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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 20, in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Isobe et al. (US 2021/0394112 A1) in view of Taniyama et al. (US 5,190,438).
Regarding claim 1, Isobe teaches a contaminant-removal system comprising a scrubber 202 configured to receive an air stream containing contaminants including CO₂ and contact the air with a liquid absorbent comprising one or more ionic liquids, thereby absorbing contaminants into the liquid absorbent (Isobe, ¶¶[0052]–[0054], Fig. 2). The contaminant-loaded ionic liquid is passed through heat exchanger 206, pump 221 and heater 207 to stripper 208, where the contaminant is desorbed and the ionic liquid regenerated (¶¶[0055]–[0058], Fig. 2). Isobe further teaches vacuum pump and/or compressor 217 for pumping contaminants discharged from stripper 208 (¶[0059], Fig. 2).
Isobe does not expressly teach passing the ionic-liquid mixture through a liquid passage associated with vacuum pump 217 so that heat generated by the vacuum pump is transferred to and heats the ionic-liquid mixture.
Taniyama teaches a vacuum pump having a cooling jacket/liquid passage through which a liquid flows and receives heat generated by operation of the vacuum pump. In the FIG. 5 embodiment, water introduced into cooling jacket 209 is gradually warmed by heat generated by the gas-compression function of the rotor and stator and returned to the water tank (Taniyama, FIG. 5 and corresponding description). In another embodiment, cooling water introduced through supply port 313 into cooling jacket 309 absorbs heat generated when gas is compressed in the pump mechanism and exits through drain port 314 (FIG. 6 and corresponding description). Taniyama likewise teaches that oil passing through cooling jacket 109 absorbs gas-compression heat and increases in temperature. (Taniyama, col. 8, lines. 6–22 and 55–60; Figs. 5–6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vacuum pump of Isobe with the liquid heat-transfer arrangement taught by Taniyama and to pass the contaminant-loaded ionic-liquid mixture from Isobe's scrubber through that arrangement before introducing the mixture into Isobe's stripper, thereby using heat generated during operation of the vacuum pump to perform at least part of the heating that Isobe already applies to the loaded ionic liquid before stripping, while simultaneously removing compression heat from the vacuum pump. Such modification would predictably recover otherwise rejected pump heat and reduce the external heating duty required to raise the temperature of the loaded ionic liquid before regeneration.
Regarding claim 2, Taniyama teaches the vacuum-pump liquid heat-transfer passage having a liquid inlet and outlet through which cooling liquid enters, receives pump-generated heat, and exits. For example, cooling jacket 309 receives cooling water through supply port 313 and discharges the heated water through drain port 314; similarly, the FIG. 5 embodiment circulates water into and out of cooling jacket 209 (Taniyama, FIGS. 5–6 and corresponding description). Thus, as modified above, the pump defines a liquid inlet, liquid outlet, and liquid passage therebetween along which heat is transferred to the ionic-liquid mixture. (Taniyama, see col. 8, lines. 40–60; Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 3, Taniyama teaches a dry vacuum pump in which the gas being pumped passes through a pump conduit while the cooling liquid flows through an external cooling jacket. In the FIG. 6 embodiment, cooling jacket 309 is outside stator 305, is sealed by O-rings 311 and jacket cover 312, and has separate water supply and drain ports 313, 314, whereas pumped gas passes separately through the conduit of pump mechanism 306 from suction port 301 to exhaust port 302 (Taniyama, FIG. 6 and corresponding description). Accordingly, the liquid passage is isolated from the vacuum generated by the pump (Taniyama, col. 8, lines 40-68; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Taniyama teaches a liquid conduit defining the liquid passage, including the cooling jacket and associated supply/discharge conduits through which the heat-transfer liquid flows (Taniyama, col. 8, lines. 40–68; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Taniyama does not expressly require that the liquid conduit comprise at least one metal or alloy. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the liquid conduit of the modified Isobe/Taniyama system from a metal or alloy because metals and alloys were conventional materials for fluid conduits and provide suitable structural integrity and thermal conductivity for transferring heat from the vacuum pump to liquid flowing through the conduit (Taniyama, col. 8, lines. 40–60).
Regarding claim 6, Taniyama does not expressly require that the liquid conduit comprise one or more tubes. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the liquid conduit as one or more tubes because tubing is a conventional and predictable configuration for defining a contained liquid-flow passage and providing heat-transfer surface between a heat source and a flowing liquid (Taniyama, col. 8, lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 7, Isobe teaches conveying the contaminant-loaded ionic liquid from scrubber 202 toward stripper 208 (¶¶[0052]–[0057], Fig. 2), while Taniyama expressly teaches that liquid passing through the pump cooling passage absorbs compression heat and increases in temperature; e.g., water in cooling jacket 209 is gradually warmed by pump-compression heat and oil passing through cooling jacket 109 absorbs compression heat and increases in temperature (Taniyama, col. 8, lines 6-22, Fig. 5). Thus, in the combination set forth for claim 1, the ionic-liquid mixture received from Isobe's scrubber at a first temperature would leave the pump heat-transfer passage at a second, higher temperature.
Regarding claim 8, Isobe teaches stripper 208 downstream of scrubber 202 and teaches supplying the heated, contaminant-loaded ionic liquid to stripper 208 for regeneration (¶¶[0055]–[0058], Fig. 2). In the modification discussed above, the stripper therefore receives from the pump liquid outlet the ionic-liquid mixture heated by pump heat to a temperature greater than its temperature upon entering the pump.
Regarding claim 9, Taniyama expressly teaches that operation of the vacuum pump generates heat through its gas-compression function and that the circulating liquid absorbs that compression heat. Taniyama describes the pump as generating a large amount of heat due to compression and teaches warming the circulating water by heat generated by the compression function (Taniyama, FIG. 5; col. 4, lines 32-40; col. 8, lines 6-19 and 55-60).
Regarding claim 11, Isobe expressly teaches that the contaminant removed from the air stream is carbon dioxide (CO₂) and that the ionic-liquid system is used for cabin CO₂ removal (¶¶[0003]–[0005], [0029]–[0033], [0052]–[0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Isobe further teaches coupling the regenerated-contaminant stream to Sabatier reactor 215. Contaminants including CO₂ discharged from stripper 208 are pumped by vacuum pump/compressor 217 to condenser 218; dehumidifier 219 separates water vapor from the CO₂ and sends the CO₂ to Sabatier reactor 215 (¶¶[0058]–[0060], Fig. 2). Isobe expressly teaches that Sabatier reactor 215 reacts carbon dioxide with hydrogen to convert it to methane and water (¶[0061]). Methane is a hydrocarbon; therefore, Isobe teaches the claimed Sabatier system configured to generate hydrocarbons using the contaminant.
Regarding independent claim 20, Isobe teaches scrubber 202 receiving contaminant-containing air and using an ionic-liquid absorbent, stripper 208 receiving the contaminant-loaded ionic liquid and regenerating the liquid, and vacuum pump/compressor 217 associated with the stripper to pump the desorbed contaminants (¶¶[0052]–[0059], Fig. 2).
Isobe does not expressly teach routing the ionic liquid from the scrubber through an isolated liquid passage of the vacuum pump and thereafter to the stripper.
Taniyama teaches a vacuum pump having a liquid inlet, liquid outlet and liquid heat-transfer passage, including an external cooling jacket through which liquid flows and absorbs heat generated by the pump's compression operation. The liquid passage is separate from the conduit carrying the pumped gas, as particularly shown by the sealed external cooling-jacket arrangement of FIG. 6. Taniyama further teaches that the liquid is warmed by the compression heat generated by the vacuum pump (Taniyama, col. 3, lines. 29–47; col. 4, lines. 32–40; col. 8, lines. 6–22 and 40–68; Figs. 5–6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isobe by routing the contaminant-loaded ionic-liquid mixture from scrubber 202 through the isolated liquid heat-transfer passage of the vacuum pump taught by Taniyama and thereafter to stripper 208, such that heat generated by operation of the vacuum pump is transferred to the ionic-liquid mixture before stripping. Isobe already heats the loaded ionic liquid before stripper 208, and Taniyama teaches recovering pump-compression heat by transferring that heat to a flowing liquid. The modification therefore predictably uses available pump heat to provide at least part of Isobe's required pre-regeneration heating while concurrently removing heat from the vacuum pump.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hume et al. (WO 2011/073672 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Isobe teaches a separate heater 207 downstream of scrubber 202 and upstream of stripper 208 and therefore does not expressly teach the claimed absence of such a heater (Isobe, ¶¶[0055]–[0056], Fig. 2).
Hume teaches regeneration of a CO₂-rich absorption solution and recognizes that regeneration requires heating of the rich solution. Hume teaches recovering low-grade/waste heat using a heat pump and supplying the recovered thermal energy to the regeneration heating means (pp. 4–10). In particular, Hume teaches that the heat-pump arrangement can provide substantially all of the thermal-energy deficit otherwise supplied by conventional external heating and, in the preferred case, essentially obviate the need for thermally useful LP steam; the thermal energy can instead be supplied by recovered heat from vapor recompression and the heat pump (pp. 7–10). Hume further identifies heat associated with stages of compression of the target gas as a suitable source of low-grade heat (p. 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit Isobe's separate heater 207 in the modified Isobe/Taniyama system where the heat recovered from the vacuum pump provides sufficient heating of the ionic-liquid mixture for regeneration, because Hume teaches recovering otherwise low-grade or waste heat and using that recovered heat to satisfy the thermal duty of an absorption-medium regeneration process, thereby reducing or eliminating the conventional external heating-energy requirement. The modification would predictably reduce external energy consumption and eliminate unnecessary separate heating equipment when the recovered pump heat supplies the required pre-regeneration heating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights