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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7 and 12-20, drawn to a method of treating an air stream, classified in F24F12/006.
II. Claims 8-11, drawn to a system having a heat exchanger, classified in F28D20/003.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process, may be practiced by a different apparatus, such as coaxial tubing or providing a thermal bridge between piping.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: Drawn to Claims 1-7, being a method for treating an air stream utilizing a thermochemical material.
Species B: Drawn to Claims 12-20, being a method for treating an air stream utilizing a sorbent material.
The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, No Claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The inventions contain divergent subject matter that requires dissimilar searches (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The art applicable to one invention will not necessarily be applicable to the other invention and the search for one invention will not necessarily yield relevant art for the other invention. Therefore, a search burden exists if both inventions are examined together.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Alexandra Hall on 03/12/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, Species A, claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “The method of claim 8, wherein” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how Claim 7 further limits Claim 8. Claim 7 further limits the salt hydrate previously put forth in Claim 6. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “The method of claim 8, wherein” will be interpreted as – The method of claim 6, wherein --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanguy et al. (Translation of FR2996292A1), hereinafter referred to as Tanguy.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
185
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Second Air Stream)][AltContent: textbox (First Air Stream)]Tanguy Figure 3
Regarding Claim 1, Tanguy discloses a method comprising:
contacting a thermochemical material (10) with a first air stream (shown in annotated figure 3, emanating from the air outlet (18) of the building (2)) resulting in a dehumidified and heated first air stream (“The invention is therefore remarkable in that it takes advantage of the moisture of the stale airflow leaving the building to generate heat via an exothermic hydration reaction, which heat is then used to heat the flow of heat. fresh air using the first exchanger”);
directing the dehumidified and heated first air stream to interact with a second air stream (60, shown in annotated figure 3); and
releasing a heated second air stream (60) into an indoor space (2); wherein:
the first air stream enters the TCM from the indoor space (shown in annotated figure 3), and the directing causes the second air stream to be heated resulting in the heated second air stream (shown in figure 3, wherein the second stream is heated to 30°).
Regarding Claim 2, Tanguy further discloses the contacting comprises: receiving the first air stream (shown in annotated figure 3); and
removing a humidity from the first air stream resulting in the dehumidified and heated first air stream (“The invention is therefore remarkable in that it takes advantage of the moisture of the stale airflow leaving the building to generate heat via an exothermic hydration reaction, which heat is then used to heat the flow of heat”); wherein:
the removing results in the humidity being absorbed by the TCM (see annotation above), and the contacting is performed in a TCM bed (interior of the reactor (10) containing “a reactive material such as that a salt… it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2, in particular for so-called chemisorption reactions”).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanguy further discloses the directing comprises:
receiving the dehumidified and heated first air stream and the second air stream (shown in figure 3, being the heat exchanger (4) that receives both fluids streams); and transferring a heat from the dehumidified and heated first air stream (shown in figure 3, the first stream emanating from the thermochemical reactor (10)) to the second air stream (60); wherein:
the transferring results in the dehumidified and heated first air stream becoming an exhausted first air stream (shown in figure 3), and the transferring results in the second air stream (60) becoming the heated second air stream (shown in figure 3, wherein the air flow (60) is heated from -5°C to 30°C).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanguy further discloses the directing is performed in a heat exchanger (4, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanguy further discloses the second air stream (60) enters the heat exchanger (4) from an external ambient (“a fresh air flow 60 coming from outside”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanguy further discloses the TCM comprises a salt hydrate (“a reactive material such as that a salt… it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2, in particular for so-called chemisorption reactions”).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanguy further discloses the salt hydrate comprises at least one of magnesium chloride (MgCl2), strontium bromide (SrBr2) (“a reactive material such as that a salt… it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2, in particular for so-called chemisorption reactions”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763