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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, please amend “the wall surface of the first wall surface forming part” to “[the]] a wall surface of the first wall surface forming part”; “the wall surface of the second wall surface forming part” to “[[the]] a wall surface of the second wall surface forming part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of the wall surface forming parts”, while Claim 1 recites “a wall surface forming part”. Claim 7 appears to expand the scope of the gas recovery system by adding multiple wall surface forming parts as opposed to narrowing the limitation. Thus, Claim 7 is indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian (US 2017/0113182) in view of Saito (US 2007/0169624 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Voskian teaches a gas recovery system (system 400 in Fig. 4 [para. 0074]) that recovers a target gas to be recovered from a mixed gas containing the recovery target gas by an electrochemical reaction (target gas CO2 is separated from a gas stream via an electrochemical process [para. 0022]), the gas recovery system comprising:
a recovery unit (housing 460 in Fig. 4 [para. 0072]) into which the mixed gas is introduced (gas stream is introduced via inlet 470 in Fig. 4 [para. 0072]);
an electrochemical cell (electrochemical cell 405 in Fig. 4 [para. 0072]) disposed in the recovery unit (as illustrated in Fig. 4, electrochemical cell 405 is disposed in housing 460), the electrochemical cell having a working electrode (negative electrode 410 in Fig. 4 [para. 0072]) containing an adsorbent capable of adsorbing the recovery target gas (reductive electronegative material in the negative electrode bonds to target species [para. 0072]) and a counter electrode (positive electrode [para. 0072]), wherein
the electrochemical cell is disposed so as to come into contact with the recovery target gas (gas stream pass in proximity to cell 405 [para. 0072]);
the limitation “when a voltage is applied between the working electrode and the counter electrode, electrons are supplied from the counter electrode to the working electrode, and the adsorbent bonds with the recovery target gas according to the electrons being supplied” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, a voltage is applied during a charge mode to cause a redox half reaction and reduce electroactive species, allowing for improved affinity for the target species [para. 0049]. Thus, the gas recover system of Voskian is capable of performing the functional limitation above.
Voskian is silent on the electrochemical cell has a wall surface forming part on a contact surface with which the recovery target gas comes in contact, and
the wall surface forming part has a wall surface that faces in a flow direction of the recovery target gas.
Saito teaches a carbon dioxide adsorption element (abstract), and teaches the electrochemical cell has a wall surface forming part (fins 111a that includes film 112 in Fig. 7 and 5A [para. 0070]) on a contact surface (support member 111 [para. 0068]) with which the recovery target gas comes in contact (as shown in various embodiments illustrated in Figs. 11 and 16-18, recovery gas comes into contact with fins 111a’ [paras. 0073, 0079]), and
the wall surface forming part has a wall surface that faces in a flow direction of the recovery target gas (as shown in various embodiments illustrated in Fig. 11 and 16-18, a portion of fins 111 faces in the flow direction of the gas [paras. 0073, 0079]).
Voskian and Saito are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of CO2 recovery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas recovery system of Voskian by adding a wall surface forming part on a contact surface with which the recovery target gas comes in contact, and the wall surface forming part has a wall surface that faces in a flow direction of the recovery target gas, as taught by Saito, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for a large amount of CO2 to be adsorbed (Saito, [para. 0018]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1.
Voskian teaches wherein the recovery unit has an introducing section that introduces the mixed gas into the recovery unit in one direction (housing 460 has an inlet 470 in Fig. 4 [paras. 0072]).
Voskian is silent on the wall surface forming part has a shape extending perpendicularly to a flow direction of the mixed gas introduced from the introducing section.
Saito teaches the wall surface forming part has a shape extending perpendicularly to a flow direction of the mixed gas introduced from the introducing section (as illustrated in Figs.15- 16, a portion of fins 111a’ extends perpendicularly to flow surface [paras. 0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wall surface forming part of modified Voskian to the wall surface forming part has a shape extending perpendicularly to a flow direction of the mixed gas introduced from the introducing section, as taught by Saito, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for a large amount of CO2 to be adsorbed and increases contact probability between the air and anime groups (Saito, [paras. 0018, 0079]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1.
Voskian is silent on wherein the wall surface includes a curve surface.
Saito teaches wherein the wall surface includes a curve surface (as illustrated in Fig 5A and Fig. 11, fins 111’ can be curved [paras. 0068, 0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wall surface of modified Voskian to includes a curve surface, as taught by Saito, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for a large amount of CO2 to be adsorbed (Saito, [para. 0018]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1.
Voskian is silent on the contact surface is provided with the wall surface forming part and a planar portion where the wall surface forming part is not provided.
Saito teaches the contact surface is provided with the wall surface forming part (as illustrated in Fig. 16, fins 111a’ are provided with carbon dioxide adsorption element 110 [para. 0079]) and a planar portion where the wall surface forming part is not provided (as illustrated in Fig. 5A, support 111 includes a planar portion where the wall surface forming part that forms the fins is absent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact surface and the wall surface of modified Voskian so that the contact surface is provided with the wall surface forming part and a planar portion where the wall surface forming part is not provided, as taught by Saito, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for a large amount of CO2 to be adsorbed (Saito, [para. 0018]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1.
Voskian is silent on wherein the contact surface is provided with a plurality of the wall surface forming parts, and the plurality of the wall surface forming parts are arranged in a staggered manner.
Saito teaches wherein the contact surface is provided with a plurality of the wall surface forming parts (as illustrated in Fig. 16, multiple fins 111a’ with carbon adsorption element 110 are provided), and the plurality of the wall surface forming parts are arranged in a staggered manner (as illustrated in Fig. 16, fins 111a’ are arranged in a staggered manner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact surface of modified Voskian so that the contact surface is provided with a plurality of the wall surface forming parts, and the plurality of the wall surface forming parts are arranged in a staggered manner , as taught by Saito, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for a large amount of CO2 to be adsorbed (Saito, [para. 0018]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1.
Voskian teaches wherein the recovery target gas is carbon dioxide (target species is CO2 [para. 0022]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian (US 2017/0113182) in view of Saito (US 2007/016924 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Barckholtz (US 2020/0176793 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1, and teaches wherein the recovery unit has:
a first introducing section that introduces the mixed gas into the recovery unit in a first direction (Voskian teaches as illustrated in Fig. 4, inlet 470 introduces gas stream to system 400 in a first direction [para. 0072]); and the wall surface of the first wall surface forming part is provided so as to come in contact with the mixed gas introduced from the first introducing section (as outlined in the Claim 1 rejection above, Saito teaches as shown in various embodiments illustrated in Fig. 11, 17, and 18, recovery gas comes into contact with support member 111 [para. 0068]).
Voskian is silent on a second introducing section that introduces the mixed gas into the recovery unit in a second direction different from the first direction,
the wall surface forming part includes:
a first wall surface forming part that has a shape extending perpendicularly to the first direction,
a second wall surface forming part that has a shape extending perpendicularly to the second direction,
the wall surface of the second wall surface forming part is provided so as to come in contact with the mixed gas introduced from the second introducing section.
Saito teaches the wall surface forming part includes: a first wall surface forming part that has a shape extending perpendicularly to the first direction (as illustrated in Fig. 15-16, a portion of fins 111’ faces in the perpendicular direction of the gas [para. 0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first wall surface forming part of modified Voskian a first wall surface forming part that has a shape extending perpendicularly to the first direction, as taught by Saito, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for a large amount of CO2 to be adsorbed (Saito, [para. 0018]).
Modified Voskian is silent on a second introducing section that introduces the mixed gas into the recovery unit in a second direction different from the first direction,
the wall surface forming part includes:
a second wall surface forming part that has a shape extending perpendicularly to the second direction,
the wall surface of the second wall surface forming part is provided so as to come in contact with the mixed gas introduced from the second introducing section.
Barckholtz teaches a device for separation of carbon dioxide from a gas stream using carbonate fuel cells (abstract), and teaches a second introducing section that introduces the mixed gas into the recovery unit in a second direction different from the first direction (as illustrated in Fig. 4, arrows 405 and 425 indicate cross-flow direction of a fuel cell operating in a cross-flow configuration [para. 0058]);
the wall surface of the second wall surface forming part is provided so as to come in contact with the mixed gas introduced from the second introducing section (fuel cell cathode and anode can react with both cross-flows [paras. 0058-0059]).
Modified Voskian and Barckholtz are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of CO2 recovery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas recovery system of modified Voskian by adding a second introducing section that introduces the mixed gas into the recovery unit in a second direction different from the first direction; the wall surface of the second wall surface forming part is provided so as to come in contact with the mixed gas introduced from the second introducing section, as taught by Barckholtz, as a carbon dioxide element with this configuration allows for practical benefits, such as allowing the manifolds and/or piping to be located on different sides (Barckholtz, [para. 0057]). In addition, as the fins of modified Voskian are a honeycomb structure with a perpendicular portion to the flow, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that second wall surface forming part that has a shape extending perpendicularly to the second direction, as the second introducing section can be oriented 90 degrees with respect to the first introducing section (see for example Barckholtz Fig. 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voskian (US 2017/0113182) in view of Saito (US 2007/016924 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Naito (US 2007/0245898 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Voskian teaches the gas recovery system according to claim 1.
Modified Voskian is silent on the wall surface forming part has the wall surface and a downstream surface disposed downstream of the wall surface in a flow direction of the mixed gas, and
an angle defined between the wall surface and the flow direction of the mixed gas is smaller than an angle defined between the downstream surface and the flow direction of the mixed gas.
Naito teaches gas treatment equipment using a corona electrode (abstract), and teaches the wall surface forming part has the wall surface and a downstream surface (convex portion 23 in Fig. 18 serves as a downstream surface [para. 0095]) disposed downstream of the wall surface in a flow direction of the mixed gas (as illustrated in Fig. 18, gas G flows from left to right [para. 0095]), and an angle defined between the wall surface and the flow direction of the mixed gas is smaller than an angle defined between the downstream surface and the flow direction of the mixed gas (as illustrated in Fig. 18, the angle between wall surface and the gas G is less than the angle between the convex portion 23 and the gas G).
Modified Voskian and Naito are considered analogous art to the claimed inventions because they are in the same field of CO2 recovery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas recovery system of modified Voskian by adding a downstream surface disposed downstream of the wall surface in a flow direction of the mixed gas, and an angle defined between the wall surface and the flow direction of the mixed gas is smaller than an angle defined between the downstream surface and the flow direction of the mixed gas, as taught by Naito, as adding an uneven structure creates a vortex to enhance the capture effect (Naito, [para. 0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDALL LEE GAMBLE JR whose telephone number is (703)756-5492. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/R.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795