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 .
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 04/10/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because information disclosure statement is missing the application number and filing date of the information disclosure statement. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 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: “desalination unit”, “extraction unit” and “fixation unit” in claim 5.
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. The “desalination unit” will be interpreted as Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane ¶[0017], however the specification reads the desalination unit is a plant or factory instead being used in a plant or factory. The “extraction unit” will be interpreted as ion exchange ¶[0021]. The “fixation unit” will be interpreted as a packed column ¶[0031] .
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Constantz et al (Patent Application Publication US 20140234946 A1, hereinafter Constantz).
Regarding claim 5, Constantz teaches a carbon dioxide fixation system comprising: a desalination unit configured to desalinate seawater to produce fresh water and concentrated seawater(¶[0040] and Fig 8); an extraction unit configured to extract NaOH or HCl for adjustment of pH from the seawater(¶[0211-0212], by separating positive or negative ions the disclosure is capable of adjustment of pH of seawater) and a fixation unit configured to fix carbon dioxide to a mineral source contained in the concentrated seawater by supplying gas containing the carbon dioxide to the concentrated seawater (¶[0206] and Fig 8).
Regarding the “configured to” limitations associated with the claimed structural features, the corresponding structures disclosed by Constantz are capable of the claimed configurations and functions. The claimed functional language does not distinguish the claimed structures from the prior art structures because the prior art structures are capable of performing the claimed functions (In re Schreiber, 128
PNG
media_image1.png
404
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) and MPEP 2114
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz et al (Patent Application Publication US 20140234946 A1, hereinafter Constantz) and further in view of Farsad et al (Patent Application Publication US 2010 0230830 A1, hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Constantz disclose a carbon dioxide fixation method comprising: desalinating seawater to produce fresh water and concentrated seawater (Fig 7 and ¶[0229]); extracting NaOH or HCl from the seawater (¶[0040] and Fig 7 permeate 1,2) and fixing carbon dioxide to a mineral source contained in the concentrated seawater by supplying gas containing the carbon dioxide to the concentrated (Fig 7) seawater but fails to explicitly teach adjusting pH of the seawater using the NaOH or the HCl.
However, Farsad disclose adjusting pH of the seawater using the NaOH or the HCl (¶[0099]). Constantz and Farsad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods and devices to processing CO2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Constantz to incorporate the teachings of Farsad and adjusting pH of the
PNG
media_image2.png
306
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
seawater using the NaOH or the HCl to control carbonates precipitation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Constantz teaches carbon dioxide fixation method of claim 1, wherein in the desalinating of the seawater, the fresh water and the concentrated seawater are separated using a reverse osmosis membrane (Constantz ¶[0040] and Fig 8).
Regarding claim 3, modified Constantz teaches carbon dioxide fixation method of claim 1, wherein carbon dioxide gas contained in exhaust gas discharged from a factory or a plant is supplied to the concentrated seawater (Constantz [¶0037]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Constantz teaches carbon dioxide fixation method of claim 1, wherein the fresh water is used as a coolant for the factory or the plant that discharges the exhaust gas (Farsad [¶0309]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding claim 5, Farsad explicitly teaches ion exchange that regulating pH of seawater by separating NaOH or HCl.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HARRISON SHIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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.
/K.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights