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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/441375, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The new limitation of a “chemically functionalized sorbent material” in claim 16 has no basis in the original application. While page 2, lines 1-4 of the instant specification discloses that one approach for DAC uses a solid, chemically functionalized sorbent, this is in the background section and there is no basis for these materials being positively used in the instant invention.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/441375, filed September 21, 2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
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 23 and 29 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the sliding drive" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In lines 2-3 of claim 23, it is unclear what is meant by “distance of opposing circumferential wall element(s).” To overcome this rejection, “distance of” can be changed to “distance between”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the gaseous component" in lines 5 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the at least one gaseous component" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the gas mixture" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,932 in view of Janett (2023/0415089 A1). The patent claims encompass all of the subject matter of the instant claims except for the sorbent material being chemically functionalized for adsorbing carbon dioxide and/or water vapor from ambient air under ambient pressure and/or temperature conditions. Janett ‘089 discloses an ambient air carbon dioxide capture arrangement that uses sorbent particles that have an amine functionality (see abstract, paragraph 70). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use different sorbents to target certain air contaminants based on their affinity for those molecules.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liebman et al. (2024/0293770 A1).
Note that Liebman et al. ‘770 was filed before the effective filing date for the instant claims (see paragraphs 2-3 above).
Liebman et al. ‘770 teaches a carbon dioxide capture arrangement comprising a vessel (103) having four walls to define a sealed cavity and opposite openings, a solid sorbent material such as amine functionalized carbon in the cavity, and opposing sliding doors (601,701) that seal the cavity and shift in a direction parallel to the planes of the doors (see figures 2A, 2B, 12A-13B, paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 64, 74-76).
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20, 23-25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 38, 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-200627 A in view of Janett ‘089.
JP ‘627 discloses an purifier for removing organic compounds from an ambient air stream, comprising an array of two cylindrical housings (2), each with an opposite inlet (10) and outlet (11) openings on each side of the housing, a solid adsorption structure (3) in the housing between the openings, a pair of opposing sliding doors (8,9) for respectively sealing the openings, upstream or downstream fans (7) for creating a pressure or vacuum in the housing, an upstream particle filter (15), and connecting pipes (13) and constricted flow portions (12) that can be considered to be reinforcing structures, wherein the sliding doors operate synchronously together and are located in respective upstream and downstream plenums. A single common downstream fan can also be used (figure 8). In use, the housings operate alternately in adsorption and regeneration phases by sliding the doors to seal the inlet and outlet openings of one of the housings that is undergoing adsorbent regeneration, followed by sliding the doors to seal the other housing (see figures, paragraphs 12, 14-16, 20, 26).
The instant claims differ from the disclosure of JP ‘617 in that the sorbent is chemically functionalized for adsorbing carbon dioxide and/or water vapor from ambient air under ambient pressure and/or temperature conditions, and that a preferred vacuum or overpressure is achieved in the cavities. Janett ‘089 discloses an ambient air carbon dioxide capture arrangement that uses sorbent particles that have an amine functionality (see abstract, paragraph 70). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use different sorbents to target certain air contaminants based on their affinity for those molecules. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the cavity pressure is considered to be a parameter that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in order to provide for favorable adsorption or regeneration conditions.
Claim(s) 19, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 as applied to claims 16-18 above, and further in view of Awaji (5,514,205).
JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that the housing has four or eight walls. Awaji ‘205 discloses an adsorbent gas purifier comprising a housing (41) that can have a cylindrical shape or have a square or octagonal cross section (see figures, col. 10, lines 57-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the housings of the primary references by using a square or octagonal cross section in order to provide a larger flow area or to fit within a given application space.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of WO 2013115143 A1.
JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that the sliding doors are mounted on upper and lower C rails with rollers, that the door or opening includes a seal. WO ‘143 discloses an air treatment device including sliding doors (901) to control airflow through a moisture absorbent desiccant (83,85), C rails (906,905) and rollers (906a,904) to support the doors, and a circumferential seal coating (909,910) for sealing the door on an opening (see figures, best-mode section of the machine-generated English translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sliding doors of the primary references by using the rails and rollers of WO ‘143 in order to provide a sliding mechanism that requires little effort for a user, and to use a sealing structure in order to prevent the leakage of gas from a chamber for higher efficiency.
Claim(s) 26 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Ertl et al. (6,197,097).
JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that adjacent housings share a common separation wall. Ertl et al. ‘097 disclose a gas adsorption device (1) comprising adjacent purification cavities formed by common walls (9) (see figures, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of the primary references by separating the adsorbent chambers with a common wall in order to reduce redundant construction materials.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Dufour et al. (3,774,374).
JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that there is one or a set of static or movable louvres downstream in the device. Dufour et al. ‘374 disclose an adsorbent air treatment device having louvres (28) for air flow control (see figure 2, col. 6, lines 26-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outlet of the primary references by using the louvres of Dufour et al. ‘374 in order to provide flow control based on process conditions in or outside of the unit.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 and WO ‘143 as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Kitayama (2010/0289299 A1).
JP ‘627 in view of Janett ‘089 and WO ‘143 discloses all of the limitations of the claim except that there is a device to press a door to an opening face for closing, and to distance the door again for sliding. Kitayama ‘399 disclose a sliding door for a vehicle comprising rails (42,52) with a curved portion (40,50) to allow for pressing to seal an opening and distancing of the door again for sliding (see figures, abstract, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sliding doors of the primary references by using the press/release mechanism of Kitayama ‘299 in order to provide for easy sliding and sealing of the doors by a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose adsorbent gas separation arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl