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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1, 11 and 19 commonly recite key features of the present invention, such as a confutation for heating a CO2 suction filter. This is not found persuasive because this application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I - III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of heater configured to heat the CO2 suction filter, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of current rejection (below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018-035984 (hereinafter JP ‘984).
As regarding claim 1, JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention for an air conditioning device comprising: a main body (18) provided with a first intake port (18c) through which indoor air is movable from an indoor area, a first discharge port (18d) through which supply air is movable to the indoor area, a second intake port (18c) through which outdoor air is movable from an outdoor area, and a second discharge port (18d) through which exhaust air is movable to the outdoor area; and wherein the main body includes: a carbon dioxide suction filter (5 and [0026]) provided in a section where a first air passage connecting the first intake port and the first discharge port and a second air passage connecting the first intake port and the second discharge port are common; and a heater (15 and [0026], [0030]) configured to heat the carbon dioxide suction filter to a predetermined temperature based on an operation state of which the air conditioning device discharge indoor air to the outdoor area and supply outdoor air to the indoor area.
As regarding claim 9, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention for the heater configured to heat the carbon dioxide suction filter to a predetermined temperature based on an operation state of the air conditioning device, and wherein the air condition device is configured so that: in a circulation operation state, a first air passage connecting the first intake port and the first discharge port is formed such that indoor air is moved from the indoor area through the first intake port, thereafter through the carbon dioxide suction filter, and thereafter through the first discharge port to the indoor area as supply air without the heater heating the carbon dioxide suction filter, and in a ventilation operation state: a second air passage connecting the first intake port and the second discharge port is formed such that indoor air is moved from the indoor area through the first intake port, thereafter through the carbon dioxide suction filter, and thereafter through the second discharge port to the outdoor area as exhaust air while the heater heats the carbon dioxide suction filter, and a third air passage connecting the second intake port to the first discharge port is formed such that outdoor air is moved from the outdoor area through the second intake port, and thereafter through the first discharge port to the indoor area as supply air ([0025]-[0032], [0040]-[0077], figs. 1-2, 5-10, and 21).
As regarding claim 10, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention for a bypass damper (9th damper; [0275]-[0276] and [0283]-[0285]) through which bypass exhaust air is movable to the outdoor area, wherein the air condition device is configured so that: in a bypass ventilation operation state: a fourth air passage connecting the first intake port and the bypass damper is formed such that indoor air is moved from the indoor area through the first intake port, thereafter through the carbon dioxide suction filter, and thereafter through the bypass damper to the outdoor area as bypass exhaust air while the heater heats the carbon dioxide suction filter, and the third air passage connecting the second intake port to the first discharge port is formed such that outdoor air is moved from the outdoor area through the second intake port, and thereafter through the first discharge port to the indoor area as supply air.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-035984 (hereinafter JP ‘984).
As regarding claim 2, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a suction capacity of the carbon dioxide suction filter is 1.5 mmol/g to 2.5 mmol/g. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a suction capacity of the carbon dioxide suction filter is 1.5 mmol/g to 2.5 mmol/g in order to enhance air conditioning device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As regarding claim 4, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the heater is configured to heat the carbon dioxide suction filter to 65oC to 70oC. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the heater is configured to heat the carbon dioxide suction filter to 65oC to 70oC in order to enhance air conditioning device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-035984 (hereinafter JP ‘984), as applied supra, and further in view of KR 10-2021-0154510 (hereinafter KR ‘510).
As regarding claim 3, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of a first damper configured to open and close the first intake port, a second damper configured to open and close the first discharge port, a third damper configured to open and close the second intake port; and a fourth damper configured to open and close the second discharge port. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide at least one of a first damper configured to open and close the first intake port, a second damper configured to open and close the first discharge port, a third damper configured to open and close the second intake port; and a fourth damper configured to open and close the second discharge port in order to enhance air conditioning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in KR ‘510 (first air supply damper 12, second exhaust damper 42, second air supply damper 32, first exhaust damper 22; [0030]-[0036]; and fig. 1).
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-035984 (hereinafter JP ‘984), as applied supra, and further in view of KR 10-2020-0048377 (hereinafter KR ‘377), Olah et al (US 20080293976; hereinafter Olah), and KR 20160050171 (hereinafter KR ‘171).
As regarding claim 5, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the carbon dioxide suction filter includes an adsorbent including a material in which carbon nanofibers, nanoparticles, and an amine group are combined at a predetermined component ratio, the carbon nanofibers include carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and/or graphene nanofibers (GNFs), the nanoparticles include at least one of silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), iron oxide (Fe3O4), and titanium dioxide (TiO2), and the amine group includes at least one or polyethylenimine (PEI), 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane, tetraethylenepentamine, and diethylenetriamine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the carbon dioxide suction filter includes an adsorbent including a material in which carbon nanofibers, nanoparticles, and an amine group are combined at a predetermined component ratio, the carbon nanofibers include carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and/or graphene nanofibers (GNFs), the nanoparticles include at least one of silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), iron oxide (Fe3O4), and titanium dioxide (TiO2), and the amine group includes at least one or polyethylenimine (PEI), 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane, tetraethylenepentamine, and diethylenetriamine in order to enhance air conditioning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in KR ‘377 ([0066], [0335]-[0338] and claims 2-5); Olah [CO2 sorbent having an amine and a nano-structured support (claim 1) maybe nanosilica and/or carbon nanotubes or a mixture thereof (claims 2-2), and PEI or TEPA, claims 5-6); and regenerated using heat (claims 11-12)]; KR ‘171 (title, [0026], and [0030]).
As regarding claim 6, JP ‘984 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a molecular weight of the amine group is 600 to 25,000. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a molecular weight of the amine group is 600 to 25,000 in order to enhance air conditioning device performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-035984 (hereinafter JP ‘984) in view of KR 10-2020-0048377 (hereinafter KR ‘377), Olah et al (US 20080293976; hereinafter Olah), and KR 20160050171 (hereinafter KR ‘171), as applied supra, and further in view of KR 10-2182242 (KR ‘242).
As regarding claim 7, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the material of the adsorbent has a bead shape through a phase inversion method. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the material of the adsorbent has a bead shape through a phase inversion method in order to enhance air conditioning performance, since it was known in the art as shown in KR ‘242 (zeolite 220, [0025], [0032], and figs. 1-2).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2018-035984 (hereinafter JP ‘984), as applied supra, and further in view of KR 10-2020-0048377 (hereinafter KR ‘377) and KR 10-2182242 (KR ‘242).
As regarding claim 8, JP ‘984 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘984 discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the carbon dioxide suction filter includes an adsorbent formed of a material in which an amine group is bonded to at least one synthetic resin-based adsorbent, and the material of the adsorbent has a capsule form through a phase inversion method.
KR ‘377 teaches employing amine-based/PEI-resin CO2 adsorbent, and KR ‘242 teaches use of shaped adsorbent material in a regenerable CO2-removal system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the amine/PEI-resin adsorbent of KR ‘377 in a shaped capsule/bead configuration in the CO2 suction filter of JP ‘984, as taught or suggested by KR ‘242, as a predictable design choice among known adsorbent forms, with a reasonable expectation of retaining the known CO2-adsorption function.
The phrase of “through a phase inversion method” is directed to method of making adsorbent capsule. It is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the briquette as recited in claims 1 and 6-7 is the same as the briquette disclosed by modified Stephens, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the briquette of modified Stephens was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights