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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-3 and 5 are presented in shaded grayscale which makes details difficult to discern when the figures are reproduced and should instead be presented in line drawing format. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6, 8, 16 and 18 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.
The term “about” in claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination the term “about” will be interpreted as the recited value ±10%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 2, 7-12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0130504 A1 to Voice et al. (Voice) in view of WO 2025/136354 A1 to Miranda et al. (Miranda).
In reference to claim 1, Voice discloses a portable carbon capture system to reduce CO2 emissions from diesel engines comprising (“to reduce...” is interpreted as intended use; however, see par. 0154): (a) A heat exchanger (40; Fig. 3A, 230, 232; Fig. 4) to cool exhaust gas from the diesel engine (10); (b) A packed absorber column (42; pars. 0075-0076, 210; Fig. 4) comprising plates (“trays”; pars. 0075-0076) wherein cooled exhaust gas is introduced at the lower section and absorbing solvent is introduced at the top section via a single nozzle, six nozzles, or nine nozzles (“spray nozzles”; par. 0076); and (c) A tank to store used absorbing solvent (46; par. 0057), but fails to explicitly disclose the heat exchanger is a fin and tube heat exchanger. However, Miranda discloses a similar carbon capture system wherein a fin and tube heat exchanger (62; par. 0023) is used to cool exhaust gas from an engine (par. 0002). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have simply substituted the known fin and tube heat exchanger disclosed by Miranda for the known heat exchanger of Voice. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
In reference to claim 2, the modified Voice teaches the portable carbon capture system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the particular dimensions of the absorber column. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the dimensions of the column would depend on the particular application and would need to be adapted based on a number of variables including but not limited to: engine size and operating parameters, exhaust composition and flow rate and desired emissions targets. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the modified Voice to include the particular dimensions in the design process through routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In reference to claim 7, the modified Voice teaches the portable carbon capture system of claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger cools the exhaust gas to a temperature lower than 50° C (pars. 0022, 0082).
In reference to claim 8, the modified Voice teaches the portable carbon capture system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the particular dimensions of the heat exchanger. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the dimensions of the heat exchanger would depend on the particular application and would need to be adapted based on a number of variables including but not limited to: environmental conditions, exhaust temperature and flow rate, and working temperature of the absorbent. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the modified Voice to include the particular dimensions in the design process through routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In reference to claim 9, the modified Voice teaches the portable carbon capture system of claim 1, wherein the absorbing solvent is monoethanolamine (par. 0101).
In reference to claim 10, the modified Voice teaches the portable carbon capture system of claim 1, further comprising a mesh component inside the absorber system (“distillation trays”, par. 0076).
In reference to claim(s) 11, 12 and 17-19, under the principles of inherency, the prior art apparatus of the modified Voice would necessarily perform the method(s) claimed in its normal and usual operation and thereby meets the limitations of the claim(s).
Claim(s) 3-6 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Voice as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2020/0147542 A1 to Jolly et al. (Jolly).
In reference to claims 3-6, the modified Voice teaches the portable carbon capture system of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose the particular number of nozzles or spray pattern. However, Jolly discloses a similar carbon capture system comprising nozzles (pars. 0043, 0071) capable of emitting the solvent in a cone-shaped fog pattern (pars. 0128, 0207) and teaches the number of nozzles and size of droplets depends upon variables such as rate of gas flow, rate of fluid flow, and droplet velocity (par. 0056) in order to avoid droplet collision and agglomeration (par. 0030). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings regarding nozzle arrangement of Jolly into the system of the modified Voice to arrive at the particular number of nozzles, spray shape and droplet size through routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In reference to claim(s) 13-16, under the principles of inherency, the prior art apparatus of the modified Voice would necessarily perform the method(s) claimed in its normal and usual operation and thereby meets the limitations of the claim(s).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0347238 A1, 2025/0058270 A1, 2024/0157285 A1 and 2024/0042370 A1 each disclose carbon capture systems utilizing gas pre-cooling and MEA as an absorbent and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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, Mark Laurenzi III can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
12 February 2026