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 § 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 (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 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) 1-4, 7, 8-17, 20, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meirav (US20110198055).
Claim 1: Meirav teaches in figure 1 a capture reaction vessel for processing an air supply (Abstract teaches system for removing contaminants from air.) comprising: a housing comprising a hollow container (Figure 1 system 100. 160 has ducts, which read upon a hollow container. Figure 3 shows air treatment module 300 which also has a hollow container with an insert 330. The building or vehicle housing this device can also read upon a hollow container.); a housing inlet arranged on the housing and configured to receive a portion of the air supply of an external area of the housing (Intake 170 takes in air from space 110, which is outside the housing of the air system and sends it into 160 to 120 before reaching air treatment 150. This entire portion can be considered a housing inlet.); a filter arranged within the housing at the housing inlet and configured to remove particular matter or a particular gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet ([0029] teaches that there are vents/ducts at 170 and that air handling unit can have filter racks for cleaning the air.); a reaction media arranged within the housing, the reaction media configured to receive the filtered portion of the air supply and capture a portion of a constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply ([0029] teaches air treatment system 150 that removes unwanted gases, vapors, and contamination.); a housing outlet arranged on the housing and configured to return the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media back to the external area of the housing (Housing outlet is the section downstream of 150 which sends the air back out through 180 and into space 110.); and a fan arranged within the housing and configured to influence the portion of the air supply from the housing inlet, through the reaction media, and through the housing outlet ([0029] teaches 120 can include a blower for circulating air through the duct 160 into and out of 110.).
Claim 2: Meirav teaches the filter is arranged in series with the reaction media (150 is downstream of 120.).
Claim 3: Meirav teaches a set of sensors; and a controller that receives outputs of the set of sensors ([0061] teaches the system can have sensors that monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation.).
The limitation of “controls the system to process both combustion exhaust gas and non-combusted gas” is considered to be intended usage. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). In this case the type of gas being taken in from the space could be any kind of gas that has contaminants to be removed such as CO2 or volatile organic compounds ([0006]).
Claim 4: Meirav teaches the set of sensors include a gas sensor, a temperature sensor, and a gas flow sensor ([0061] teaches the sensors include CO2 meters, thermometers, and flow meters.).
Claim 7: Meirav teaches a gas sensor to output a signal corresponding to a concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet; and a controller to receive the signal from the gas sensor, and based on the concentration of the constituent gas being above a threshold amount, to cause the fan to influence the portion of the air supply moving through the housing at an increased speed ([0054] teaches that a combination of valves/shutters and fans/blowers can control the flow of air during the three possible modes of operation. Since [0061] teaches that the CO2 sensors determine the modes of operation, this would read upon the limitation as one of the modes requires the fan to move the air through the treatment and two of the modes do not. In this case the active adsorption mode would move the air through the treatment while the desorption and shutdown modes would not.).
Claim 8: Meirav teaches the housing inlet is configured to receive the portion of the air supply which is characterized by a first carbon dioxide concentration; wherein the reaction media absorbs carbon dioxide from the filtered portion of the air supply to capture the portion of the constituent gas; and wherein the housing outlet is configured to return the portion of the air supply back to the external area of the housing, the portion of the air supply returned characterized by a second carbon dioxide concentration less than the first carbon dioxide concentration ([0029] teaches that the air treatment system 150 can remove CO2 from the space 110. This would mean the air leaving 150 has a smaller concentration of CO2 than the entering air.).
Claim 9: Meirav teaches a first access tap to couple the housing inlet to an exhaust stack to receive the portion of the air supply; and a second access tap to couple the housing outlet to the exhaust stack to return the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media (The access taps can be read upon by 170 and 180. The exhaust stack can be read upon by the space 110.).
Claim 10: Meirav teaches the housing inlet receives the portion of the air supply from a heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system ([0027] teaches that figure 1 shows an HVAC system 100. [0004] teaches that the invention makes the system easily integrated with existing HVAC systems in order to not replace existing infrastructure.).
Claim 11: Meirav teaches the housing inlet receives the portion of the air supply from ambient indoor air ([0008] teaches the air treatment system removes contaminants from indoor air.).
Claim 12: Meirav teaches a reaction media container housing the reaction media (Figure 2a and [0038]-[0041] shows the housing of the reaction media 230.).
Claim 13: Meirav teaches a set of sensors ([0061] teaches sensors and gauges including CO2 meters, thermometers, flow meters, and pressure gauges.); and a controller configured to execute a processing cycle to filter the portion of the air supply and to capture the portion of the constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply ([0061] teaches that the sensors are used to monitor the system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation. One of the modes is the active air treatment system. This reads upon a controller.); wherein during a first segment of the processing cycle, the controller triggers the fan to draw the portion of the air supply into the housing inlet; wherein during a second segment of the processing cycle, the reaction media captures the portion of the constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply; wherein during a third segment of the processing cycle, the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media is returned back to the external area of the housing (All of these segments are just the normal operating cycle of the air treatment system. [0029] teaches the entire operation of the system. The air enters at 170/160 from space 110, air treatment system 150 captures CO2, the air leaves 150 and returns to 110.); and upon termination of the processing cycle, the controller receives outputs from the set of sensors to calculate one or more of an amount of the constituent gas captured by the reaction media, a gas flow rate, and a gas concentration difference ([0007] teaches that the air treatment module includes sensors to measure temperature, flow rate, or gas composition. [0054]-[0056] teaches there are multiple modes of operation for the air treatment module depending on the adsorbent material inside. This limitation is also not adding any kind of additional structure to the claims. Just calculating or determining a value does not impart any structure to the claim.).
Claim 14: Meirav teaches during the second processing cycle, the controller triggers the fan to draw a next portion of the air supply into the housing inlet (Since the fan is continuously operating while the device is in the active adsorption mode, this limitation is read upon by the prior art. If the device is in active adsorption mode, then the fan would continue to operate the draw air in. This limitation is also considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.).
Claim 15: Meirav teaches a method for processing an air supply (Abstract teaches system for removing contaminants from air.) comprising: receiving, at a housing inlet arranged on a housing comprising a hollow container, a portion of the air supply of an external area of the housing (Intake 170 takes in air from space 110, which is outside the housing of the air system and sends it into 160 to 120 before reaching air treatment 150. This entire portion can be considered a housing inlet. 160 has ducts, which read upon a hollow container. Figure 3 shows air treatment module 300 which also has a hollow container with an insert 330. The building or vehicle housing this device can also read upon a hollow container.); filtering particular matter or a particular gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet by a filter arranged within the housing at the housing inlet ([0029] teaches that there are vents/ducts at 170 and that air handling unit can have filter racks for cleaning the air.); capturing a portion of a constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply by a reaction media arranged within the housing ([0029] teaches air treatment system 150 that removes unwanted gases, vapors, and contamination.); and returning the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media back to the external area of the housing via a housing outlet arranged on the housing (Housing outlet is the section downstream of 150 which sends the air back out through 180 and into space 110.).
Claim 16: Meirav teaches influencing the portion of the air supply from the housing inlet, through the reaction media, and through the housing outlet by a fan arranged within the housing ([0029] teaches 120 can include a blower for circulating air through the duct 160 into and out of 110.).
Claim 17: Meirav teaches arranging the filter in series with the reaction media (150 is downstream of the filter.).
Claim 20: Meirav teaches determining a concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet; and based on the concentration of the constituent gas being above a threshold amount, causing a fan to influence the portion of the air supply moving through the housing at an increased speed ([0054] teaches that a combination of valves/shutters and fans/blowers can control the flow of air during the three possible modes of operation. Since [0061] teaches that the CO2 sensors determine the modes of operation, this would read upon the limitation as one of the modes requires the fan to move the air through the treatment and two of the modes do not. In this case the active adsorption mode would move the air through the treatment while the desorption and shutdown modes would not.).
Claim 23: Meirav teaches the housing encloses the filter, the reaction media, and the fan ([0008] teaches that this can be positioned within a building. Therefore this would read upon the limitation.).
Claim 25: Meirav teaches a reaction media container arranged within the housing and configured to hold the reaction media ([0038]-[0040] and figure 2 teaches that the reaction media is inside of container 200. The reaction media is the insert 230 that has the adsorbent material.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meirav.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meirav in view of Wright (US20100231196).
Rejection in view of Meirav
Claim 5: Meirav does not explicitly teach a first gas sensor arranged proximal the housing inlet to output a first signal corresponding to a first concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet; and a second gas sensor arranged proximal the housing outlet to output a second signal corresponding to a second concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media. Meirav teaches in [0061] the system can have sensors including CO2 sensors that monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple CO2 sensors since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sensors at optimal locations such as proximal to the housing inlet and housing outlet since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case being able to measure the gas concentrations before and after the air goes through the air treatment device would ensure the air treatment device is working properly.
Claim 6: The limitation “a controller configured to estimate a constituent gas absorption rate by the reaction media based on a difference between the first concentration of the constituent gas and the second concentration of the constituent gas” is considered to be intended usage. This does not add any structure to the claims since the controller is only calculating or determining a value. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Meirav does teach in [0061] that the sensors can monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation. [0054] teaches that this can be active adsorption mode, desorption/regeneration mode, or shutdown/disconnect mode. In this case the system uses the sensors to determine what kind of mode the system needs to be in depending on how much CO2 the material has taken in already and would read upon the limitation.
Claim 24: Meirav does not explicitly state the filter is coupled to an interior wall of the housing adjacent to the housing inlet. Since Meirav teaches that the entire system is inside of a building ([0009]), the ducts and pieces would be within the building. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the filter secured at an optimal location, such as an interior wall of the housing adjacent to the housing inlet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Rejection in view of Meirav and Wright
Claim 18: Meirav does not explicitly teach determining a first concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet; and determining a second concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media. Meirav teaches in [0061] the system can have sensors including CO2 sensors that monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation.
Wright teaches a method for determining the useful service life of a gas filtration and purification system (abstract). Wright teaches in figure 1 and [0008] there are two sensors 50 with a sorbent in between them to measure the end of service life. [0018]-[0020] teaches that the sensor detects the undesirable chemical in the air as once the downstream filter detects that the undesirable chemical has penetrated the filter, it would indicate that the filter needs to be replaced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a first concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply entering the housing inlet and determine a second concentration of the constituent gas from the portion of the air supply exiting the reaction media of Meirav as Wright teaches that this allows for making sure that the air treatment is properly working in case of a filter failure or end of service life.
Claim 19: The limitation “estimating a constituent gas absorption rate by the reaction media based on a difference between the first concentration of the constituent gas and the second concentration of the constituent gas” does not impart any limitations to the claim. Merely determining a value does not contribute to the limitation. In this case Wright would teach this limitation as the difference between the two sensors would show there is an issue with the filter itself as taught in [0021].
Claim 21: Meirav teaches the reaction media removes a carbon product (claim 10 of the prior art teaches that it removes CO2.). Meirav does not explicitly state the controller is configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the constituent gas absorption rate. Meirav teaches in [0061] the system can have sensors including CO2 sensors that monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation.
Wright teaches a method for determining the useful service life of a gas filtration and purification system (abstract). Wright teaches in figure 1 and [0008] there are two sensors 50 with a sorbent in between them to measure the end of service life. [0018]-[0020] teaches that the sensor detects the undesirable chemical in the air as once the downstream filter detects that the undesirable chemical has penetrated the filter, it would indicate that the filter needs to be replaced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller of Meirav configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the constituent gas absorption rate as Wright teaches that this allows for making sure that the air treatment is properly working in case of a filter failure or end of service life.
The limitation of “converts the portion of constituent gas into a carbon product during a processing cycle for sequestration of the carbon product combined with the reaction media” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 22: Meirav teaches the reaction media removes a carbon product (claim 10 of the prior art teaches that it removes CO2.). Meirav does not explicitly state the controller is configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the amount of constituent gas captured by the reaction media. Meirav teaches in [0061] the system can have sensors including CO2 sensors that monitor system functionality and trigger automatic switching between modes of operation.
Wright teaches a method for determining the useful service life of a gas filtration and purification system (abstract). Wright teaches in figure 1 and [0008] there are two sensors 50 with a sorbent in between them to measure the end of service life. [0018]-[0020] teaches that the sensor detects the undesirable chemical in the air as once the downstream filter detects that the undesirable chemical has penetrated the filter, it would indicate that the filter needs to be replaced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller of Meirav configured to generate and transmit a notification to replace the reaction media based on the amount of constituent gas captured as Wright teaches that this allows for making sure that the air treatment is properly working in case of a filter failure or end of service life.
The limitation of “converts the portion of constituent gas into a carbon product during a processing cycle for sequestration of the carbon product combined with the reaction media” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument 1:
Applicant argues in pages 9-11 that the prior art of Meirav does not teach a capture reaction vessel with a housing with a hollow container, and a filter arranged within the housing, a reaction media arranged within the housing, and the reaction media is configured to receive filter portion of the air supply and capture a portion of constituent gas from the filtered portion of the air supply. Instead Meirav teaches a different arrangement of components and air treatment system 150 only processes some of the air diverted to it from 120 via ducts. Applicant also argues that the housing is the boundary of the reaction vessel itself and that it is designed to contain and direct the flow of a portion of the gas stream, the inlets and outlets are precisely engineered ports for high concentration/temperature exhaust gas recirculation which is unlike a door or window of a room. The housing is a dedicated process containment vessel while a room in a building is not. An area in a building is an architectural space that might contain the emission capture system but the housing itself is the function container and core unit of the system.
Examiner response 1:
Examiner argues that [0029] teaches that all some or all of the air can be sent to 150. Since this is capable of sending all of the air, it still reads upon the limitation. Examiner argues that the term “capture reaction vessel” does not impart additional structure to the claims. Any container can be a “capture reaction vessel” as this adds no additional structure to the claims. Examiner also argues that applicants argue in detail the difference between a housing and the prior art in the last paragraph of page 11, however none of these limitations are in the claim itself. The new limitation of the housing comprising a hollow container has the transitional phrase “comprising” which means that it can include this and more. Therefore any part of the prior art using for the housing with a hollow container can read upon the limitation. A building itself can be a hollow container, it just has other things put into it.
Examiner’s note: The issue with claim 1 is that the broadest reasonable interpretation is a housing with an inlet and outlet that takes in air and returns air, a filter to remove something from the air, a reaction media (this can also be a filter) that removes something from the air, and a fan to drive the air through. There is no further structure such as the detailed differences given by the applicant. This can be any kind of air circulation system. Claim 15 has the same issue. The broadest interpretation is a housing receiving and returning air, a filter to remove something from the gas, a second filter (reaction media has no structure) to remove something. There isn’t even a fan to move the air. There is no additional structure that differentiates this from just any kind of air conditioning system or HVAC system. It is suggested to include more structure in terms of what this reaction vessel is.
Applicant argument 2:
Applicant argues in pages 12-14 that claim 24 is not taught by Meirav as it does not teach the filter is coupled to an interior wall of the housing adjacent to the housing inlet. In this case rearrangement of parts would not work as moving the filter racks changes the operation of the air handling unit 120.
Examiner response 2:
It appears applicant is assuming the examiner is stating that the filter themselves would be moved. Examiner is stating that the filter device itself can be moved within the building to be at optimal locations due to other parts of the building, therefore it can be coupled to an interior wall. This does not mean each filter is coupled to the interior wall but the entire air handling unit 120 as a whole can be placed at any optimal location. Regarding the fact this is adjacent to the housing inlet, the figure shows this is within a building meant to control the air to a room, and therefore any kind of proximity can be read upon as being adjacent if this was in a building or vehicle they would be in close proximity already. There also does not appear to be any unexpected results for having the filter at this location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 12/15/2025/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776