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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26–33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Apr. 21, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 26–33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). MPEP 714(II)(C)(A).
Since claims 26–33 are directed to withdrawn claims, they should be marked as (withdrawn).
Claims 1–4 and 20–23 are objected to because the term “porous support” and “support” are interchangeably used, please use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 3–4 are 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 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “a conductive material” in the same as that recited in claim 1. Similar issue with Claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1–6, 10-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perera et al., US 2010/0035751 A1 (“Perera”).
Regarding claim 1:
Perera discloses that an electrified fiber sorbent (Perera’s adsorbent hollow fiber, Perera Fig. 1, formed from a porous support (as shown in Fig. 1a, Perera Fig. 1a, [0089]) containing a sorbent (Perera’s 13X and 4A, Perera Fig. 1A, [0089]) and a conductive material (Perera’s conducting layer, Id.).
Regarding claim 2:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein a conductive layer is formed on bore surface or shell surface of the support (Perera’s conducting layer is formed on the outer layer, Perera Fig. 1a, [0089]).
Regarding claim 3:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein a conductive material is formed in bore of the support (Perera discloses its conducive layer could be in each layer or it may only be in one layer, Perera [0011], when the conductive layer is placed in each layer, it includes the inner layer, which is the bore of the support).
Regarding claim 4:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein an interior of the support comprises a conductive material (Perera discloses its conducive layer could be in each layer, Perera [0011], when the conductive layer is placed in each layer, it includes the inner layer, which is an interior of the support).
Regarding claim 5:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein the sorbent is capable of physically or chemically adsorbing carbon dioxide (Perera discloses its invention is capable of absorbing carbon dioxide, Perera [0105]).
Regarding claim 6:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein the sorbent is at least one selected from the group consisting of metal-organic framework (MOF), porous organic cage (POC), covalent organic framework (COF), porous coordination polymer (PCP), metal-organic polyhedra (MOP), zeolite, silica, activated carbon, carbon material, and metal oxide (Perera [0008]).
Regarding claim 10:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 6, wherein the carbon material is a porous carbon material (Perera discloses its carbon could be activated carbon, which is porous, Perera [0014]).
Regarding claim 11:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 6, wherein the sorbent is further added or combined with amine-based compounds (Perera discloses its hollow fiber could comprise a polymer, which could be polyamide, Perera [0012], polyamide is amine-based compounds).
Regarding claim 12:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein the conductive material is at least one selected from the group consisting of conductive porous structures, conductive metals and alloys, conductive 2D materials, and conductive carbon materials (Perera’s conductive component could be metal, Perera [0016]).
Regarding claim 13:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 12, wherein the conductive material has a resistance of 0.5 Ω/m to 10,000 Ω /m (Perera discloses in its Table 1, Ex. 1, a resistance of 90 Ω/25cm, which is equivalent to 360 Ω/m, falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 12, wherein the conductive metal and alloy is at least one selected from the group consisting of silver, copper, annealed copper, gold, aluminum, calcium, tungsten, zinc, cobalt, nickel, ruthenium, lithium, iron, platinum, tin, gallium, niobium, carbon steel, lead, gallinstan, titanium, grain oriented electrical steel, manganin, constantan, stainless steel, mercury, manganese, and nichrome (Perera discloses its conductive component could be silver, Perera [0016]).
Regarding claim 16:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 12, wherein the conductive carbon material is at least one selected from the group consisting of graphene, graphene oxide, graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes (Perera discloses carbon black, Perera [0016]).
Regarding claim 17:
Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 12, wherein the conductive porous structure is a covalent organic framework (COF) or a metal-organic framework (MOF) or a carbon-based porous material (Perera discloses its porous hollow fibre could be a polymer, which is a carbon based material, Perera [0021] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 18:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 12, wherein the conductive material is in form of particles or bulk wires (Perera discloses its fiber are in the form of bulk wires as shown in Fig. 3b, Perera [0091]).
Regarding claim 20:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein the support is a polymer or a sintered inorganic material (Perera discloses its hollow fiber is a polymer, Perera [0012]).
Regarding claim 21:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 20, wherein the support is at least one selected from the group consisting of cellulose, cellulose acetate, microporous polymer, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene glycol, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polymethylmethacrylate, polyimide, polyamideimide, polyetherimide, nickel oxide, copper oxide, alumina, zinc oxide, and silicon carbide (see Perera [0012], Perera discloses at least cellulose acetate).
Regarding claim 22:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein the support has a hollow structure or a monolithic structure (Perera discloses its support as hollow fiber, which has a hollow structure, Perera [0012]).
Regarding claim 24:
Noted there that the published Spec. (hereinafter “Spec.”) discloses carbon fiber is a typical example of susceptor, Spec. [0078].
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, further comprising a susceptor (Perera discloses carbon fibre, Perera [0008]).
Regarding claim 25:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 24, wherein the susceptor is selected from the group consisting of carbon fiber, chromium oxide, goethite, lepidocrocite, hematite, maghemite, magnetite, ilmenite, iron (Fe), and cobalt (Co) (Perera discloses carbon fibre, Perera [0008]).
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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 7–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera in view of Koh et al., US 2022/0401915 A1 (“Koh”).
Regarding claim 7:
Perera does not disclose that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 6, wherein the metal-organic framework comprises a metal node and an organic ligand.
In the analogous art of conductive adsorbent fibers, Koh discloses its adsorbent could be MOF, Koh [0004]. Koh discloses that MOF is a good candidate for carbon dioxide capture because it has a large surface area and the advantage of being able to control pores, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use MOF in Perera as disclosed by Koh for the benefits disclosed. MOF has a metal node (Koh discloses as the metal precursor, Koh [0008]) and an organic ligand (Koh [0008]).
Regarding claim 8:
Modified Perera discloses that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 7, wherein the metal node is at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Y, Sc, Mo, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zr, Cd, Ca, Pd, Pt, Au, Ag, Ru, Gd, Eu, Tb and Nb (see Koh [0043]), and the organic ligand is 4,4'-dioxido-3,3'-biphenyldicarboxylate, 2,5- dioxido-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate, 1,5-dioxide-2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylate 4,4'-dioxido-3,3'- triphenyldicarboxylate, 2,5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid, 4-(4-carboxy-3-hydroxy-phenyl)-2-hydroxy- benzoic acid, 4,4'-ethynylenedibenzoic acid, 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylate, 2-bromo-1,4- benzenedicarboxylic acid, pyridine-3-carboxylic acid, 2-methyl-1H-imidazole, 4-methyl-5- imidazolcarboxaldehyde, and biphenyl-4,4'-dicarboxylic acid (see Koh [0044]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera in view of Koh, and in further view of Cadiau et al., US 2020/0114301 A1 (“Cadiau”).
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Perera does not disclose that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 7, wherein the metal-organic framework is NbOFFIVE-1-Ni.
In the analogous art of MOF structures for carbon dioxide capture, Cadiau discloses the MOF could be NbOFFIVE-1-Ni, which can effectively and energy efficiently remove trace carbon dioxide, NbOFFIVE-1-Ni, Cadiau [0109]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Perera’s MOF to be NbOFFIVE-1-Ni to effectively and energy efficiently remove trace carbon dioxide.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera in view of Hendrickson et al., US 2008/0307960 A1 (“Hendrickson”).
Regarding claim 15:
Perera does not disclose that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 12, wherein the conductive 2D material is molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), phosphorene, bismuthene, Mxene, or tungsten disulfide (WS2).
In the analogous art of adsorbent fiber filters, Hendrickson discloses a sorbent filter comprising fiber coated with sorbent material to absorb pollutants, Hendrickson [0192]. Hendrickson discloses its sorbent layer could include molybdenum disulfide, Hendrickson [0192]. Hendrickson discloses molybdenum disulfide provides particularly rapid adsorption of pollutants, Id. at [0185]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use molybdenum disulfide in Perera for the benefits disclosed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera in view of Pearson et al., US 2012/0151890 A1 (hereinafter “Pearson”).
Regarding claim 19:
Perera does not disclose that the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 18, wherein the bulk wires are coated with an insulator.
In the analogous art of electrical hollow fibers, Pearson discloses a plurality of porous tubular members 102 that maybe electrically insulated from each other by coating them in a layer of electrically insulating material such as PTFE, Pearson [0094]. Pearson discloses such coating are necessary to prevent the fibers from short circuiting with each other and maintains the consistent resistance path along the length of the fiber, Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to coat Perera’s bulk wires with an insulator for the benefits disclosed above.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perera.
Regarding claim 23:
Perera discloses the electrified fiber sorbent of claim 1, wherein the sorbent is included in an amount of 1% by weight to 80% by weight within the support (Perera discloses a high percentage of adsorbent material, with at least 65% of adsorbent material, Perera [0022], overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). ).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed sorbent range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights