DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 Apr. 2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaseda et al. US 2018/0001253 (hereafter Kaseda) and further in view of Nagayasu et al. US 2015/0139861 (hereafter Nagayasu), Jamtvedt et al. US 2014/0123851 (hereafter Jamtvedt), “Demister Pads/Mist Eliminators” Haver Standard brochure published 16 Nov. 2017 accessed at <https://haverstandard.com/assets/images/Download/Demister-Brochure.pdf> (hereafter Haver), Abdullah et al. “Investigating pressure drop across wire mesh mist eliminators in bubble column” Journal of Saudi Chemical Society (2011) 15, 1–9 (hereafter Abdullah), and El-Dessouky et al. “New material for the wire mesh demister” published 22 Jan. 2016 (hereafter Dessouky).
Regarding claim 1, Kaseda teaches a carbon dioxide capture system (Fig 1) comprising:
a carbon dioxide capturer (21) configured to cause a carbon dioxide contained in a combustion exhaust gas to be absorbed into an absorbing liquid containing an amine (¶20), wherein the carbon dioxide capturer is a countercurrent gas-liquid contact device (¶22);
a first washer (70) including a sprayer (72) and configured to wash the combustion exhaust gas from the carbon dioxide capturer with a mist of a first cleaning liquid (12) sprayed by the sprayer to capture the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas (¶39-40);
a cleaning liquid mist capturer (93) configured to capture the mist of the first cleaning liquid contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the first washer, wherein the cleaning liquid mist capturer is a countercurrent gas-liquid contact device (¶43),
a second washer (60) including a cleaning liquid diffuser (72) and configured to wash the combustion exhaust gas from the cleaning liquid mist capturer with a second cleaning liquid (11) diffused and dropped by the cleaning liquid diffuser to capture the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas, and
wherein the first washer has a receiver (73) arranged below the sprayer and configured to receive the mist of the first cleaning liquid, and a washing-capturing space (space of 71) arranged between the sprayer and the receiver, in the washing-capturing space the mist of the first cleaning liquid comes into gas-liquid contact with the combustion exhaust gas,
wherein the receiver includes a receiver body (lower portion of 73), an opening (gap through which the gas is shown passing above the receiver) and a cover (top part of 73),
wherein the cleaning liquid mist capturer includes a mist capture demister,
wherein the cleaning liquid mist capturer includes a mist capture demister (93).
Kaseda does not teach:
a washer exit demister configured to trap the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the cleaning liquid mist capturer,
in the washing-capturing space the mist of the first cleaning liquid comes into gas-liquid contact with the combustion exhaust gas while freely dropping, and the washing-capturing space is free of a structure in which the first cleaning liquid flows down on a surface of the structure;
wherein a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister such that pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas passing through the mist capture demister is lower than pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas in the washer exit demister, and
wherein the washer exit demister is adjacent to the mist capture demister.
Nagayasu teaches a carbon dioxide capture system (Fig 1) comprising
a cleaning liquid mist capturer (37) configured to capture the mist of the first cleaning liquid (63) contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the first washer (washer comprising 62A), wherein the cleaning liquid mist capturer is a countercurrent gas-liquid contact device (¶47),
a washer exit demister (36) configured to trap the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the cleaning liquid mist capturer (¶97),
wherein a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister such that pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas passing through the mist capture demister is lower than pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas in the washer exit demister (¶96-97, where the large particle diameter collection of mist capturer 37 corresponds to a large porosity and the fine mist collection of demister 36 corresponds to a smaller porosity), and
wherein the washer exit demister is adjacent to the mist capture demister (¶96-97, as shown in Fig 1).
Nagayasu teaches where the system allows reduces the concentration of amine by collecting the mist (¶98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaseda (Fig 1) by incorporating the cleaning liquid mist capturer (Kaseda 93; Nagayasu 37) and the washer exit demister (Nagayasu 36) in order to reduce the concentration of amine by collecting the mist (Nagayasu ¶98). Further, the porosity of the mist capture demister being larger than the porosity of the washer exit demister allows larger particles to be collected before reaching the fine particle collector (¶96-98).
Jamtvedt teaches a gas-liquid contactor which may optionally comprise a packing (¶27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first washer (60) of Kaseda by substituting the no packing (¶27) of Jamtvedt as a matter of obvious substituting art recognized equivalents know for the same purpose (MPEP §2144.06 II).
The modification would have resulted in the washing-capturing space the mist of the first cleaning liquid comes into gas-liquid contact with the combustion exhaust gas while freely dropping, and the washing-capturing space is free of a structure in which the first cleaning liquid flows down on a surface of the structure.
Haver teaches demisters (page 3) where pressure drop and efficiency are two variables that are inversely proportional (page 6, Design and Engineering Data).
Abdullah teaches demisters (page 3) where pressure drop and efficiency are two variables that are inversely proportional (page 3 last paragraph of Introduction).
Abdullah teaches where porosity and pressure drop are two variables that are proportional (page 3 equation 4).
Dessouky teaches a demister (page 1) wherein the porosity affects the pressure drop (page 4, first partial paragraph).
MPEP §2144.05 II A-B states that where the prior art recognized a variable to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosities and pressure drops of the mist capture and washer exit demisters, such that a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister and such that a pressure drop of the mist capture demister is smaller than a pressure drop of the washer exit demister, as a matter of obvious optimization of the pressure drop and the efficiency. For instance, it would have been obvious for the mist capture demister to prioritize pressure drop to minimize pressure drop within the column and for the washer exit demister to prioritize efficiency to minimize liquid droplets exhausted out of the column.
The modification would have resulted in wherein a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister such that pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas passing through the mist capture demister is lower than pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas in the washer exit demister.
Abdullah teaches where pressure drop is primarily a function of superficial gas velocity, mist loading and the mist’s physical properties, such as density and viscosity (page 2 paragraph starting in column 1 and ending in column 2).
Thus, the pressure drop is related to the method of using the apparatus and thus the structure of the Kaseda apparatus as modified by Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky would have been fully capable of having a higher pressure drop in the wash exit demister by operating the apparatus such that the superficial gas velocity, mist loading and the mist’s physical properties create a higher pressure drop across the wash exit demister. See MPEP 2114, 2115, and 2173.05(g).
Regarding claim 3, Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kaseda further teaches wherein a vertical length of the cleaning liquid mist capturer is shorter than a vertical length of the carbon dioxide capturer (as shown in Fig. 1, the vertical length of 93 is shorter than the vertical length of 21).
Regarding claim 7, Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kaseda further teaches wherein a flow rate per unit area and unit time of the first cleaning liquid sprayed from the sprayer is larger than a flow rate per unit area and unit time of the second cleaning liquid diffused from the cleaning liquid diffuser (the flow rates are considered to be intended use of the system and since the two cleaning liquids have separate pumps, pipelines, and spray heads, then the system is capable of performing the intended use; see MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 10, Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Kaseda further teaches
an absorption column (20) housing the carbon dioxide capturer; and
a washing column (upper column comprising the column around 70, 91, and 93) housing the first washer (70) and the cleaning liquid mist capturer (93),
wherein
in the washing column, a rectifier (91) rectifying a flow of the combustion exhaust gas introduced into the washing column is arranged below the first washer, wherein the rectifier includes a packed bed (¶43, as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kaseda teaches a method of operating a carbon dioxide capture system (Fig 1), comprising:
causing a carbon dioxide contained in a combustion exhaust gas (2) to be absorbed into an absorbing liquid containing an amine (¶20) in a carbon dioxide capturer (21);
washing the combustion exhaust gas from the carbon dioxide capturer with a mist of a first cleaning liquid (12) sprayed by a sprayer (72) in a first washer (70) to capture the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas (¶39-40);
washing the combustion exhaust gas from the first washer with a second cleaning liquid (11) diffused and dropped by a cleaning liquid diffuser (62) in a second washer (60) to capture the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas (¶34-36),
capturing, in a cleaning liquid mist capturer (93), the mist of the first cleaning liquid contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the first washer (¶43), and
wherein the first washer has a receiver (73) arranged below the sprayer and configured to receive the mist of the first cleaning liquid, and a washing-capturing space (space of 71) arranged between the sprayer and the receiver, in the washing-capturing space the mist of the first cleaning liquid comes into gas-liquid contact with the combustion exhaust, and
wherein the cleaning liquid mist capturer includes a mist capture demister (93).
Kaseda does not teach:
trapping, in a washer exit demister, the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the cleaning liquid mist capturer,
in the washing-capturing space the mist of the first cleaning liquid comes into gas-liquid contact with the combustion exhaust gas while freely dropping,
the washing-capturing space is free of a structure in which the first cleaning liquid flows down on a surface of the structure;
wherein a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister such that pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas passing through the mist capture demister is lower than pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas in the washer exit demister, and
wherein the washer exit demister is adjacent to the mist capture demister.
Nagayasu teaches a carbon dioxide capture system (Fig 1) comprising
capturing, in a cleaning liquid mist capturer (37), the mist of the first cleaning liquid (63) contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the first washer (washer comprising 62A; ¶47),
trapping, in a washer exit demister (36), the amine contained in the combustion exhaust gas from the cleaning liquid mist capturer (¶97),
wherein a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister such that pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas passing through the mist capture demister is lower than pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas in the washer exit demister (¶96-97, where the large particle diameter collection of mist capturer 37 corresponds to a large porosity and the fine mist collection of demister 36 corresponds to a smaller porosity), and
wherein the washer exit demister is adjacent to the mist capture demister (¶96-97, as shown in Fig 1).
Nagayasu teaches where the system allows reduces the concentration of amine by collecting the mist (¶98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kaseda (Fig 1) by incorporating the cleaning liquid mist capturer (Kaseda 93; Nagayasu 37) and the washer exit demister (Nagayasu 36) in order to reduce the concentration of amine by collecting the mist (Nagayasu ¶98). Further, the porosity of the mist capture demister being larger than the porosity of the washer exit demister allows larger particles to be collected before reaching the fine particle collector (¶96-98).
Jamtvedt teaches a gas-liquid contactor which may optionally comprise a packing (¶27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first washer (60) of Kaseda by substituting the no packing (¶27) of Jamtvedt as a matter of obvious substituting art recognized equivalents know for the same purpose (MPEP §2144.06 II).
The modification would have resulted in wherein the washing-capturing space is free of a structure in which the first cleaning liquid flows down on a surface of the structure.
Haver teaches demisters (page 3) where pressure drop and efficiency are two variables that are inversely proportional (page 6, Design and Engineering Data).
Abdullah teaches demisters (page 3) where pressure drop and efficiency are two variables that are inversely proportional (page 3 last paragraph of Introduction).
Abdullah teaches where porosity and pressure drop are two variables that are proportional (page 3 equation 4).
Dessouky teaches a demister (page 1) wherein the porosity affects the pressure drop (page 4, first partial paragraph).
MPEP §2144.05 II A-B states that where the prior art recognized a variable to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimize the variable.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosities of the mist capture and washer exit demisters, such that a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister, as a matter of obvious optimization.
The modification would have resulted in wherein a porosity of the mist capture demister is larger than a porosity of the washer exit demister such that pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas passing through the mist capture demister is lower than pressure loss generated in a flow of the combustion exhaust gas in the washer exit demister.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. US 2012/0263627 (hereafter Fujita).
Regarding claim 8, Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kaseda does not teach a bypass line configured to mix a part of the second cleaning liquid into the first cleaning liquid.
Fujita teaches it is known to provide a bypass line (cleaning liquid bypass line 28) configured to mix a part of the second cleaning liquid into the first cleaning liquid in order to control the concentration of amine in the cleaning liquid (The middle cleaning apparatus is used, for example, for the purpose of gradually increasing the concentration of the amine in the cleaning liquid, from the second cleaning apparatus to the first cleaning apparatus. The specific example includes controlling the concentration of the amine in the middle cleaning apparatus to a value higher than that in the second cleaning apparatus, and controlling the concentration of the amine in the first cleaning apparatus to a value higher than that in the middle cleaning apparatus. In this case, the cleaning liquid bypass line 28 is provided between mutually adjacent cleaning apparatuses (between the first cleaning apparatus and the middle cleaning apparatus, between the second cleaning apparatus and the middle cleaning apparatus and between the middle cleaning apparatuses) [0081].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include in the system taught by Kaseda a bypass line configured to mix a part of the second cleaning liquid into the first cleaning liquid as taught by Fujita in order to control the concentration of amine in the cleaning liquid.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaseda in view of Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tikhonov et al. US Publication No. 2020/0129918 (hereafter Tikhonov).
Regarding claim 9, Kaseda in view of Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kaseda does not teach wherein the carbon dioxide capturer and the first washer are each formed in a cylindrical shape, and a diameter of the first washer is larger than a diameter of the carbon dioxide capturer.
Tikhonov teaches it is known to increase the diameter of a column at the top in order to reduce the linear speed of the fluid flowing through it from the smaller diameter section. This allows for the possibility of sorbent spray escaping from the upper part of the column into the atmosphere is eliminated [0005].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Kaseda to the carbon dioxide capturer and the first washer are each formed in a cylindrical shape, and a diameter of the first washer is larger than a diameter of the carbon dioxide capturer since Tikhonov teaches increasing the diameter of a column at the top reduces the linear speed of the fluid flowing through it from the smaller diameter section. This allows for the possibility of sorbent spray escaping from the upper part of the column into the atmosphere to be eliminated.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. CN107824027 published Mar. 2018 as translated by EPO (hereafter Wei).
Regarding claim 12, Kaseda in view of Nagayasu, Jamtvedt, Haver, Abdullah, and Dessouky teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Kaseda does not teach wherein a pressure of the first cleaning liquid supplied to the sprayer of the first washer is higher than a pressure of the second cleaning liquid supplied to the cleaning liquid diffuser of the second washer.
Wherein a pressure of the first cleaning liquid supplied to the sprayer of the first washer is higher than a pressure of the second cleaning liquid supplied to the cleaning liquid diffuser of the second washer is a method of operating the system, where the system is fully capable of performing the function by operation of pumps 65, 75, and/or the head pressure from the first and second washer height differential. See MPEP 2114, 2115, 2173.05(g).
Wei teaches a capture system wherein the spray pressure of the second washer is different than the spray pressure of the first washer in order to affect concentration range of the absorbed gas (¶4).
MPEP §2144.05 II A state that where a variable is known to affect a result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to optimate that variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure of the first washer (60) and/or second washer (70) of Kaseda, such as to wherein a pressure of the first cleaning liquid supplied to the sprayer of the first washer is higher than a pressure of the second cleaning liquid supplied to the cleaning liquid diffuser of the second washer, in order to affect the concentration range of the absorbed gas (Wei ¶4).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 29 Apr. 2025:
Applicant argues that the prior art rejections are overcome by amendment because the demisters 92 and 93 of Kaseda (cleaning liquid mist capturer and washer exit demister, respectively) are not adjacent.
Examiner agrees and the rejection is withdrawn.
However, upon further search and/or consideration the feature is obvious in view of Nagayasu as detailed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776