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 .
This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 15: In the last line, a comma appears to be missing (i.e., chloride, bromide, acetate, oxalate, carbonate, and bicarbonate).
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 4-6 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 4: The claim recites, “about 0.001 to about 7 wt. % of one or more alkali metals and alkali earth metals.” The scope of the claim is unclear since “one” suggests a single member satisfies the claim, while “and” suggests two members are required to satisfy the claim. Stated differently, it is unclear if the claim is intended to be interpreted as “one or more of a group comprising the alkali metals and the alkali earth metals” or similar, or as “one or more alkali metals and one or more alkali earth metals” or similar. In view of the specification (p. 6, lines 14-15), for the purposes of examination only, the former interpretation will be applied.
Claims 5-6 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrand et al. (US 2024/0066497 A1), and as evidenced by Cake (US 2,856,437) and Kim et al. (US 2013/0210611 A1).
Legrand discloses a method to capture atmospheric water using a nanoporous carbonaceous material (Abstract; [0081]) (i.e., a method for harvesting water) comprising:
contacting the nanoporous carbonaceous material with humid air from a fan and a humidifier for the uptake/adsorption of water into the material (claim 2; [0081], [0288], [0297]) through nucleation on the material’s surface ([0259]) to produce a sample with uptake water ([0332]) (i.e., contacting a nanoporous carbon (NPC) material with a stream of humid atmospheric air, thereby at least partially absorbing water in the form of molecules on surfaces and pores of the NPC material to form a sample),
desorbing water using the energy of applying heat to the material ([0232]) (i.e., releasing the water from the sample by thermally heating the sample); and
collecting desorbed water by condensing vapors ([0233], [0284]) (i.e., collecting the water).
Legrand does not explicitly disclose an NPC material prepared from one or more petroleum feedstocks selected from the group consisting of a pyrolysis oil, a light cycle oil, a heavy cycle oil, a high sulfur containing residue, a vacuum residue, an Arab light crude oil, an Arab extra light crude oil, and mixtures thereof.
Legrand teaches that the nanoporous carbonaceous material is formed from resorcinol (claim 3; [0257]), and it was known that resorcinol was commonly prepared from benzene, as evidenced by Cake (col. 1, lines 22-23), and it was known that benzene can be produced from light cycle oil, as evidenced by Kim ([0004]), so it would have been obvious to prepare the nanoporous carbonaceous material/NPC from products originating from a feedstock comprising light cycle oil (i.e., an NPC material prepared from a light cycle oil).
Regarding claim 2, Legrand teaches water adsorption from ambient atmosphere ([0081]) (i.e., atmospheric pressure) using a nanoporous carbonaceous material in the temperature range of 22.4-34.6° C ([0320]), noting that 25° C corresponds to “room temperature” in the instant disclosure (p. 20, lines 22-23) (i.e., wherein the NPC material is in contact with the stream at ambient conditions of room temperature and atmospheric pressure).
Regarding claim 3, Legrand teaches the NPS was subjected to a relative humidity of 5 to 95% using 5% steps ([0297]), wherein relative pressure is the equivalent of relative humidity (p. 1/10, col. 2, “Capillary”) (i.e., wherein the stream of humid atmospheric air has a relative humidity (RH) of about 15 to about 80 % based on a maximum pressure of water vapor present in the humid atmospheric air).
Regarding claim 4, Legrand teaches that the nanoporous carbonaceous material is 85% to about 99.5% carbon and 0.5% to about 10% oxygen by weight (claim 2) (i.e., wherein the NPC material comprises about 70 to about 90 wt. % of carbon, about 2 to about 20 wt. % of oxygen). See MPEP 2131.03(I) and 2144.05(I).
Legrand does not explicitly disclose about 0.001 to about 7 wt. % of one or more alkali metals and alkali earth metals.
However, Legrand teaches the use of a catalyst such as a metal salt like sodium carbonate ([0206]) (i.e., an alkali metal salt) which exists in trace amounts in a resin comprising the resorcinol to promote curing ([0257], [0258]) before carbonizing the resin to form the nanoporous material ([0259]). It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of the metal salt to optimize the curing process. It is noted that when the prior art teaches the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find optimum or workable ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Legrand teaches the use of a catalyst such as a metal salt like sodium carbonate ([0206]) (i.e., an alkali metal salt) which exists in trace amounts in a resin comprising the resorcinol to promote curing ([0257], [0258]) (i.e., wherein the one or more alkali metals are selected from the group consisting of sodium).
Regarding claim 8, Legrand teaches that the nanoporous carbonaceous material has a water adsorption uptake ranging from 0.1 kg of water per kg of material to 0.5 kg of water per kg of material (i.e., 10% to 50%) ([0203]) (i.e., wherein the NPC material has a water uptake capacity of about 3 to about 50 wt. % of the NPC material). See MPEP 2131.03(I) and 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Legrand teaches that desorbing water comprises applying heat at a temperature of from 20° C. to 75° C., or from 30° C. to 75° C ([0232]) (i.e., wherein the thermally heating the sample is carried out at a temperature of about 30 to about 600 º C). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrand, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0171604 A1, hereinafter “Kim ‘604”).
Legrand does not explicitly disclose exposing the sample to UV-Vis radiation carried out at a wavelength of about 150 to about 600 nm.
Kim ‘604 discloses a water-harvesting system can operate with a porous material that can take up and release water (Abstract). Kim ‘604 teaches that a water vapor desorption cycle can include irradiation by sunlight ([0057]) in order to potentially allow its deployment into households, especially those located in sunny regions ([0056]), wherein the solar radiation is in the 250-2,500 nm wavelength range ([0079]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Legrand by exposing the sample to UV-Vis radiation carried out at a wavelength of about 150 to about 600 nm as taught by Kim ‘604 because (1) Legrand teaches that the NPS (“nanoporous sponge”) can function with a low desorption temperature (Legrand, [0287]); and (2) desorption using sunlight can potentially allow the deployment of an atmospheric water harvester into households, especially those located in sunny regions (Kim ‘604, [0056]).
Additional Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14-20 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14-20.
The concept of a method for harvesting water, comprising:
contacting a nanoporous carbon (NPC) material with a stream of humid atmospheric air, thereby at least partially absorbing water in the form of molecules on surfaces and pores of the NPC material to form a sample, wherein the NPC material is prepared from one or more petroleum feedstocks selected from the group consisting of a pyrolysis oil, a light cycle oil, a heavy cycle oil, a high sulfur containing residue, a vacuum residue, an Arab light crude oil, an Arab extra light crude oil, and mixtures thereof;
releasing the water from the sample by thermally heating the sample or exposing the sample to ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) radiation; and
collecting the water (claim 1);
wherein the NPC material comprises about 70 to about 90 wt. % of carbon, about 2 to about 20 wt. % of oxygen, and about 0.001 to about 7 wt. % of one or more alkali metals and alkali earth metals (claim 4); wherein the NPC material comprises about 85.5 wt. % of carbon, about 14 wt. % of oxygen, and about 0.5 wt. % of potassium (claim 6)
wherein the NPC material has a water contact angle of less than about 2 degrees (°) (claim 7);
wherein the NPC material has a weight loss of less than about 5 wt. % of the NPC material in an inert atmosphere at a temperature of about 600 °C (claim 9);
wherein the NPC material has an average pore size of about 50 nanometers (nm) to about 1000 nm (claim 10);
wherein the sample has a maximum weight loss of water at a temperature of about 150 ºC as determined by a temperature programmed desorption (TPD) method (claim 12); or
further comprising preparing the NPC material by:
mixing the one or more petroleum feedstocks and one or more metal salts to form a mixture;
calcining the mixture at a temperature of about 400 to about 800 °C in an inert atmosphere to form a crude material; and
washing the crude material and drying (claim 14)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closet prior art is Legrand et al. (US 2024/0066497 A1), which discloses a method to capture atmospheric water using a nanoporous carbonaceous material (Abstract; [0081]) comprising contacting the nanoporous carbonaceous material with humid air from a fan and a humidifier for the uptake/adsorption of water into the material (claim 2; [0081], [0288], [0297]), desorbing water using the energy of applying heat to the material ([0232]); and collecting desorbed water by condensing vapors ([0233], [0284]), wherein the nanoporous carbonaceous material is formed from resorcinol (claim 3; [0257]), which is obtainable form light cycle oil.
Regarding claim 6, Legrand teaches a maximum oxygen concentration of the nanoporous carbonaceous material of 10 wt % (claim 2), so there is no suggestion of an oxygen concentration of about 14 wt %,
Regarding claim 7, Legrand provides no teaching about the water contact angle of the nanoporous carbonaceous material.
Regarding claim 9, Legrand does not suggest a weight loss of less than about 5 wt. % of the NPC material in an inert atmosphere at a temperature of about 600 °C
Regarding claim 10, Legrand teaches a nanoporous carbonaceous material with an average pore size of about 1 to about 10 nm ([0027]; claim 5), so the claimed range of pore sizes is not suggested.
Regarding claim 12, Legrand teaches a nanoporous carbonaceous material with a maximum water recovery (i.e., loss of water) at between 55° C. and 75° C (Fig. 12; [0312]), rather than 150° C.
Regarding claim 14, Legrand does not suggest obtaining the nanoporous carbonaceous material through calcining a mixture of a petroleum feedstock and a metal salt.
Other close prior art is Brassard et al. (WO 2024/044851 A1), which discloses a nanoporous sponge for atmospheric water harvesting ([0001], [0007]) made from resorcinol ([0022]). However, Brassard does not cure the deficiencies of Legrand.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights