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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 25th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-8 remain pending in the application. The amendment to the drawings has overcome the previous objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 29th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed March 25th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 201959659 U to Gao et al.
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 and 3-8 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 claim 1, the phrase "plate-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-7, which are dependent upon claim 1, are likewise 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 8, the phrase "plate-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
(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 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 201959659 U to Gao et al. (hereinafter referred to as Gao).
Regarding claim 1, Gao teaches a system comprising: a demister comprising multiple layers (Fig. 1, wire mesh filler 2 ; ¶0014 “mesh packing 2 made of current screen, such as China Industry Standard mesh demisher (HG/T 21618-1998) is the silk screen.”), each of which includes linear structures and is configured to trap mist as drain water (¶0018 “through the silk screen padding 2, droplets contained in the gas are filtered by silk screen and accumulated forming large droplets to fall.” ; the mesh is comprised of interlaced linear structures); and a mist discharge device configured to discharge the mist trapped by the demister (¶0018 “When the gas through the stuffing material of grill 3, large droplet and solid particles will accumulate on the strip-shaped plate” ; Droplets will fall from mesh filler 2 to grill 3 due to gravity), wherein the demister is disposed in a gas flow path allowing gas to flow from a lower side to an upper side in a vertical direction (Fig. 1, arrows depict gas flow), the demister has a lower side serving as an inlet side of the gas and an upper side serving as an outlet side of the gas (Fig. 1, mesh filler 2 has an inlet adjacent to grill 3 and an outlet on an opposite side thereof), the demister is configured to trap mist contained in the gas and to contact the mist discharge device on the inlet side of the demister (Fig. 1, mesh filler 2 contacts grill 3 on the inlet side), the mist discharge device comprises protrusions protruding downward from a contact surface of the demister (Fig. 2), the protrusions are plate-like members extending downward (Abstract “the grating filler (3) is filling layer with solid grid runner and is composed of rows of strip-shaped plates”), the plate-like members are disposed to be horizontally spaced at predetermined intervals (Fig. 2), and the predetermined intervals are wider than a mesh size of a mesh which is the linear structures of the demister (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Gao teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the protrusions are formed in such a manner that a flow direction of the mist flowing down the protrusions is inclined with respect to the vertical direction (Figs. 1 and 2, lattice structure of grill 3 is inclined with respect to the vertical direction and the mist that collects thereon will therefore flow in the same direction).
Regarding claim 7, Gao teaches the system as applied to claim 5 above, wherein the protrusions are inclined with respect to a horizontal direction to produce an inclined flow in a single direction from one end of the protrusions to another end of the protrusions (Figs. 1 and 2, lattice structure of grill 3 are inclined horizontally and the mist that collects thereon will flow in the same direction from top to bottom).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0059591 A1 to Jaffrey (hereinafter referred to as Jaffrey).
Regarding claim 3, Gao teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above. Gao does not teach wherein the protrusions have a surface layer formed by a hydrophilic surface treatment.
However, Jaffrey teaches a system for condensing a vapor product that contains a demister (Fig. 14C, demister 1434), wherein said demister is coated with a hydrophilic material to facilitate the condensation of water vapor (¶0081 “Further, the condensing mesh may be made of an/or coated with a hydrophilic material to facilitate the condensation of water vapor on the mesh surface more easily.”).
Gao and Jaffrey are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of demisting elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mist discharge device as taught by Gao to include the hydrophilic surface treatment as taught by Jaffrey to allow for more efficient collection of mist particles within the gas.
Regarding claim 4, Gao teaches the system as applied to claim 1 above. Gao does not teach wherein the protrusions are formed using a hydrophilic material.
However, Jaffrey teaches a system for condensing a vapor product that contains a demister (Fig. 14C, demister 1434), wherein said demister is coated with a hydrophilic material to facilitate the condensation of water vapor (¶0081 “Further, the condensing mesh may be made of an/or coated with a hydrophilic material to facilitate the condensation of water vapor on the mesh surface more easily.”).
Gao and Jaffrey are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of demisting elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mist discharge device as taught by Gao to include the hydrophilic material as taught by Jaffrey on the protrusions to allow for more efficient collection of mist particles within the gas.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0031136 A1 to Fujita et al. (hereinafter referred to as Fujita), and further in view of Gao.
Regarding claim 8, Fujita teaches an absorbent absorber (¶0005 “More specifically, the carbon dioxide capture system includes an absorption column”), comprising: an absorber body to which CO2-containing gas is supplied (Fig. 1, absorption column 20); an absorbent supply unit configured to supply an absorbent to the absorber body (¶0021 “The liquid diffuser 20b is configured to diffuse and drop the lean liquid 5 toward the carbon dioxide capturer 20a.”); a demister disposed downstream from an absorbent supply point of the absorbent supply unit of the absorber body in a flow direction of the gas (Fig. 1, demisters 81 and 82 are both downstream from liquid diffuser 20b), and configured to trap a mist containing a CO2-containing absorbent (¶0046 “The washer exit demister 82 can effectively trap the mist-like amine and the mist of the first cleaning liquid 11, and can also trap the gaseous amine by the adhered first cleaning liquid 11.”). Fujita does not teach the mist discharge device according to claim 1 to discharge the mist trapped by the demister.
However, Gao teaches a mist discharge device with the limitations of claim 1 as described above.
Fujita and Gao are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of particle collection within a gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the absorbent absorber as taught by Fujita to further include the mist discharge device as taught by Gao for a more efficient demisting device that prevents mist from continuously accumulating on the demister.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights