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 § 102
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 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) 1-7, 10-12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundaram (US20200206673A1).
Claim 1: Sundaram teaches a modular adsorber bed (Figure 1 shows the adsorber bed.), said modular adsorber bed comprising a plurality of adsorber cartridges arrangeable in an axially parallel array (Figures 3 and 4 show multiple cartridges arranged in axially parallel setup), wherein each adsorber cartridge comprises a hollow cylinder containing adsorber held in place between an outer gas permeable tube and an inner gas permeable tube (Figures 1 and 2 shows that each one has a hollow central volume 130 that is held in place between inner surface 114 and outer surface 112. [0029] teaches this,), said inner gas permeable tube forming an axially disposed void within the cartridge (This is the central volume area 130.).
Regarding the limitations “for fitting to a vacuum chamber for use in a vacuum temperature swing direct air capture process for extracting carbon dioxide from atmospheric air” and “wherein, in use, each cartridge is configured to receive airflow from which to adsorb carbon dioxide in a radial direction through the adsorber towards the axially disposed void or in a radial direction through the adsorber away from the axially disposed void”, these are considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. The abstract teaches the removal of CO2 from streams. Figure 7 also shows that the air and go either direction.
Claim 2: Sundaram teaches each adsorber cartridge comprises heat exchanger means (Figure 1 shows there is heat transfer fluid going in and out.).
The limitation of “for imparting heat energy into the adsorbent during a regeneration phase of the vacuum temperature swing direct air capture process” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. [0033] teaches that this for desorbing the CO2.
Claim 3: Sundaram teaches in each adsorber cartridge, the heat exchanger means is disposed between the outer gas permeable tube and an inner gas permeable tube (Figure 2 shows that all the heat exchange sections 120 are between the outer tube 112 and inner tube 114.).
Claim 4: Sundaram teaches wherein each adsorber cartridge is sealed at a first end and, in use, the axial void of each adsorber cartridge is open to a common airflow conduit at a second end (Figure 7 shows that there is only one outlet that allows fluid to leave inner volume 750 at the top with the arrow.).
The limitations of a lower pressure in the common airflow conduit than the pressure in the external vicinity of each adsorber cartridge drives airflow in a radial direction through the adsorber towards the axially disposed void, and a higher pressure in the common airflow conduit than the pressure in the external vicinity of each adsorber cartridge drives airflow in a radial direction through the adsorber away from the axially disposed void” are considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Figure 7 shows that the gas can flow in either direction either away or towards the void.
Claim 5: Sundaram teaches in each adsorber cartridge, the outer gas permeable tube and inner gas permeable tube of each adsorber cartridge comprise a tube of gas permeable material held rigid by a retaining tube ([0045] teaches that the adsorbent bed sections can be any kind of section, including rigid. This would read upon rigid retaining tube. The gas permeable material is in a tube shape as seen by 112 and 114 in figures 1 and 2.).
Claim 6: Sundaram teaches in each adsorber cartridge, the gas permeable material comprises a mesh ([0043] teaches that the material the adsorbent is coated on can be mesh.).
Claim 7: Sundaram teaches in each adsorber cartridge, the retaining tube is made from a perforated sheet ([0045] teaches the structure can be any conventional contactor structure including parallel plates and adsorbent monoliths.).
Claim 10: Sundaram teaches each adsorber cartridge, the heat exchanger means comprises a conduit for receiving a heat exchanger fluid ([0021] teaches that the heat transfer regions have conduits.).
Claim 11: Sundaram teaches in each adsorber cartridge, the conduit comprises a plurality of connected tube sections ([0030] teaches that the heat transfer sections 120 can include any number of heat transfer conduits.).
Claim 12: Sundaram teaches in each adsorber cartridge, the plurality of connected tube sections are substantially parallel to the axially disposed void ([0030] teaches the conduits parallel to central axis 135.).
Claim 15: Sundaram teaches each adsorber cartridge the adsorber comprises adsorber particles ([0043] teaches the adsorbent can be particles.).
Claim 16: Sundaram teaches An adsorber cartridge for a modular adsorber bed according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), said adsorber cartridge comprising: a hollow cylinder containing adsorber held in place between an outer gas permeable tube and an inner gas permeable tube (Figures 1 and 2 show the adsorbers 110 in between outer tube 114 and inner tube 112.), said inner gas permeable tube forming an axially disposed void within the cartridge (Inner tube 112 forms the central volume 130.), wherein, in use the cartridge is configured to receive airflow from which to adsorb carbon dioxide in a radial direction through the adsorber towards the axially disposed void or in a radial direction through the adsorber away from the axially disposed void (Figure 7 shows both pathways are possible).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sundaram.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram in view of Chuang (US20020033250A1).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram in view of Lloyd (US20050051029A1).
Rejection in view of Sundaram
Claim 8: Sundaram teaches each adsorber cartridge, the first end is sealed by an end-cap (The figures of Sundaram teach that the gas flow only goes through the sides and the common pipe located at the end. It appears that the other surfaces are blocked off from the gas which would read upon this limitation). If Sundaram does not teach this, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a sealed end cap as Sundaram does not want the gas to leave except having passed through the adsorbent areas as seen from the figures, this would allow the device to work properly by directing the gas to where it needs to go.
Claim 9: Sundaram teaches each adsorber cartridge, the second end is terminated by an open end-cap which seals in the adsorber material and comprises an aperture opening, for opening to the common airflow conduit in use (The figures show that the gas is only able to leave through the opening at the top of the contactor that is connected to the inner volume.). If Sundaram does not teach this, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an opened end cap that seals the adsorber material and has an aperture opening as Sundaram shows the gas flow specifically through the aperture and into the adsorbent or through the adsorbent and out through the aperture, this would allow the device to work properly by directing the gas to where it needs to go.
Claim 14: Sundaram teaches the heat exchanger means of each adsorber cartridge is connected to a common source of heat exchanger fluid (Since each of the heat exchange sections can use multiple conduits with a heat transfer fluid. Since the fluid is the same they would all come from the same source as deviations in them would result in reduced efficiency in certain areas of the cartridge.). If Sundaram does not explicitly teach this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a common source of heat exchanger fluid connected to each of the cartridges as this would reduce cost and allow for better control and consistency by having the same fluid be used for all of the heat exchange portions.
Rejection in view of Sundaram and Chuang
Claim 13: Sundaram does not explicitly state each adsorber cartridge, the tube sections are each connected to one or more heat dissipation fins. Sundaram teaches the heat exchange sections in figures 1 and 2. Chuang teaches in [0004] that heat dissipation fins are well known in the art of heat conductive and heating devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have a heat dissipation fin attached to the heat exchange sections as Chuang teaches fins are known to be used in heating and cooling systems.
Rejection in view of Sundaram and Lloyd
Claim 17: Sundaram teaches an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a vacuum chamber within an inner volume of which is located a modular adsorber bed according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 and figures 3 and 4 showing all the cartridges inside a chamber); a first air conduit providing an air inlet to the inner volume of the vacuum chamber (This would be the air going into the whole chamber 701 of figure 7.); a second air conduit providing an air inlet to the vacuum chamber and connected to a common conduit which is connected via an air-tight connection to the axially disposed void of each of each adsorber cartridge of the modular adsorber bed (This is the air going into 791 of figure 7. [0038] also teaches that purge gas 791 is sent to each of the interior voids of the cartridge meaning they would be connected to a common conduit. [0069] and figure 9 also shows the purge gas stream 943 being sent to the contractors 920 which related to a common conduit.); heating means configured to heat the adsorber cartridges of the modular adsorber bed during the carbon dioxide desorbing phase (Figure 1 shows there is heat transfer fluid going in and out. [0033] teaches that this for desorbing the CO2.); a carbon dioxide extraction conduit via which desorbed carbon dioxide is extracted during the carbon dioxide extraction phase (Figure 9 shows there is a enriched CO2 stream 929 that forms and is removed from the contactors.).
Sundaram does not explicitly teach a first sealable air conduit, a second sealable air conduit, and a sealable carbon dioxide extraction conduit. Lloyd teaches a vacuum swing adsorption/desorption system (abstract). Lloyd teaches in figures 1-2 and [0074] the use of isolation control valves for the supply and product lines in order to make sure the inputs and outputs match the function of the apparatus at the time (For example purge gas would not be released when the adsorption step is happening.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have sealable conduits as taught by Lloyd in the device of Sundaram as Lloyd teaches the benefits of being able to control the input and output flows depending on when the apparatus is in adsorption or desorption step.
The limitations of “for performing a vacuum temperature swing direct air capture process for extracting carbon dioxide from atmospheric air, said process comprising a carbon dioxide adsorbing phase, an evacuating phase, a carbon dioxide desorbing phase and a carbon dioxide extraction phase” and “in a first mode of operation, during the CO2 adsorbing phase, atmospheric air to be processed is input to the vacuum chamber via the first sealable air conduit and output via the second sealable air conduit, and in a second mode of operation during the CO2 adsorbing phase, atmospheric air to be processed is input to the vacuum chamber via the second sealable air conduit and output via the first sealable air conduit” are considered to be intended usage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US10029205, 20170326494, 8268043, 20120090470, 7122073.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 07/07/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights