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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/08/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species B, claims 9, 10 and 12-20 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because conditional language “may” lacks clarity in regard to the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 12-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation “being rotatable independently from inner core” should be - - being rotatable independent from the inner core - - for clarity.
Claims 13-20 are objected to based on dependency from an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogasahara (US5242473A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogasahara teaches an air conditioning system [a dehumidifying apparatus; col. 1, lines 10-13] for conditioning process air of a process air stream [where gas feed pipe 11 supplies gas to be treated; col. 2, lines 26-43], the air conditioning system comprising:
a rotor [rotor 4, Figure 2] including:
a hydrophilic section [first dehumidifier rotor 4a, Figure 2] including a hydrophilic sorbent [silica gel; col. 2, lines 26-43], the hydrophilic section having a hydrophilic process segment [zone A, Figure 3; col. 5, lines 4-9] through which the process air stream is directed [where the gas to be treated in line 11 first passes through the rotor 4a, Figure 2; col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 6]; and
a hydrophobic section [second dehumidifier rotor 4b, Figure 2] including a hydrophobic sorbent [synthetic zeolite that is unsuitable for dehumidification of a high humidity gas, therefore the sorbent is hydrophobic relative to the silica gel; col. 3, lines 6 – 17], the hydrophobic section having a hydrophobic process segment [zone A, Figure 3; col. 5, lines 4-9] through which the process air stream is directed [where the gas to be treated in line 11 passes through rotor 4b, Figure 2; col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 6], wherein the process air of the process air stream flows though the hydrophilic process segment in series with the hydrophobic process segment, the process air flowing through the hydrophilic process segment before the hydrophobic process segment [where the gas to be treated in line 11 first passes through the rotor 4a and then rotor 4b, Figure 2; col. 2, line 67 – col. 3, line 6].
Regarding Claim 2, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the rotor includes an axis [where the rotor assembly 4 rotates circularly in the direction of arrow E, rotational axis in annotated Figure 2; col. 1, lines 43-45], with the axis defining an axial direction, wherein the process air stream is directed through the hydrophilic process segment [zone A of rotor 4a, Figure 3; col. 5, lines 4-9] in a hydrophilic process flow direction [line 11, Figure 2] that is parallel to the axial direction [where the gas flowing in line 11 is parallel with the rotational axis of rotor assembly 4, annotated Figure 2], and wherein the process air stream is directed through the hydrophobic process segment [zone A of rotor 4b, Figure 2] in a hydrophobic process flow direction [line 11, Figure 2], the hydrophobic process flow direction being parallel to the axial direction and opposite to the hydrophilic process flow direction [where the gas flowing in line 11 is parallel with the rotational axis of rotor assembly 4, annotated Figure 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
858
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Ogasahara as modified teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the rotor [rotor 4, Figure 2] includes a regeneration segment [zone B, Figure 3; col. 5, lines 4-9] through which regeneration air in a regeneration air stream is directed [pipe 17 for supply of adsorbent regenerating gas; col. 2, lines 26-43], and wherein the hydrophilic section [rotor 4a, Figure 2] is rotatable to move the hydrophilic sorbent between the hydrophilic process segment and the regeneration segment [where the rotation of the rotor assembly 4 is such that a given site of adsorbent moves from zone A to zone B; col. 6, lines 12-17] and the hydrophobic section [rotor 4b, Figure 2] is rotatable to move the hydrophobic sorbent between the hydrophobic process segment and the regeneration segment [where the rotation of the rotor assembly 4 is such that a given site of adsorbent moves from zone A to zone B; col. 6, lines 12-17].
Regarding Claim 11, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 7 and further teaches where a heater [heater 19, Figure 2] is positioned upstream of the regeneration segment [Zone B, Figure 2] of the rotor [rotor assembly 4, Figure 2] to heat the regeneration air stream [in pipe 17, Figure 1].
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasahara (US5242473A) in view of Klobukar (US5891219A).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section is positioned radially outward of the other one of the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section.
However, Klobukar teaches a system wherein a rotary concentrator reduces the volume of polluted air [col. 1, lines 5-7] where a rotor section is positioned radially outward of the other rotor section [where second stage process section 42 is radially inward of first stage process section 22, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 53-62] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a more compact multi-stage rotor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ogasahara to have where the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section is positioned radially outward of the other one of the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section in view of the teachings of Klobukar where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a more compact multi-stage rotor assembly.
Regarding Claim 4, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where one of the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section circumscribes the other one of the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section.
However, Klobukar teaches a system wherein a rotary concentrator reduces the volume of polluted air [col. 1, lines 5-7] where a rotor section circumscribes the other rotor section [where second stage process section 42 is radially inward of first stage process section 22, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 53-62] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a more compact multi-stage rotor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ogasahara to have where one of the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section circumscribes the other one of the hydrophilic section or the hydrophobic section in view of the teachings of Klobukar where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a more compact multi-stage rotor assembly.
Regarding Claim 5, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a hydrophilic section and a hydrophobic section [where synthetic zeolite in rotor 4b is unsuitable for dehumidification of a high humidity gas, therefore the sorbent is hydrophobic relative to the silica gel in rotor 4a; col. 3, lines 6 – 17] but does not teach where the rotor includes an inner core containing a sorbent and an outer annulus containing a sorbent, the outer annulus being arranged radially outward of the inner core, the hydrophilic section being one of the inner core or the outer annulus and the hydrophobic section being the other one of the inner core or the outer annulus.
However, Klobukar teaches a system wherein a rotary concentrator reduces the volume of polluted air [col. 1, lines 5-7] where the rotor includes an inner core [second stage process section 42 and second stage desorption section 52, Figure 1] containing a sorbent [where adsorbent material can be carbon disks or other appropriate material; col.3, lines 16-24] and an outer annulus [first stage process section 22 and first stage desorption section 36, Figure 1] containing a sorbent [where adsorbent material can be carbon disks or other appropriate material;col.3, lines 16-24], the outer annulus being arranged radially outward of the inner core [where second stage process section 42 is radially inward of first stage process section 22, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 53-62], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a more compact multi-stage rotor assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ogasahara to have where the rotor includes an inner core containing a sorbent and an outer annulus containing a sorbent, the outer annulus being arranged radially outward of the inner core, such that the hydrophilic section is one of the inner core or the outer annulus and the hydrophobic section is the other one of the inner core or the outer annulus such in view of the teachings of Klobukar where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a more compact multi-stage rotor assembly.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasahara (US5242473A) in view of Klobukar (US5891219A) and in further view of Ilias et al. (US20140224740A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogasahara, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and does not teach where the hydrophilic section is the inner core and the hydrophobic section is the outer annulus.
However, Ilias teaches sorbent coated rotors [0001] where the hydrophilic section is the inner core [where sorbent 1 can be normal silica gel, Figure 4; 0037] and the hydrophobic section [a porous filter that allows liquids to pass through and can be plastic, fiber, or glass, Figure 4; 0037] is the outer annulus where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing a path for fluid flow while retaining the core material by permitting moisture to pass.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the hydrophilic section is the inner core and the hydrophobic section is the outer annulus in view of the teachings of Ilias where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing a path for fluid flow while retaining the core material by permitting moisture to pass.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasahara (US5242473A) in view of Maekawa et al. (US5167679A).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 7 and does not teach wherein the hydrophilic section [rotor 4a, Figure 2] and the hydrophobic section [rotor 4b, Figure 2] are independently rotatable.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotary gas treating apparatus [col. 1, lines 6-14] where the one rotor section [front stage rotor 1, Figure 1] and the other rotor section [rear stage rotor 2, Figure 1] are independently rotatable [where the drive mechanism can be so constructed the rear state rotor and front stage rotor are rotated by predetermined speeds different form each other, Figure 4; col. 7, lines 42-53] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ogasahara to have where wherein the hydrophilic section and the hydrophobic section are independently rotatable in view of the teachings of Maekawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Regarding Claim 10, Ogasahara teaches the invention of claim 7, and does not teach wherein the hydrophilic section [rotor 4a, Figure 2] and the hydrophobic section [rotor 4b, Figure 2] are independently rotatable to rotate at different speeds.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotary gas treating apparatus [col. 1, lines 6-14] where the one rotor section [front stage rotor 1, Figure 1] and the other rotor section [rear stage rotor 2, Figure 1] are independently rotatable to rotate at different speeds [where the drive mechanism can be so constructed the rear state rotor and front stage rotor are rotated by predetermined speeds different form each other, Figure 4; col. 7, lines 42-53] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Ogasahara to have where wherein the hydrophilic section and the hydrophobic section are independently rotatable to rotate at different speeds in view of the teachings of Maekawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klobukar (US5891219A) in view of Maekawa et al. (US5167679A).
Regarding Claim 12, Klobucar teaches an air conditioning system [wherein a rotary concentrator reduces the volume of polluted air; col. 1, lines 5-7] comprising:
a rotor [rotary concentrator 20, Figure 1] including:
an inner core [second stage process section 42 and second stage desorption section 52, Figure 1] having an inner core process segment [second stage process section 42, Figure 1] through which process air from a first process air stream is directed [line 41, Figure 1] and an inner core regeneration segment [second stage desorption section 52] through which regeneration air from a first regeneration air stream is directed [from line 50, Figure 1], the inner core containing a sorbent that is rotatable between the inner core process segment and the inner core regeneration segment [where a adsorbent second disk and second stage desorption section rotate, Figure 1; claim 1]; and
an outer annulus [first stage process section 22 and first stage desorption section 36, Figure 1] having an outer annulus process segment [first stage process section 22, Figure 1] through which process air from a second process air stream is directed [line 29, Figure 1] and an outer annulus regeneration segment [first stage desorption section 36, Figure 1] through which regeneration air from a second regeneration air stream is directed [from line 34, Figure 1], the outer annulus containing a sorbent that is rotatable between the outer annulus process segment and the outer annulus regeneration segment [where a adsorbent first disk and desorption section rotate, Figure 1; claim 1], the outer annulus being arranged radially outward of the inner core [where second stage process section 42 is radially inward of first stage process section 22, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 53-62] but Klobucar does not teach the outer annulus being rotatable independent from the inner core.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotary gas treating apparatus [col. 1, lines 6-14] where the one rotor section [front stage rotor 1, Figure 1] and the other rotor section [rear stage rotor 2, Figure 1] are independently rotatable [where the drive mechanism can be so constructed the rear state rotor and front stage rotor are rotated by predetermined speeds different form each other, Figure 4; col. 7, lines 42-53] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maximizing the efficiencies of the sections depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Klobucar to have where the outer annulus is rotatable independent from the inner core in view of the teachings of Maekawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Regarding Claim 13, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and does not teach wherein the inner core [second stage process section 42 and second stage desorption section 52, Figure 1] and the outer annulus [first stage process section 22 and first stage desorption section 36, Figure 1] are independently rotatable to rotate at different speeds.
However, Maekawa teaches a rotary gas treating apparatus [col. 1, lines 6-14] where the one rotor section [front stage rotor 1, Figure 1] and the other rotor section [rear stage rotor 2, Figure 1] are independently rotatable to rotate at different speeds [where the drive mechanism can be so constructed the rear state rotor and front stage rotor are rotated by predetermined speeds different form each other, Figure 4; col. 7, lines 42-53] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Klobucar to have where the inner core [second stage process section 42 and second stage desorption section 52, Figure 1] and the outer annulus [first stage process section 22 and first stage desorption section 36, Figure 1] are independently rotatable to rotate at different speeds in view of the teachings of Maekawa where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maximizing the efficiencies depending on the concentrations of the gas [Maekawa, col. 7, lines 45-59]
Regarding Claim 14, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and further teaches ductwork [duct 44, Figure 1] including a partition separating the inner core process segment from the outer annulus process segment [where a duct 44 extends circumferentially to separate sections 22 and 42, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 53-62].
Regarding Claim 15, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 and further teaches where the partition [duct 44, Figure 1] includes a seal formed between the partition and a face of the rotor [where a worker of ordinary skill would know how to provide appropriate ducting and sealing to achieve the goal of separating sections 22 and 42l col. 2, lines 53-62].
Regarding Claim 16, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and further teaches wherein the inner core regeneration segment [second stage desorption section 52, Figure 1] and the outer annulus regeneration segment [first stage desorption section 36, Figure 1] collectively form a rotor regeneration segment [second stage desorption section 52 first stage desorption section 36 of rotary concentrator 20, Figure 1] through which regeneration air from a rotor regeneration air stream is directed [from heated air source 32, Figure 1], and wherein the first regeneration air stream is a portion of the rotor regeneration air stream [where line 34 is from heated air source 32, Figure 1] and the second regeneration air stream is another portion of the rotor regeneration air stream [where line 50 is from heated air source 50, Figure 1].
Regarding Claim 18, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the first process air stream [line 41 entering section 42, Figure 1] is the same air stream [where in an alternative embodiment a portion or the entirety of the air stream leaving adsorbed section 42 may be recombined into line 29, Figure 1; col. 3, lines 37-40] as the second process air stream [line 29 entering process section 22, Figure] and the process air is arranged to flow through the inner core and the outer annulus in series [col. 3, lines 37-40].
Claims 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klobukar (US5891219A) in view of Maekawa et al. (US5167679A).and in further view of Ogasahara (US5242473A).
Regarding Claim 17, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 16, and further teaches a heated gas positioned upstream of the rotor regeneration segment of the rotor to heat the rotor regeneration air stream [heated air source 32 upstream of lines 34 and 50, Figure 1] but does not explicitly teach a heater.
However, Ogasahara teaches a dehumidifying apparatus [col. 1, lines 10-13] where a heater [heater 19, Figure 2] is positioned upstream of the rotor regeneration segment [Zone B, Figure 2] of the rotor [rotor assembly 4, Figure 2] to heat the rotor regeneration air stream [in pipe 17, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing heated regeneration air so that the adsorbent is dried for regeneration [Ogasahara, col. 1, lines 24-27]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a heater in view of the teachings of Ogasahara where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing heated regeneration air so that the adsorbent is dried for regeneration [Ogasahara, col. 1, lines 24-27]
Regarding Claim 19, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and does not teach wherein the sorbent of the inner core is a different sorbent than the sorbent of the outer annulus.
However, Ogasahara teaches a dehumidifying apparatus [col. 1, lines 10-13] wherein the sorbent [silica gel; col. 2, lines 26-43] of a first rotor process stage [Zone A of rotor 4a of rotor assembly 4, Figure 1] is a different sorbent [synthetic zeolite; col. 3, lines 6 – 17;] than the sorbent of the second rotor process stage [Zone A of rotor 4b of rotor assembly 4, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, using different sorbents for different sections of a rotor assembly, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., broadening the capabilities of the rotor to treat various conditions of air [Ogasahara , col. 1, lines 48-62]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where wherein the sorbent of the inner core is a different sorbent than the sorbent of the outer annulus in view of the teachings of Ogasahara where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., broadening the capabilities of the rotor to treat various conditions of air [Ogasahara , col. 1, lines 48-62]
Regarding Claim 20, Klobucar, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 19 and does not wherein the sorbent of one of the inner core or the outer annulus is a hydrophilic sorbent, and the sorbent of the other one of the inner core or the outer annulus is a hydrophobic sorbent.
However, Ogasahara teaches a dehumidifying apparatus [col. 1, lines 10-13] wherein the sorbent [silica gel; col. 2, lines 26-43] of a first rotor process stage [Zone A of rotor 4a of rotor assembly 4, Figure 1] is a is a hydrophilic sorbent [synthetic zeolite; col. 3, lines 6 – 17] and the sorbent of the second rotor process stage [Zone A of rotor 4b of rotor assembly 4, Figure 1] is a hydrophobic sorbent [where synthetic zeolite that is unsuitable for dehumidification of a high humidity gas, therefore the sorbent is hydrophobic relative to the silica gel; col. 3, lines 6 – 17] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, using different sorbents for different sections of a rotor assembly, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., broadening the capabilities of the rotor to treat various conditions of air [Ogasahara , col. 1, lines 48-62]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the sorbent of one of the inner core or the outer annulus is a hydrophilic sorbent, and the sorbent of the other one of the inner core or the outer annulus is a hydrophobic sorbent in view of the teachings of Ogasahara where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., broadening the capabilities of the rotor to treat various conditions of air [Ogasahara , col. 1, lines 48-62]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763