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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/20/2026, was filed after the mailing date of the first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/09/2026. The rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claim 5 is cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-4 and 6-7 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Electrolytic reduction device in at least claim 1;
Ethyl glycol manufacturing device in at least claim 2;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examples of the electrolytic reduction device 30 include an electrolysis device
described in Japanese Unexamined Patent Application, First Publication No. 2018- 150596, an electrolysis device described in Japanese Unexamined Patent Application, First Publication No. 2019-44238, and an electrolytic reduction device described in PCT International Publication No. WO 2022/049638, and the like, but are not particularly limited thereto., 0022 of Applicant Specification;
Examples of the ethylene glycol manufacturing device 50 include a reaction device described in Japanese Unexamined Patent Application, First Publication No. 2000-128814, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application, First Publication No. 2000- 143562, and Japanese Unexamined Patent Application, First Publication No. 2001-316308, and the like, but are not limited thereto, 0025 of Applicant Specification;
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “a oxygen flow rate regulator” should be - - an oxygen flow rate regulator - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamire et al. (US20180265993A1) in view of Noack et al. (US20080127821A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamire teaches an air conditioning system [carbon dioxide conversion system 100, Figure 1 ; 0035] comprising:
a carbon dioxide separator [scrubber-separator 102, Figure 1; 0037] configured to separate some or all of carbon dioxide from air [where scrubber 102 may absorb contaminants such as CO2 from contaminated air 101, Figure 1; 0037] discharged from a space to be processed that contains carbon dioxide [where contaminated air 101 is from an enclosed environment 140, Figure 1; 0035];
an electrolytic reduction device [electrochemical conversion cell 130, Figure 1; 0040] configured to generate a hydrocarbon [where methane may be generated depending on the cathode material; 0040] and oxygen [where the half reaction at the anode generates oxygen; 0040] using the separated carbon dioxide as a raw material [where the cell 140 can receive a used ionic liquid having CO2, Figure 1; 0041]; and
an oxygen supply return configured to supply some or all of the oxygen generated by the electrolytic reduction device [where the cell 130 discharges O2 to the environment 140, Figure 1; 0041].
But does not teach where an oxygen supply amount controller configured to supply some or all of the oxygen based on the oxygen concentration in the space to be processed.
However, Noack teaches a method and an apparatus for reducing the carbon dioxide concentration in air in closed or partly closed units of space and if necessary, at the same time as oxygen enrichment [0003] where an oxygen supply amount controller [computer-aided control device; 0080] is configured to supply some or all of the oxygen generated [from an oxygen enrichment system; 0080] based on the oxygen concentration in the space to be processed [where the invention comprises O2 sensors coupled therewith the computer aided control devices for adjustment of the stream volumes of the air streams returned to the unit of space from the oxygen enrichment system; 0080] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., establish and maintain a defined average oxygen content and/or carbon dioxide content of the air in the unit of space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Kamire to have where an oxygen supply amount controller configured to supply some or all of the oxygen based on the oxygen concentration in the space to be processed in view of the teachings of Noack where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., establish and maintain a defined average oxygen content and/or carbon dioxide content of the air in the unit of space.
Regarding Claim 6, Kamire, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein air inside the space to be processed [where contaminated air 101 is from enclosed environment 140; 0035] is isolated from the outside [where the enclosed environment 140 can be configured to be closed to, or sealed from, ambient air or gas, Figure 1; 0035].
Regarding Claim 7, It is noted that although the preamble of claim 7 is directed toward a method, the structure of the combined teachings disclose all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamire et al. (US20180265993A1) in view of Noack et al. (US20080127821A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Flanders et al. (WO2022031726A2).
Regarding Claim 2, Kamire, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach an ethylene glycol manufacturing device configured to generate ethylene glycol using some or all of the hydrocarbon generated by the electrolytic reduction device as a raw material.
However, Flanders teaches a new and useful system and method for reactor control in the carbon oxide reactor field [0003] where an ethylene glycol manufacturing device [an ethylene oxide production reactor 1005 and a MEG production reactor 1007, Figure 10A; 0313] is configured to generate ethylene glycol [where reactor 1005 is a direct ethylene oxide reactor designed or configured to produce ethylene oxide directly from ethylene and oxygen; 0314; where reactor 1007 may be configured to react the ethylene oxide and water to produce ethylene glycol; 0315] using some or all of the hydrocarbon generated by the electrolytic reduction device as a raw material [where system 1001 is configured to deliver the ethylene from electrolyzer 1003 to ethylene oxide production reactor 1005, Figure 10A; 0313] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., where liquid products such as ethylene glycol are easier to store for extended periods of time [Flanders; 0408]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where an ethylene glycol manufacturing device configured to generate ethylene glycol using some or all of the hydrocarbon generated by the electrolytic reduction device as a raw material in view of the teachings of Flanders where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., where liquid products such as ethylene glycol are easier to store for extended periods of time [Flanders; 0408].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamire et al. (US20180265993A1) in view of Noack et al. (US20080127821A1) and Flanders et al. (WO2022031726A2) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (US20100267972A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kamire, as modified teaches the invention of claim 2 and further teaches the supply of some of the oxygen generated by the electrolytic reduction device to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device [where, optionally, system 1001 is additionally configured to deliver oxygen from electrolyzer 1003 to reactor 1005; 0313, refer to Flanders as applied to claim 2 above] but does not teach wherein the oxygen supply amount controller further includes an oxygen flow rate regulator configured to supply some of the oxygen generated by the electrolytic reduction device to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device.
However, Zhang teaches an improved method of operating alkylene oxide production processes using high efficiency catalysts to achieve a specified alkylene oxide production rate [0002] wherein the oxygen supply amount controller [a computerized distributed control system that implements analyzer controller 19; 0087] further includes an oxygen flow rate regulator [oxygen flow controller 17, Figure 1; 0087] configured to supply some of the oxygen [from oxygen feed 15, Figure 1; 0080] to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device [where reactor 10 produces an alkylene oxide product from ethane, ethylene oxide, and ethylene oxide is used to produce ethylene glycol; 0026;0003] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., minimizing feed rate disturbances to downstream units like glycol production units by controlling oxygen flow [Zhang; 0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein the oxygen supply amount controller further includes an oxygen flow rate regulator configured to supply some of the oxygen generated by the electrolytic reduction device to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device in view of the teachings of Zhang where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., minimizing feed rate disturbances to downstream units like glycol production units by controlling oxygen flow [Zhang; 0010].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamire et al. (US20180265993A1) in view of Noack et al. (US20080127821A1) and Flanders et al. (WO2022031726A2) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Radaelli et al. (WO2016149507A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Kamire, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and does not teach a hydrocarbon amount controller configured to adjust a flow rate of the hydrocarbon supplied to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device.
However, Radaelli teaches systems and methods for reacting methane in an oxidative coupling of methane ("OCM") process to yield products comprising hydrocarbon compounds with two or more carbon atoms [0003] wherein a hydrocarbon amount controller [where ta control system increases or decreases an amount of CH4 received by the OCM reactor; 0007] is configured to adjust a flow rate of the hydrocarbon supplied to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device [OCM reactor; 0007; where an OCM process is integrated with an ethylene glycol production process, Figure 22; 00129] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., maintaining a preferred concentration of reactants [Radaelli;0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a hydrocarbon amount controller configured to adjust a flow rate of the hydrocarbon supplied to the ethylene glycol manufacturing device in view of the teachings of Radaelli where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., maintaining a preferred concentration of reactants [Radaelli;0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 4-8 of the remarks filed 07/09/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants arguments on page 9 of the remarks filed 07/09/2026 with respect to claims 2 and 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants argues on page 9-10 of the remarks filed 07/09/2026 with respect to claim 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 6 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of record is considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights