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 .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/8/2026. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The objections to the Claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claim 8 is withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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 1, 2, 7 and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasahara (US5242473A) in view of Kazuyuki (JPH0714731Y2).
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 in high humidity conditions; col. 3, lines 6 – 17, where Applicant specification describes the hydrophilic sorbents and the hydrophobic sorbents may be determined relative to each other, 0019], 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].Ogasahara does not teach the hydrophilic sorbent has a water contact angle less than 90 degrees and the hydrophobic sorbent has a water contact angle at or above 90 degrees.
However, Kazuyuki teaches a panel type air conditioner [0001] where the hydrophilic sorbent [hydrophilic porous membrane 7, Figure 1] has a water contact angle less than 90 degrees [where membrane 7 has a water contact angle of about 30 degrees or less; 0015] and the hydrophobic sorbent [hydrophobic porous membrane 8, Figure 1] has a water contact angle at or above 90 degrees [where membrane 8 has a water contact angle of about 110 degrees or more; 0015] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing and decreasing pressure difference of fluid passing through the sorbent material to improve performance [Kazuyuki ;0016-0020]
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 sorbent has a water contact angle less than 90 degrees and the hydrophobic sorbent has a water contact angle at or above 90 degrees in view of the teachings of Kazuyuki where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., increasing and decreasing pressure difference of fluid passing through the sorbent material to improve performance [Kazuyuki ;0016-0020]
Regarding Claim 2, Ogasahara, as modified, 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, as modified,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].
Claims 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasahara (US5242473A) in view of Kazuyuki (JPH0714731Y2) as applied to claim 1 above and in further 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 Kazuyuki (JPH0714731Y2) and Klobukar (US5891219A) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Ilias et al. (US20140224740A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogasahara, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5, 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 Kazuyuki (JPH0714731Y2) as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Maekawa et al. (US5167679A).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogasahara, as modified, 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, as modified,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]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 12, the subject matter which is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Klobukar (US5891219A) in view of Foreman (US3676985A), where Klobucar teaches a 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] contrasting claimed subject matter where the outer annulus contains a sorbent that is rotatable between the outer annulus process segment and the outer annulus regeneration segment, the outer annulus being arranged radially outward of the inner core and being rotatable independent from the inner core.
Foreman teaches a power-driven air filter including an outer annulus [annular filter element 13, Figure 3] arranged radially outward of the inner core [disks forming body 4, Figure 3] where the inner annulus is rotatable independent from the outer core [via electric motor 2, Figure 3], contrasting claimed subject matter where the outer annulus is rotatable independent from the inner core.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 12 with dependent claims 13-20 therefrom are considered allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/08/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-13, Applicant argues that Ogasahara fails to teach a hydrophilic sorbent and a hydrophobic sorbent as claimed in claim 1. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties were defined in light of where Ogasahara discusses synthetic zeolite is unsuitable for dehumidification of a high humidity gas, where the sorbent is interpreted as hydrophobic relative to the silica gel in high humidity conditions; col. 3, lines 6 – 17, and where Applicant specification describes the hydrophilic sorbents and the hydrophobic sorbents may be determined relative to each other, 0019 of Applicant Specification. Applicant’s arguments regarding the hydrophilic sorbent having a water contact angle less than 90 degrees, and the hydrophobic sorbent having a water contact angle at or above 90 degrees, with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Refer to the updated rejections above in view of Kazuyuki (JPH0714731Y2) above and pertinent art below. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-7 and 9-11 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/08/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pahwa (AU-2017208389A1) discusses where hydrophilic adsorbents such as silica gel are typically chosen for dehumidification and on the other hand, hydrophobic adsorbents, such as high silica zeolites are typically recommended for VOC removal applications, but are poor adsorbents for dehumidification application. Thus, applications for both dehumidification and VOC removal may typically require both types of adsorbents, p.4 line 30 – p.5 line 2.
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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 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
Prosecution Insights