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
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 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation “enclosing the at least one panel in a third chamber of at least one drying/cooling section of the at least one regeneration unit.” It is unclear whether the slash used is to denote “or” or “and”; that is to say, it is unclear whether the third chamber is a combination of a drying and a cooling section or if the third chamber should comprise one of either a drying or a cooling section. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the applied steam” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-17, which are dependent upon claim 1, are likewise 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0211278 A1 to Eisenberger et al. (hereinafter referred to as Eisenberger).
Regarding claim 1, Eisenberger teaches a method of direct air capture (¶0001 “This patent application comprises a novel and inventive approach to the direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide.”), the method comprising the steps of: circulating air through a plurality of adsorber panels with at least one fan (¶0040 “Each monolith (1) supports a CO2 sorbent … and moves in the direction of (2) around a track (18) where air (3) passes through each monolith via a fan or set of fans (16).”), wherein each panel of the plurality of adsorber panels is configured to move independently (¶0040 “Each monolith (1) in turn enters the sealed regeneration apparatus (17) and is regenerated”); enclosing at least one panel of the plurality of adsorber panels in a first chamber of at least one purge section of at least one regeneration unit (¶0040 “In this 4-zone process schematic, the first zone (7) is an inert gas purge (11) that removes any air from the monolith channels and pores”); reducing a concentration of oxygen contained in the first chamber of the at least one purge section of the at least one regeneration unit (¶0041 “the first zone (7) is a gas purge (10) that removes O2 from the monolith channels.”); enclosing the at least one panel into a second chamber of at least one CO2 desorption section of the at least one regeneration unit (¶0040 “the third zone (9) is the Regeneration and Harvest zone where steam is injected (13)”); harvesting CO2 from the at least one panel enclosed in the second chamber (¶0040 “steam is injected (13), condenses on the monolith, and CO2 is produced (15) and harvested for storage or further use”); enclosing the at least one panel in a third chamber of at least one drying/cooling section of the at least one regeneration unit (¶0040 “the fourth zone (10) is the cooling zone”); and cooling and/or drying the at least one panel enclosed in the third chamber (¶0040 “the fourth zone (10) is the cooling zone, where inert gas (14) is passed through the monolith channels to cool them prior to reintroduction to airflow. Humid air (6) exhausts from the monolith to further cool and dry as it reenters airflow.”).
Regarding claim 2, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one panel enclosed in the CO2 desorption section comprises at least a first panel and a second panel, wherein the first panel enters the desorption section before the second panel (Fig. 12 shows that the monoliths are arranged as individual panels), and wherein a desorbing gas is made to flow through the desorption section such that it first contacts the first panel and then contacts the second panel (Figs. 3 and 4 show the direction of gas flow in the different zones ; as the monolith moves around the track a first panel will come into contact with the vertically flowing gas).
Regarding claim 3, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the CO2 is harvested from the second chamber by applying steam to the at least one panel in the second chamber (¶0040 “the third zone (9) is the Regeneration and Harvest zone where steam is injected (13), condenses on the monolith, and CO2 is produced (15)”).
Regarding claim 4, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 3 above, wherein the at least one panel has a first face and a second face (Fig. 3 depicts air flowing through one face of the monolith to a second face of the monolith), and wherein a current of the applied steam flows transversely through the at least one panel from the first face to the second face (Fig. 3) and back in a serpentine fashion or in a corkscrew fashion one or more times (in the absence of a vacuum pump or other suction mechanism, the steam with naturally flow through the monolith in both directions).
Regarding claim 5, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the at least one panel has a first face and a second face (Fig. 3 depicts air flowing through one face of the monolith to a second face of the monolith), and wherein one or more currents of one or more gases flow transversely through the at least one panel from the first face to the second face (Fig. 3) and back in a serpentine fashion or in a corkscrew fashion one or more times while the at least one panel moves through the first chamber, the second chamber, and/or the third chamber (in the absence of a vacuum pump or other suction mechanism, gas will naturally flow through the monolith in both directions).
Regarding claim 6, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising the step of heating air before the air is circulated through the plurality of adsorber panels (¶0063 “In one embodiment of the current invention, a flue gas, or other CO2-enriched gas, is injected at a targeted velocity such as to adsorb additional CO2 from the flue gas onto the monolith … The flue gas can provide preheating to the monoliths through its sensible heat.”).
Regarding claim 11, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of adsorber panels move along a plurality of tracks in the adsorber structure (Figs. 16 and 19).
Regarding claim 12, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above, wherein the plurality of tracks comprises a first and a second track, and wherein the first track is parallel to the second track, and wherein the plurality of adsorber panels move from the first track to the second track via a lateral transfer section (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of adsorber panels are oriented horizontally in the at least one regeneration unit (Figs. 3 and 19).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger.
Regarding claim 7, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above, further comprising the steps of: enclosing the at least one panel in a fourth chamber of the at least one regeneration unit (¶0040 “Each monolith (1) in turn enters the sealed regeneration apparatus (17) and is regenerated, producing concentrated CO2 (15), through a set of zones (7) through (10).” ; there are four zones in the regeneration unit total). Eisenberger further teaches wherein the last chamber of the regeneration unit both cools and dries the monolith (¶0040 “the fourth zone (10) is the cooling zone, where inert gas (14) is passed through the monolith channels to cool them prior to reintroduction to airflow. Humid air (6) exhausts from the monolith to further cool and dry as it reenters airflow.”). Eisenberger does not teach wherein the fourth chamber is a duplicate cooling and/or drying zone. However, as Eisenberger has already taught the use of two zones to repeat steps (Fig. 1, zones 7 and 8 are both dedicated to purging the monolith), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an additional chamber could be introduced to the system of Eisenberger to implement a second cooling and/or drying step. Furthermore, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 7 above, wherein the step of cooling and/or drying the at least one panel in the fourth chamber comprises circulating a cooled gas through the at least one panel in the fourth chamber (¶0040 “the fourth zone (10) is the cooling zone, where inert gas (14) is passed through the monolith channels to cool them prior to reintroduction to airflow.”).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11389761 B1 to Stark, Jr. (hereinafter referred to as Stark).
Regarding claim 14, Eisenberger teaches the method as applied to claim 1 above. Eisenberger does not disclose the specific structure of the monolith arrays within the adsorber panels.
However, Stark teaches a direct air capture system for CO2 removal (Col. 1, lines 22-23 “The present disclosure relates generally to systems and methods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”), comprising an adsorber panel which comprises a plurality of monolith arrays held together by a support structure (Fig. 1C, hoop structure 108 contains carbon capture cylinders 114).
Eisenberger and Stark are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of direct air capture for carbon dioxide removal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method as taught by Eisenberger could be modified to incorporate the monolithic structure as taught by Stark. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the capture of carbon dioxide) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Eisenberger and Stark teach the method as applied to claim 14 above. Stark further teaches wherein the support structure comprises a vertical component and a horizontal component (Fig. 2, horizontal bottom member 212 and vertical side members 214), wherein the vertical component is configured to sit between adjacent arrays of the plurality of monolith arrays, and wherein the horizontal component is configured to sit beneath a bottom surface of an array of the plurality of monolith arrays (Col. 6, lines 25-39 “The hoop structure 202 includes multiple structural frames 208. Each structural frame 208 includes a horizontal top member 210, horizontal bottom member 212, and two vertical side members 214. … Each structural frame 208 may be sized to receive and support a carbon capture media container, such as the square cell 112 described above or the carbon capture cylinder described below.”).
Regarding claim 16, Eisenberger and Stark teach the method as applied to claim 14 above. Stark further teaches wherein the support structure comprises first and second vertical supports (Fig. 2, vertical side members 214) and a mesh coupled to the first and second vertical supports, wherein a plane of the mesh is perpendicular to a plane of the first or second vertical supports (Col. 11, lines 62-64 “Regardless of the chosen shape, each end of the sorbent material sub container 1116 may be screened or grated to retain the adsorbent porous media inside the grid”), wherein the mesh further comprises an opening configured to support an array of the plurality of monolith arrays (Col. 11-12 “Regardless of the chosen shape, the walls of the sorbent material sub container 1116 would be screened or grated to hold and support the adsorbent porous media inside the grid while allowing air to flow through it orthogonally with nominal resistance.”).
Regarding claim 17, Eisenberger and Stark teach the method as applied to claim 14 above. Stark further teaches wherein the support structure comprises at least one of: a quadrilateral shape (Fig. 2, horizontal bottom member 212 and vertical side members 214 form a quadrilateral shape) and wherein each side of the quadrilateral shape is configured to support a side of an array of the plurality of monolith arrays (Col. 6, lines 36-38 “Each structural frame 208 may be sized to receive and support a carbon capture media container, such as the square cell 112”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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 (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights