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 .
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 21 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 21 recites the limitations "a first substrate surface, " "a second substrate surface," and "a first fluid" without recitation of a second fluid. It is unclear whether or not the limitation "a first fluid" requires "a second fluid." Claims 22-27, 29, 32-33, 35 and 37-38 depend from claim 21 and therefore rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-27, 29, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staufcik (US 20220362737 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Staufcik discloses a mass transfer apparatus comprising (Abstract; pars [0141], [0287]-[0288]): a first substrate surface having a textured omniphilic surface (pars [0082], [0143], [0144], [0152]-[0156], [0159], [0259]-[0261], [0284]); a second substrate surface spaced from the first substrate surface to form at least one microchannel between the first substrate surface and the second substrate surface (pars [0141], [0163], [0259]-[0261]); and a liquid sorbent positioned between the first substrate surface and the second substrate surface (pars [0006], [0261]), wherein the liquid sorbent contacts the textured omniphilic surface (pars [0287]-[0288]), wherein the microchannel having an inlet for introducing a first fluid into the at least one microchannel and an outlet for removing the first fluid from the at least one microchannel (pars [0034], [0275], [0284], [0288]), and wherein the liquid sorbent is configured to reversibly capture at least one chemical species from the first liquid (pars [0007], [0170], [0284], [0287]-[0288]).
Staufcik does not specifically disclose said liquid sorbent contacts the textured omniphilic surface in a Wenzel state. Nonetheless, the disclosure at paragraph [0287]-[0287] describe a textured surface wetted with CO2 capture solution (i.e., liquid sorbent) that is in contact with the textured surface has at least one meandering current (i.e., a flow from an inlet to an outlet). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious at effective filing date of the current invention to envisage the apparatus of Staufcik having the liquid sorbent contact the textured omniphilic surface in a Wenzel state with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 22, the prior art is relied upon as set for above. Staufcik does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second substrate surface includes a textured omniphilic surface, and wherein the liquid sorbent contacts the textured omniphilic surface on the second substrate surface in a Wenzel state, wherein the at least one microchannel is positioned between the first substrate surface and the second substrate surface. Staufcik teaches a plurality of substrate surfaces defining parallel planes having a plurality of protruding portions extending therefrom (pars [0009]-[0010], [0171]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage the apparatus of Staufcik as claimed since the mesh sheet consisted of textured omniphilic surface in parallel surfaces.
For claim 23, the prior art is relied upon as set for above and further discloses wherein the omniphilic surfaces includes one or more omniphilic material selected from metals, high surface energy polymers, high surface energy coatings comprising oxides or nitrides, or combinations thereof (pars [0150]-[0151], [0214], [0262]).
For claim 24, the prior art is relied upon as set for above and further discloses wherein at least one of the first substrate surface or the second substrate surface includes a conductive filler (pars [0150]-[0151], [0214], [0262]; whereas, metal is conductive).
For claim 25, the prior art is relied upon as set for above and further discloses wherein the textured substrate comprises metal, an alloy, or combinations thereof (pars [0150]-[0151], [0214], [0262]).
For claim 26, the prior art is relied upon as set for above and further discloses wherein the second substrate surface comprises aluminum, copper, steel, alloys or combinations thereof (par [0214]).
Regarding claim 27, the prior art is relied upon as set for above. Staufcik does not appear specifically state wherein the liquid sorbent is immobilized on the first substrate surface. Nonetheless, the phrase “the liquid sorbent is immobilized on the first substrate surface” is an intended result/use. The instant invention is an apparatus. Apparatus claims are distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than intended use or function. See MPEP § 2114. Furthermore, Staufcik teaches multiple openings or pores (pars [0082], [0141], [0147], [0156]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage the liquid sorbent immobilize on the first substrate surface since Staufcik discloses sorbent solution films can bridge across pores.
For claim 28, the prior art is relied upon as set for above but does not appear to disclose explicitly state wherein the liquid sorbent is configured to reversibly capture carbon dioxide from the first liquid. However, Staufcik does disclose further treatment of the lean stream containing carbon dioxide (pars [0006], [0194]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current invention to envisage liquid sorbent configured to reversibly capture carbon dioxide from the first liquid for further processing.
For claim 29, the prior art is relied upon as set for above and further discloses wherein the liquid sorbent is selected from at least one of an alkanolamine-based absorbent, an ionic liquid-based absorbent, a dimethylether-based absorbent, or a propylene glycol-based absorbent (pars [0018], [0137], [0213]).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, the phrases “wherein the first fluid comprises carbon dioxide” and “wherein the first fluid comprises air, flue gas, or combinations thereof,” respectively, recite material worked upon comprised in said first fluid. The instant invention is an apparatus. Material worked upon does not further limit apparatus claims. MPEP § 2115.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Staufcik is considered the closest prior art of record and discloses the mass transfer apparatus of claim 21; however, Staufcik fails to comprise a counter electrode coupled to a facial surface of the first substrate surface that is opposite the textured omniphilic surface, and wherein the liquid sorbent comprises a redox active solvent that selectively captures the at least one chemical species from the first fluid upon application of an applied voltage across the counter electrode and the redox active solvent, and wherein the redox active solvent releases the at least one chemical species upon reversal of the applied voltage. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to provide a counter electrode as claimed because none of the prior art of record suggests motivations that would modify the prior art and arrive at the present apparatus/invention. Claims 37 and 38 depend from claim 35 and would also be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure for example:
US 20220176312 A1 & US 20220176312 A1: discloses one or more layers comprising hydrophilic surfaces.
US 20210387139 A1: discloses patterned electrode for adsorption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1203. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 2:00 pm (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, 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.
/SONJI TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 January 23, 2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776