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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it was not provided on a separate sheet. 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
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the gas or gasses exit” should read “the gas or gases exit.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9, 15, and 16 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 9 recites, in pertinent part, “a fifth control circuit configured to actuate external valves and receive signals from external sensors.” The term “external valves” and “external sensors” lack antecedent basis to the claim. Although claims 6-8 recite particular pressure measurement, and temperature sensors, respectively, claim 9 introduces the broader term “external sensors” without specifying whether the term refers to one or more of those previously recited sensors or to an additional sensor not previously introduced.
Claims 15 and 16 recites the limitation "target polar molecules" in line 4 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The application consistently uses the term “specific polar molecules” (see claims 1, 11, 13, and 19) to identify the molecules being adsorbed and desorbed. It is therefore unclear whether “target polar molecules” is intended to refer to the previously recited “specific molar molecules” or to a different set of molecules. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claims are not reasonably certain.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pennewitz et al. U.S. Pub. No. 9359867 B2, June 07, 2016 (hereinafter “Pennewitz”).
Regarding claim 13, Pennewitz discloses a method of desorbing a polar molecule from an adsorbent material, wherein a desiccant adsorbs refrigerant gas and the refrigerant is expressly disclosed as water (fig. 2; col. 4, lines 12–31). Pennewitz further discloses exposing the desiccant having the adsorbed refrigerant to electromagnetic energy to cause the refrigerant to desorb from the desiccant, wherein the electromagnetic energy may be radio-frequency energy of about 5 MHz to about 20 MHz (fig. 2; col. 4, lines 32–50). Pennewitz additionally discloses electrode pairs positioned at opposite surfaces of the desiccant and teaches activating one or more electrode pairs to transmit electromagnetic energy into the desiccant to enable desorption of the refrigerant gas (fig. 4; col. 6, lines 1–46). Claim 10 likewise recites an electrode pair embedded in the desiccant and configured to transmit electromagnetic energy into the desiccant to enable desorption, while claim 15 expressly limits that energy to an RF range of about 5–20 MHz.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz et al. U.S. Pub. No. 9359867 B2, June 07, 2016 (hereinafter “Pennewitz”) in view of Ryan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6649888 B2, November 18, 2003 (hereinafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claim 1, Pennewitz discloses an apparatus including a sorption cooling apparatus having a heat-sink region containing a desiccant or other solid adsorbent for gas adsorption, wherein refrigerant gas is routed to the heat-sink region and adsorbed by the desiccant (col. 1, lines 35-48). Pennewitz identifies water as an exemplary refrigerant (col. 4, lines 22-24). Pennewitz further discloses an adsorbed structure having a housing containing desiccant (300), a porous inlet (310) through which refrigerant gas is introduced into the desiccant, and a path through which desorbed refrigerant gas (236) exits the desiccant (col. 5, line 58 – col. 6, line 6; figs. 2-3). Pennewitz discloses two or more electrodes positioned relative to the desiccant, including electrodes (402a-402d) at an inner surface and electrodes (404a-404d) at an outer surface, with respective inner and outer electrodes forming operative pairs such that the desiccant material is positioned therebetween (fig. 4; col. 6, lines 11-34). Pennewitz teaches that one or more electrodes may be embedded within the desiccant volume and that the electrodes transmit electromagnetic energy into the desiccant to enable desorption of the refrigerant gas (fig. 4; col. 7, lines 1-12).
Pennewitz discloses transmitter (218) configured to transmit electromagnetic energy into the desiccant, wherein the electromagnetic energy may be radio-frequency (RF) energy in a range of approximately 5-20 MHz (col.8, lines 9-20). However, Pennewitz fails to disclose (1) a matching network configured to facilitate energy transfer from the radio frequency generator to the electrode, and (2) a first control circuit configured to adjust either the output frequency of the radio frequency generator or the impedance transfer function of the matching between the radio frequency generator and the electrodes as the polar molecules are removed from the adsorbed material.
Ryan discloses an RF power supply (800) comprising signal generator (802), power amplifier (806), impedance matching circuit (812), and resonance detection system (RDS) (810). RF signal (811) is supplied through impedance matching circuit (812) to probes (602 and 604), thereby facilitating transfer RF energy from the RF source to the electrodes (figs. 6, 8; col. 28, lines 23-40). Ryan further discloses that RDS 810 receives forward-power and reflected-power signals and implements a resonant frequency tracking algorithm that adjusts the frequency of RF signal 804 as required to minimize reflected power. Thus, RDS 810 functions as a control circuit configured to adjust the frequency output of the RF generator to maintain an impedance match between the RF source and the electrode/load system (figs. 8-9). Ryan teaches continuously tracking the resonant frequency during RF operation (col. 28, lines 40-50).
Ryan additionally discloses that impedance matching circuit (812) matches a 50-ohm source impedance to the variable impedance of probes 602, 604 and sample 410, and that adjustable capacitors may be used to obtain an impedance match as the load impedance varies. Ryan explains that changes in the load cause changes in resonant frequency requiring adjustment of the operating frequency to continue minimizing reflected power (figs. 10A-10B; col. 30, lines 1-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the RF desorption apparatus of Pennewitz to include the impedance matching circuit and resonant frequency tracking control of Ryan in order to maintain efficient RF energy transfer to the adsorbent as the electrical characteristics of the adsorbent/electrode load change during desorption. Pennewitz itself teaches that the measured impedance of the desiccant is related to the amount of refrigerant stored therein and may be used to determine when the refrigerant has been substantially desorbed. Hence, such a modification applies using a known impedance-matching technique to improve the efficiency of an RF-powered regeneration system.
Regarding claim 4, Pennewitz in view of Ryan discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set for the above. Ryan further discloses impedance matching circuit (812) configured to present a fixed 50-ohm impedance at its input while matching that impedance to the variable impedance presented by probes (602, 604) and sample (410). Ryan states that matching circuit (812) is used to match the impedance of 50-ohms source generator (figs. 10A-10B; col. 30, lines 1-30). Thus, Ryan teaches maintaining a predetermined fixed impedance at the generator facing side of the matching network while transforming the variable load impedance presented by the electrodes and material (col. 29, lines 36-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention configure the matching network of the Pennewitz RF-desorption apparatus to present the fixed source-side impedance taught by Ryan, thereby facilitating efficient RF power transfer between the generator and the varying electrode/adsorbent load.
Regarding claim 5, Pennewitz in view of Ryan discloses the apparatus of claim 4 as set forth above. Ryan further teaches that the RF generator output frequency is variable during operation and controlled to compensate for changes in the impedance presented by the RF load. Specifically, resonance detection system (RDS)(810) monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the frequency of RF signal (804) as necessary to minimize reflected power, thereby maintaining an impedance match between the RF source and the probes/load (fig. 8; col.27, lines 25-34).
Ryan additionally discloses that the power supply continuously tracks the resonant frequency during operation and that changes in the impedance of the matching circuit, probes, and sample require corresponding changes in operating frequency to continue minimizing reflected power (figs. 9-10A; col. 29, lines 60-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the RF generator of eth Pennewitz apparatus with Ryan’s variable frequency control so that the generator frequency is adjusted before and during desorption to compensate for changes in the impedance presented by the electrodes and adsorbent material, thereby maintaining efficient RF energy transfer as the adsorbed polar molecules are removed.
Claims 2, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz and Ryan, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Roland et al., DE 202008012371 U1, December 04, 2008 (hereinafter “Roland”).
Regarding claim 2, Pennewitz in view of Ryan fails to disclose that the radio frequency generator is set to a specific frequency and the specific frequency is maintained constant during operation of the apparatus. However, Roland discloses an HF generator connected to electrodes through an electronic matching network, wherein the matching network is configured to match the variable impedance of the solid adsorbent bed to the internal impedance of the HF generator, thereby permitting substantially reflection-free transfer of RF energy from the generator to the adsorbent bed (fig. 1; paragraphs 0017, 0032). Roland further discloses that the HF generator preferable supplies RF energy at selected industrial frequencies, specifically 13.56 MHz or 27 MHz, which are identified as ISM frequencies (claim 25; paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to operate RF generator of the modified Pennewitz apparatus at one selected, fixed ISM frequency while adjusting the matching network to compensate for changes in the impedance of the adsorbent material, because this would permit operation at an established industrial RF frequency while maintaining efficient energy transfer as the electrical properties of the adsorbent bed change during desorption.
Regarding claim 7, Roland discloses sensors positioned in the downstream region of the gas flow to characterize gas composition, including a moisture sensor located near the outlet, with the sensors connected to a personal computer having a process control system (fig. 1; paragraphs 0033, 0051). Roland further measures the mass flow of water during operation and specifically monitors water removal during RF regeneration (fig. 3; paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the downstream composition/moisture sensing taught by Roland to determine the amount of polar molecules exiting the adsorber and to use that measured output as a control input for determining the duration of RF application in the Pennewitz/Ryan apparatus, thereby terminating/extending Rf regeneration according to the measured desorption output.
Regarding claim 8, Pennewitz in view of Ryan discloses the apparatus of claim 1, including application of RF power to an adsorbent material for desorption. Ryan discloses controlling the RF power level supplied to the RF load, including increasing the RF input from a tuning power level to a full operating power level (col. 29, lines 31-39).
Roland discloses and fiber-optic temperature sensor positioned within the solid adsorbent bed for measuring the temperature of the bed, with the sensor connected to an evaluation device and the sensors/evaluation devices connected to a computer having a process control system (fig. 1; paragraphs 0033, 0051). Roland further discloses RF regeneration in which the adsorbent-bed temperature is raised and monitored during removal of adsorbed water (fig. 3b; paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the measured adsorbent bed temperature of Roland as a feedback variable for adjusting the RF output power of the Pennewitz/Ryan apparatus, thereby controlling the temperature of the adsorbent during RF regeneration and avoiding inadequate or excessive heating.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz, Ryan, and Roland, as applied to claim 2, in further view of Bhutta U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0200079 A1, July 16, 2015 (hereinafter “Bhutta”).
Regarding claim 3, Pennewitz in view of Ryan and Roland fails to disclose that the matching network impedance transfer function is adjustable such that the first control circuit can adjust the matching network impedance transfer function to compensate for the difference between the output impedance of the radio frequency generator and the impedance presented by the two or more electrodes both before and while the specific polar molecules are removed from the adsorbent material. However, Bhutta discloses an RF matching network between an RF source having a fixed source impedance and a load having a variable impedance, with series and shunt electronically variable capacitors controlled by control circuit (45) (fig. 1; paragraphs 0087-0090). The control circuit determines the varable load impedance, calculates new capacitance values, and generates a control signal to alter the matching network capacitances to obtain an impedance match (paragraphs 0090-0093; fig. 10). Bhutta firther teaches repeating the matching process when the load impedance fluctuates (paragraph 0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Bhutta’s controlled, adjustable matching network into the Pennewitz apparatus as applied to claim 2, to compensate for differences between the RF generator output impedance and the changing impedance presented by the electrodes and adsorbent bed before and during desorption, thereby maintaining efficient RF energy transfer as the adsorbed polar molecules are removed.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz and Ryan, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Stocker et al., U.S. Pub. No. 4761165 A, August 02, 1988 (hereinafter “Stocker”).
Regarding claim 6, Pennewitz in view of Ryan discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Pennewitz further discloses a control unit configured to control the timing and duration of electromagnetic/Rf energy applied to the adsorbent during desorption.
Stocker discloses a pressure swing adsorption apparatus having a pressure sensor P that measure pressure within adsorption vessel (14) and a controller (50) responsive to the measured vessel pressure (col. 4, lines 8-14; claim 21). The controller (50) receives the pressure sensor signal and controls operation based on the difference between the sensed vessel pressure and a predetermined end pressure. Stocker further discloses adsorption/regeneration operations divided into timed process periods, with operation of the system dependent upon measured pressure; for example, purge continues until a termination pressure is reached (figs. 2, 4; col. 5, lines 29-32; claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the Pennewitz in view of Ryan apparatus with Stocker’s pressure sensor and pressure responsive control and to use the measured adsorber vessel pressure as a process variable for determining the timing of RF-energy application. Pennewitz already teaches controlling the timing of RF energy used for regeneration, while stocker discloses using measured adsorber pressure to control the timing and progression of adsorption/regeneration operations.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz, Ryan, and Roland, as applied to claim 8, in further view of Stocker et al., U.S. Pub. No. 4761165 A, August 02, 1988 (hereinafter “Stocker”).
Regarding claim 9, Pennewitz in view of Ryan and Roland discloses the apparatus of claim 8 asset forth above, including RF control and sensors associated with the adsorbent system. Roland further discloses temperature, moisture, and gas composition sensors connected to a computer having a process control system (fig. 1, paragraphs 0033, 0051).
Stocker discloses an adsorption system having external valves operated by a controller and pressure sensors providing signals to the controller. Stocker teaches that the adsorbers are equipped with a plurality of valves operated by a cycle controller (col. 1, lines 55-60). The controller (150) controlling the operation of external valve 2D as a function of pressure measured by pressure sensor P and coordinating valve actuation according to the sequential adsorption, depressurization, purge, and re-pressurization steps (figs. 3-4; col. 5, lines 20-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Stocker’s sensor responsive valve-control arrangement into the Pennewitz/Ryan/Roland apparatus so that external valves are actuated in coordination with the RF and sensor-based control functions, thereby synchronizing gas-flow operations with adsorption and regeneration conditions.
Regarding claim 10, Peennewitz in view of Ryan, and Stocker discloses the apparatus of claim 9 as set for the above, including an adsorption vessel, sensor responsive control, and controller operated external valves. Stocker further discloses supplying a gas to an adsorption vessel during re-pressurization through a controllable valve. Specifically, product gas is supplied to vessel (14) through controllable valve (48), with controller (50) regulating the valve in response to pressure measured within the vessel (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 4-20).
Stocker discloses that the PSA process separates a more strongly adsorbable component from a less strongly adsorbate product component, such that the product gas corresponds to a gas having substantially reduced adsorption relative to the adsorbed component (col. 1, lines 30-43). Stocker additionally discloses supplying product gas during re-pressurization until vessel reaches a predetermined pressure condition and controlling the gas supply based on the sensed vessel pressure (col. 4, lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the apparatus of Penniwitz/Ryan/Roland with Stocker’s source of relatively non-adsorptive product gas, pressure-controlled gas supply, and controller-operated valve arrangement in order to re-pressurize or purge the adsorber vessel at a selected pressure while coordinated gas delivery with the existing valve-control system.
Regarding claim 11, Roland discloses introducing a gas mixture containing adsorbable components into an adsorber vessel through an inlet and removing gas through an outlet, wherein the adsorbable components include water vapor, carbon dioxide, oxygen, sulfur compounds, and other gaseous components (fig. 1; paragraphs 0017, 0034).
Stocker discloses that each adsorber in a multi-bed pressure swing adsorption system is equipped with a plurality of valves operated by a cycle controller for controlling the adsorption and regeneration cycle. Stocker further discloses supplying product gas to an adsorption vessel through a controllable valve during product re-pressurization, wherein the valve is controlled by a controller to regulate gas flow (fig. 1; col. 2, lines 39-56; col. 3, lines 57-65; col. 4, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the controller-operated valve arrangement of Stocker into the RF adsorption apparatus of Pennewitz and Roland in order to control introduction of the gas mixture into the adsorber vessel during adsorption, thereby providing controlled loading of the adsorbent with adsorbable polar molecules prior to RF regeneration.
Regarding claim 12, Pennewitz in view of Ryan, Roland, and Stocker discloses the apparatus of claim 11 as discussed above. Stocker further discloses maintaining a desired vessel pressure during operation by controlling gas flow through a controllable valve in response to pressure measured within the adsorption vessel. Specifically, controller (50) receives a signal from pressure sensor P and controls valve (48) in response to the sensed vessel pressure to regulate gas flow during product re-pressurization (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 5-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ pressure-responsive flow control, as taught by Stocker, in Pennewitz/Ryan/Roland apparatus to maintain a predetermined pressure within the adsorber vessel by regulating gas discharge during desorption, thereby providing controlled pressure regulation during regeneration.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz in view of Stocker et al., U.S. Pub. No. 4761165 A, August 02, 1988 (hereinafter “Stocker”) in further in view of Ryan et al. U.S. Pub. No. 6649888 B2, November 18, 2003 (hereinafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claim 14, Pennewitz teaches the method of claim 13, including an adsorbent having an adsorbed polar refrigerant and applying RF energy through electrodes to desorb the refrigerant from the adsorbent (Fig. 2 and claims 10, 15). Stöcker teaches an adsorption vessel containing an adsorbent bed and void space and, during regeneration, reducing the pressure of the bed by withdrawing gas therefrom, including countercurrent depressurization in which desorbed gas is withdrawn from the vessel (col. 5, lines 35-50). Thus, Stöcker teaches evacuating gas occupying the interstitial/void spaces of an adsorbent bed to reduce vessel pressure.
Ryan further teaches that arcing between RF electrodes is an operating condition that must be prevented and expressly configures probes (602) and (604) to be spaced apart “in order to prevent arcing,” with the required configuration depending upon electrode dimensions and electrical conditions (Fig. 12, col. 4, lines 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Stöcker's known depressurization technique to the RF-desorption method of Pennewitz and to select the reduced operating pressure so that arcing between the RF electrodes is avoided, as taught to be necessary by Ryan, thereby permitting safe and reliable RF regeneration of the adsorbent.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennewitz in view of Stocker et al., U.S. Pub. No. 4761165 A, August 02, 1988 (hereinafter “Stocker”).
Regarding claim 15, ennewitz teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed above, including adsorbing a polar refrigerant, such as water, on a desiccant and applying RF energy to desorb the refrigerant. Stöcker teaches that an adsorbent bed contains non-selective voids occupied by gas and that gas trapped in those voids is removed by depressurizing the adsorption zone. Stöcker further teaches subsequently supplying gas to the adsorption vessel at a predetermined elevated pressure (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 12–35). Stöcker specifically teaches removing void-space gas by depressurization, followed by re-pressurization wherein gas is supplied until a desired pressure is reached (col. 3, lines 35–65; col. 4, lines 1–17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Stöcker’s known evacuation and re-pressurization procedure to the Pennewitz adsorption system by removing interstitial process gas from the adsorbent vessel and subsequently introducing the gaseous polar refrigerant at a selected pressure, thereby replacing the residual interstitial gas and establishing the desired gas environment within the adsorbent bed.
Regarding claim 16, Pennewitz teaches the method of claim 13 as discussed above, including applying RF energy to an adsorbent to desorb an adsorbed polar refrigerant, such as water, thereby producing desorbed refrigerant gas. Pennewitz further teaches routing the desorbed refrigerant gas from the adsorbent region following RF desorption (Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 32–58). Stöcker teaches operating an adsorption vessel through controlled pressure cycles. Following desorption, the vessel is repressurized by supplying gas until selected elevated pressure conditions are attained. Stöcker further teaches subsequently depressurizing the adsorber by withdrawing gas from the vessel. (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 44–65; col. 4, lines 1–17).
Stöcker additionally teaches a blowdown step in which gas and desorbed impurities are vented from the adsorber as its pressure is reduced, and further teaches continuing gas release until a predetermined termination pressure is reached (Figs. 2–4; col. 5, lines 20–31; col. 6, lines. 1–5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the RF-desorption vessel of Pennewitz according to the pressure-control technique of Stöcker by permitting vessel pressure to reach a predetermined pressure and thereafter releasing gas containing the desorbed polar molecules until the vessel pressure returns to the predetermined pressure level, thereby providing controlled pressure relief during desorption.
Regarding claim 17, Pennewitz teaches the method of claim 13, including applying radio-frequency energy to an adsorbent containing adsorbed polar refrigerant, such as water, to desorb the refrigerant. Pennewitz further teaches activating transmitter (218) to transmit RF energy into the desiccant and/or adsorbed refrigerant to cause desorption (Fig. 2).
Stöcker teaches operating an adsorption vessel at predetermined pressure conditions during adsorption and regeneration. Specifically, the adsorption bed is supplied with feed at an elevated pressure, subsequently depressurized, purged, and then repressurized to predetermined elevated pressures. Stöcker further teaches sensing vessel pressure and controlling gas flow based on the difference between the measured pressure and a predetermined end pressure (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 5–21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to initiate the RF desorption taught by Pennewitz after the adsorber vessel has reached a selected operating pressure as taught by Stöcker, because coordinating RF regeneration with a predetermined vessel-pressure condition would provide predictable control of the adsorption/desorption cycle.
Regarding claim 18, Pennewitz in view of Stöcker teaches the method of claim 17 as set forth above. Pennewitz further teaches controlling the duration of RF energy applied to the adsorbent and terminating RF transmission when a selected condition is satisfied. In particular, Pennewitz teaches that the processor may deactivate the transmitter when either a measured parameter reaches a selected regeneration criterion or a selected amount of time has elapsed. See Pennewitz, claims 12–13.
Pennewitz further explains that transmission of electromagnetic energy into the desiccant may be ended when the measured parameter reaches the regeneration criterion or after a selected amount of time, thereby expressly providing time-based limitation of RF application during desorption. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Pennewitz’s time-based control in the pressure-controlled RF-desorption method of claim 17 to limit the duration of RF-energy application, thereby preventing unnecessary continued RF heating once a predetermined treatment interval has elapsed.
Regarding claim 19, Pennewitz in view of Stöcker teaches the method of claim 17, and Pennewitz further teaches monitoring a parameter indicative of the amount of refrigerant remaining in the desiccant during RF desorption. Pennewitz expressly teaches that the measured impedance of the desiccant is related to the amount of refrigerant gas stored therein and that the measured impedance may be compared with a selected regeneration criterion indicating that the refrigerant has been substantially desorbed (col. 6, lines 50-67).
Pennewitz further teaches that, when the measured parameter reaches the selected regeneration criterion, the processor takes appropriate action to end the desorption process, including deactivating the transmitter (col. 6, lines 50-67). Pennewitz also expressly claims a processor configured to deactivate the transmitter when the measured parameter meets a selected regeneration criterion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Pennewitz’s monitored regeneration condition to generate a termination condition for the RF application in the pressure-controlled method of Pennewitz/Stöcker, thereby terminating RF energy once the desired degree of desorption has been achieved.
Regarding claim 20, Pennewitz in view of Stöcker teaches the method of claim 17 as set forth above. Pennewitz further teaches limiting the duration of electromagnetic/RF energy applied to the desiccant by terminating operation of the transmitter after a predetermined elapsed time. Specifically, Pennewitz teaches that the processor can deactivate the transmitter “after a selected amount of time from the beginning of the transmission of the electromagnetic energy into the desiccant” (col. 8, lines 35–42). Pennewitz additionally teaches ending transmission when a selected amount of time has elapsed (col. 8, lines. 7–13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Pennewitz’s elapsed-time control using a timer initiated upon the beginning of RF-energy application and configured to provide a termination signal when the predetermined maximum duration is reached, since a timer is a conventional means for measuring a selected elapsed interval and initiating the expressly taught deactivation of the transmitter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights