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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/06/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there no independent or distinct and no serious burden if exam both Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because the process as claimed can be practiced using liquid sorbent system other than the specific system recite in Group I, and the liquid sorbent system of Group I and be manufactured, sold, or possessed without performing the method recited in Group II. Therefore, the process does not necessarily require the particular apparatus of Group I, and the apparatus does not necessarily require performance of claimed process.
There would be a serious burden because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saunders et al (US 20110174156; hereinafter Saunders).
As regarding claim 1, Saunders discloses the claimed invention for a liquid sorbent system (figs. 1A-1B and 2), comprising: a membrane contactor ([0008]) configured to absorb one or more contaminants into or desorb one or more contaminants from a liquid sorbent, wherein the membrane contactor comprises: a contactor housing configured to receive the liquid sorbent at a liquid inlet and discharge liquid sorbent at a liquid outlet ([0008]); and one or more hollow fiber membranes (0009) positioned in the contactor housing; and a bubbler (20) configured to generate bubbles in the liquid sorbent upstream of the liquid outlet.
As regarding claim 2, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention for wherein the membrane contactor is a scrubber (7) configured to absorb the one or more contaminants from a gas stream into the liquid sorbent, and wherein the bubbler is configured to discharge at least a portion of the gas stream into the liquid sorbent to generate the bubbles.
As regarding claim 3, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention for wherein the membrane contactor is a stripper (8) configured to desorb the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent into a contaminant stream, and wherein the bubbler is configured to discharge at least a portion of a gas stream into the liquid sorbent to generate the bubbles.
As regarding claim 4, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention for wherein the bubbler includes a sparger (20) configured to generate the bubbles to increase mixing of the liquid sorbent in the one or more hollow fiber membranes of the membrane contactor.
As regarding claim 6, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention for wherein the sparger (20) of the bubbler is positioned upstream of the liquid inlet of the membrane contactor (figs. 1A and 1B).
As regarding claim 8, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention for wherein the liquid sorbent system is a contaminant removal system comprising: a scrubber (7) configured to absorb the one or more contaminants from a gas stream into the liquid sorbent; and a stripper (8) configured to desorb the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent into a contaminant stream, and wherein at least one of the scrubber or the stripper comprises the membrane contactor ([0008]).
With respect to the limitations recited in claim 9, which pertain to the manner in which a material or article is worked upon, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article being worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunders et al (US 20110174156; hereinafter Saunders).
As regarding claim 5, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least the sparger of the bubbler is positioned within the contactor housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein at least the sparger of the bubbler is positioned within the contactor housing in order to enhance sorbent system performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunders et al (US 20110174156; hereinafter Saunders), as applied supra, and further in view of KR 10-1191085 (hereinafter KR ‘085).
As regarding claim 7, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the sparger is a porous sparger, and wherein the bubbler further comprises a gas stream junction configured to fluidically couple a bubbler gas stream to the porous sparger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the sparger is a porous sparger, and wherein the bubbler further comprises a gas stream junction configured to fluidically couple a bubbler gas stream to the porous sparger in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in KR ‘085 (110 of figs. 2-4).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunders et al (US 20110174156; hereinafter Saunders), as applied supra, and further in view of Henson et al (US 20240327041; hereinafter Henson).
As regarding claim 8, Saunders discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the liquid sorbent system is a contaminant removal system comprising: a scrubber configured to absorb the one or more contaminants from a gas stream into the liquid sorbent; and a stripper configured to desorb the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent into a contaminant stream, and wherein at least one of the scrubber or the stripper comprises the membrane contactor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the liquid sorbent system is a contaminant removal system comprising: a scrubber configured to absorb the one or more contaminants from a gas stream into the liquid sorbent; and a stripper configured to desorb the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent into a contaminant stream, and wherein at least one of the scrubber or the stripper comprises the membrane contactor in order to provide a completed contaminant removal system, since it was known in the art as shown in Henson (figs. 2A-2C and 3A-3B).
As regarding claim 10, Saunders as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Saunders as modified discloses the claimed invention for a degasser (Henson - 362) configured to remove bubbles.
However, Saunders as modified does not disclose the degasser configured to remove bubbles from downstream of the scrubber and upstream of the stripper. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the degasser configured to remove bubbles from downstream of the scrubber and upstream of the stripper in order to enhance system performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights