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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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 of the term “the flow guide member of an adjacent DAC module” lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, the term “the frames” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if the “adjacent DAC module” is the same as the DAC module recited in claim 1, and it is therefore unclear if the recited ‘adjacent DAC module” has the exact same structure as the DAC module recited in claim 1. Additionally, claim 3 recites both “the frame” and “the frames”, which are confusing.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation of “each DAC module” refers to the “first plurality of DAC modules” or “second plurality of DAC modules” or both. Claim 10 does not require the first and second plurality of DAC modules to be the same.
Claims 14–19 are indefinite because they depend on claim 13.
Claim 15 is indefinite because the limitation of “the flow director”. Claim 14 recites each DAC module includes a flow director, and therefore, there are a plurality of flow directors, it is unclear which one is the claimed “the flow director”.
Claims 16–17 are indefinite for the same reason as claim 15 because it recites the same limitation of “the flow director”.
Claim 17 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “an outlet side of the frame” is the same as “an outlet side away from the frame” as recited in claim 14.
Claims 20–21 are indefinite because it is unclear what “the plurality of DAC modules” is referring to, is it the “first plurality of DAAC modules” or “second plurality of DAAC modules” or both.
Claim 22 is indefinite because the term “the hazardous gas” lacks antecedent basis.
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 1–13, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stark Jr., US 11,266,943 B1 (“Stark Jr.”).
Regarding claim 1:
Stark Jr. discloses that a direct air capture (DAC) module (Stark Jr.’s DAC module 100, Stark Jr.Fig. 1A, col. 4, ll. 3–6), comprising:
a frame (Stark Jr.’s inner structure 200, Stark Jr. Fig. 2, col. 6, ll. 2–8) enclosing a plurality of hazardous gas capture contactors (Stark Jr.’s carbon capture cylinders 114, Stark Jr. Fig. 1C, col. 4, ll. 13–16);
a first air mover (Stark Jr.’s fan 118, Stark Jr. Fig. 1B, col. 4, ll. 17–18) configured to draw air into an inlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. discloses as the outwardly facing side as an inlet side, Stark Jr. Fig. 1, col. 26, ll. 1–8) and over the plurality of hazardous gas capture contactors (114 of Stark Jr.) to remove hazardous gas from the air, producing clean air (Stark Jr. discloses carbon dioxide depleted air, which is the claimed clean air per the disclosure of “clean air” provided in the published Spec. of the instant application, see Spec. [0051]); and
a flow director (Stark Jr.’s air diverter 126, Stark Jr. Fig. 1D, col. 4, ll. 22–28) operatively coupled to the frame and configured to direct the clean air exiting an outlet side of the frame away from the frame to reduce re-entry of the clean air into the inlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. discloses its flow diverter 126 redirect the air flowing into the DAC structure 100 upward and out the opening in the roof structure 104, Stark Jr. Fig. 1B, col. 4, ll. 22–28).
Regarding claim 2:
Stark Jr. discloses the DAC module of claim 1, wherein the flow director includes a flow guide member extending from the outlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. discloses the air diverter 126 comprising lower anchor points 708, which is positioned around the interior circumference of interior support structure, and since air flow if from exterior to interior, the interior support structure is located an outlet side of the frame, Stark Jr. Fig. 7, col. 9, ll. 58–65).
Regarding claim 3:
Stark Jr. discloses the DAC module of claim 2, wherein the flow guide member is configured to interact with the flow guide member of an adjacent DAC module to accelerate a flow of clean air therebetween to direct the clean air exiting the outlet side of the frames vertically away from the frames to reduce re-entry of the clean air into the inlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. discloses an embodiment of dual DAC structure, where DAC structure 1802A and 1802B are operated in an alternating cycle, Stark Jr. Fig. 18A, col. 20, ll. 17–19, compared to a single DAC module, Stark Jr.’s dual DAC module is capable of interact with the flow guide member of the adjacent DAC module to accelerate a flow of clean air therebetween by reducing DAC downtime during regeneration).
Regarding claim 4:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 1, wherein the flow director includes at least one second air mover (Stark Jr. discloses a plurality of fans 118A and 118B, one of them would read on the claimed “at least second air mover”, Stark Jr. Fig. 1B, col. 4, ll. 17–18) having a flow direction away from the frame to reduce re-entry of the clean air into the inlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. discloses each fan 118 is configured to convey air from the exterior the DAC structure 100 into the interior DAC structure and direct air away from interior of DAC, Stark Jr. col. 5, ll. 44–48, since Stark Jr. discloses interior of DAC as an outlet side, and therefore, Stark Jr.’s fan direct air away from the frame to reduce re-entry of the clean air into the inlet side of the frame).
Regarding claim 5:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 1, wherein the flow director directs the clean air exiting the outlet side of the frame vertically away from the frame (Stark Jr.’s Fig. 7 shows a diverter 700 corresponds to its air diverter 126, and 700 provides a surface for directing air upward in order to move air from DAC and avoid air recirculating, Stark Jr. Fig. 7, col. 9, ll. 24–28).
Regarding claim 6:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 1, further comprising an exterior wall enclosing a lowermost portion of the frame and preventing air flow therethrough, the exterior wall extending from a surface upon which the frame is supported (Stark Jr. discloses an infinity shield 1822, which enclosing the entire DAC module from ground, Stark Jr. Fig. 18B, col. 20, ll. 39–46, Stark Jr.’s shield 1822 enclosing a lowest portion of the frame—ground and preventing air flow therethrough, the Stark Jr.’s shield 1822 extending from a surface upon which the frame is support—ground surface).
Regarding claim 7:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 1, further comprising a curved ramp (Stark Jr.’s Fig. 1B, where label 116 points) extending from a surface (ground) upon which the frame is supported toward the inlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. discloses exterior as the inlet side), the curved ramp directing air flow drawn by the first air mover along the inlet side of the frame (Stark Jr. curved ramp forms bottom surface of fan inlet, Stark Jr. Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 1, further comprising a gap filler member (Stark Jr.’s first and second regeneration stations 1804A and 1804B, Stark Jr. Fig. 18A, col. 20, ll. 15–21) extending from a side of the frame (as shown in Fig. 18A, Stark Jr. stations 1804A and 1804B extending from an exterior side of the frame), the gap filler member configured to be coupled to the frame of an adjacent DAC module (either one of 1802A or 1802B, Stark Jr. Fig. 18A) to block air flow between the DAC modules (Stark Jr. discloses its regeneration unit comprising seal mechanism at interface to provide air tight seal between the door 1502 and cylinder 1112 at interface, which allows the regeneration station to perform process oof releasing of carbon dioxide, Stark Jr. Fig. 19A, col. 21, ll. 19–21, it is thus understood that the adjacent DAC module connected by regeneration unit are sealed to each other due the regeneration structure).
Regarding claim 9:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 1, wherein the hazardous gas includes carbon dioxide (see Stark Jr. title).
Regarding claim 10:
Stark Jr. discloses that a direct air capture (DAC) system (see Fig. 18A), comprising:
at least one set of direct air capture (DAC) modules (Stark Jr.’s DAC structures 1802A and 1802B, Stark Jr. Fig. 18A, col. 19, ll. 48–55), each set including:
a first plurality of DAC modules arranged in a first line (Stark Jr.’s carbon capture container 1100 joined together forming a stack of carbon capture containers, Stark Jr. Fig. 12, col. 13, ll. 25–28, Stark Jr.’s stack as shown in Fig. 12 reads on the “first plurality of DAC modules arranged in a first line);
a second plurality of DAC modules arranged in a second line, wherein the first line is parallel to the second line (see Stark Jr. Fig. 10, Stark Jr. shows a plurality of stacks arranged in circular shape, the stack located on a symmetry side of the circular shape reads on the claimed “second plurality of DAC modules arranged in a second line” and such second line is parallel to the first line); and
a gap filler member (where label 1102 points in Stark Jr. Fig. 11A, col. 11, ll. 15–19) blocking air flow through a space between each pair of adjacent DAC modules in the first plurality of DAC modules and through a space between each pair of adjacent DAC modules in the second plurality of DAC modules (Stark Jr. structure pointed by label 1102 in Fig. 11A surrounding the DAC modules, the structure blocks air flow through a space between two adjacent DAC modules).
Regarding claim 11:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC system of claim 10, wherein the at least one set includes at least two sets with the at least two sets arranged in parallel lines (as shown in Stark Jr.Fig. 18A, two sets 1802A and 1802B are in a symmetric arrangement and could be interpreted as arranged in parallel lines).
Regarding claim 12:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC system of claim 11, wherein the at least two sets arranged in parallel lines are also arranged to be substantially parallel to a predominate wind direction in a location of the at least two sets (see Fig. 18A, when a predominate wind direction being parallel to the line pointed by label 1806, it would read on the claim).
Regarding claim 13:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC system of claim 10, wherein each DAC module includes:
a frame (Stark Jr.’s cylinder pointed by label 1112, Stark Jr. Fig. 11C, col. 4, ll. 22–23) enclosing a plurality of hazardous gas capture contactors (Stark Jr.’s pre-packed cylindrical cartridges 1130, Stark Jr. Fig. 11C, col. 12, ll. 29–32); and
a first air mover (Stark Jr.’s fan panel 116, Stark Jr. Fig. 1A, col. 4, ll. 16–17) configured to draw air into an inlet side of the frame and over the plurality of hazardous gas capture contactors to remove hazardous gas from the air, producing clean air (Stark Jr. discloses end of tube 1132 faces a fan panel 116, to allow air flow into the tube along its axis, Stark Jr. Figs. 11B–11C, col. 12, ll. 34–36).
Regarding claim 18:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC system of claim 13, wherein each DAC module further includes an exterior wall (Stark Jr.’s infinity shield 1822, Stark Jr. Fig. 18B, col. 20, ll. 39–41) enclosing a lowermost portion of the frame and preventing air flow therethrough, the exterior wall extending from a surface upon which the frame is supported (Stark Jr. ‘s shield 1822 enclose the entire DAC system inside, and therefore enclosing a lowermost portion of the frame to prevent air flow therethrough, and Stark Jr.’s wall extending from the ground, upon which Stark Jr.’s entire system including the frame structure is supported).
Regarding claim 22:
Stark Jr. discloses that the DAC module of claim 10, wherein the hazardous gas includes carbon dioxide (see Stark Jr. title).
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 20–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Stark Jr.
Regarding claim 20:
Stark Jr. does not explicitly disclose that the DAC system of claim 10, wherein less than 10% of incoming air to the at least one set of DAC modules recirculates to the plurality of DAC modules.
Stark Jr. discloses its system avoid recirculating the same air through its DAC structure, Stark Jr. col. 9, ll. 24–28. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Stark Jr.’s system to have less than 10% (ideally 0%) of incoming air to the at least one set of DAC modules recirculates to the plurality of DAC modules.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed 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).
Regarding claim 21:
Stark Jr. does not explicitly disclose that the DAC system of claim 20, wherein less than 4% of incoming air to the at least one set of DAC modules recirculates to the plurality of DAC modules.
Stark Jr. discloses its system avoid recirculating the same air through its DAC structure, Stark Jr. col. 9, ll. 24–28. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Stark Jr.’s system to have less than 4% (ideally 0%) of incoming air to the at least one set of DAC modules recirculates to the plurality of DAC modules.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14–17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14:
Stark Jr. does not disclose that the DAC system of claim 13, wherein each DAC module further includes a flow director operatively coupled to the frame and configured to direct the clean air exiting an outlet side away from the frame to reduce re-entry of the clean air into the inlet side of the frame.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stark Jr. to include a flow director to each of DAC module because Stark Jr. discloses an integral flow director 700, Stark Jr. Fig. 7, col. 9, ll. 19–24. There is a lack of motivation to further include a flow director couple to each of the module because none of the prior art shows or teaches such limitation.
Claims 15–17 would be allowable because they depend on claim 14.
Regarding claim 19:
Stark Jr. does not disclose that the DAC system of claim 13, wherein each DAC module further includes a curved ramp extending from a surface upon which the frame is supported toward the inlet side of the frame, the curved ramp directing air flow drawn by the first air mover along the inlet side of the frame.
It would not have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Stark Jr. for such limitation because none of the prior art teaches or renders such limitation as being obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/777,903 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recites an almost identical structure of a frame, a first air mover, and a flow director/vertical exhaust plenum (although with slightly different term, they perform the same function).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 Michener can be reached on (571) 270-7872424. 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