent material (column 6 line 12) . The desorption fluid diffuses to the one or more absorbent layer adjacent to the opposing side of the barrier layer, i.e. the first layer 12 (column 6 lines 58-62); and c) A selective barrier layer 10 disposed between the sorbent region 10 and the desorbing region 14 (column 6 line 4). Regarding claim 4 , the sorbent region may be a composite including polymer ( polyethyeimine and combinations , column 13 lines 45-50 ). The material would be inherently porous in order to qualify for an adsorbent. Regarding claim 5 , the selective barrier layer may comprise a polymer (column 7 line 47). Regarding claim s 7 and 8 , the sorbent comprises a second sorbent region (Figure 3a and 3b , depicting a second sorbet region 14 in layer 1b ) . The sorbent regions are identical and can be made of the same material (column 14 lines 36-37). Regarding claims 9 and 10 , the selective barrier contains a channel including feedstream 20 (Figure 3a, column 3 lines 9-19, column 27 line 25) wherein the channel is defined by a first, second and third wall where the first wall is considered at the underside of 1a, the second wall is the top side of 1b and the third wall is considered as the sidewall (not pictured but assumed to house the sorbent ) . Regarding claim 12 , the cross section of the sorbent is generally rectangular (Figures 2 and 3). Regarding claim 15 , , the selective barrier contains a channel including feedstream 20 (Figure 3a, column 3 lines 9-19, column 27 line 25) wherein the channel is defined by a first, second and third wall where the first wall is considered at the underside of 1a comprising the water-permeable material. Regarding claim 16 , the channel allows exiting (Figure 3a and 3b) thus provides a drainage for water fluid. Regarding claim 17, 18 and 19 , the selective barrier layer comprises two channels, as feed 20 and desorption stream 24 wherein the two channels are interconnected and parallel (column 27 lines 25-27). Regarding claim 21 and 22 , Khiavi teaches that the barrier may be impermeable to water and steam or semipermeable to steam (column 5 lines 55-63). 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 2 , 3 , 11 , 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khiavi US Patent 11,766,634. Regarding claim 2 , Khiavi does not explicitly mention the flexibility of the sorbent, however does teach that the sorbent is thin and can be made of polymer ( column 7 line 43 and 55). Thus, Khiavi does suggested that the sorbent may be flexible. Regarding claim 3 , Khiavi teaches the thickness can be less than about 1000 microns (1 mm). When the prior art ranges overlap with the claimed ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Regarding claim 11 , Khiavi does not explicitly teach the channel can be expanded or compressed. However, since the sorbent comprises the similar materials, thickness, and gas feed one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is obvious that Khiavi’s sorbent may be expanded and compressed. Regarding claim 14 , Khiavi teaches the thickness, which is analogous to the channel, can be less than about 1000 microns (1 mm). When the prior art ranges overlap with the claimed ranges a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Regarding claim 20 , Khiavi does not explicitly teach if the barrier is non-collapsible during use, however the material may be carbon or polymer and thus considered to inherently comprise the same properties during use. Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khiavi US Patent 11,766,634 in view of Takemoto US Patent 11,642,621. Regarding claim 6, Khiavi does teach polymer materials but does not explicitly teach PTFE. However, similar art Takemoto teaches a layered sorbent system with a barrier layer that contains PTFE (Example 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to use known polymer materials as the layer for the sorbent system to be selectively permeable to gases and water. Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khiavi US Patent 11,766,634 in view of Mailvaganam et al. US Patent 5,472,607 . Regarding claim 13, Khiavi does not explicitly teach the channel comprises a cross-sectional profile that is generally circular when expanded and generally ovalar when collapsed. However, Mailvaganam teaches a semipermeable separation system in Figure 4 comprising a layered polymer membrane including a barrier skin 25 and flexible flow channels 33 that will collapse unless supported by a fluid. Thus, expanded when a fluid is present (column 1 lines 38-41). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the known flexible channels from Mailvaganam into Khiavi to achieve predictable and reliable deformation during cyclic operation while minimizing volume and resistance when collapsed. Thus, applying Mailvaganam’s flexible channels to a sorbent structure is a well understood solution to deformation challenges in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5051 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9am - 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT In Suk Bullock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5954 . 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. /SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772