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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed 03/23/2026.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-19, 21-23, and 26-27 are pending. Claims 21 and 26-27 are being examined. Claims 2, 17, 20, 24-25 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-16, 18-19, 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration. No amendments are made.
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.
Claims 21 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawanga (Mawanga, M.,"Dolomite-based Sorbents for High Temperature Carbon dioxide capture", Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Chemical Engineering, June, 2017, 65 pages) in view of Garg et al. (US 2010/0196259 A1).
Considering claims 21 and 26-27, Mawanga teaches a sorbent suitable for carbon dioxide capture comprising CaO, MgO, 0.5 to 20 wt.% of first metal ions and 0.5 to 10 wt.% of second metal ions, wherein the first metal ions are ions of Al or Mg, the second metal ion are ions of Al, Mg, and the first and second metal ions are not both ions of Al or both ions of Mg and wherein the source of the first/second metal ion is a calcium aluminum by teaching 3%Al(CaAl2O4) dolomite (i.e., Ca aluminate dol.) (Mawanga, Table 4.1.6 on page 35 and Table 4.2.1 on page 37). Mawanga teaches a sorbent suitable for carbon dioxide capture comprising CaO, MgO, 0.5 to 20 wt.% of first metal ions and 0.5 to 10 wt.% of second metal ions, wherein the first metal ions are ions of Al or Mg, the second metal ion are ions of Al, Mg, a transition metal or a lanthanide, and the first and second metal ions are not both ions of Al or both ions of Mg by teaching 3%Al-1%Zr dolomite, 6%Al-2%Zr dolomite, 4%Al-1%Zr dolomite, 2%Al-2%Zr dolomite, 4%Al-2%Zr dolomite, 3.5%Al-1%Zr dolomite (Mawanga, Table 4.2.1 on page 37).
Mawanga teaches calcium aluminate cements result in the formation of Mayenite (Ca12Al14 O33) which favors performance of CaO doped with alumina compounds and also pellets are strong for use in a fluidized bed combustion; synthesis of CaO/Ca12Al14 O33 with dolomite gives better CO2 capture with very promising long term stability during sorption/desorption cycles (Mawanga, page 7 an last paragraph on page 8). Mawanga teaches dolomite doped with both Al and Zr show a better contribution towards stability of dolomite (Mawanga, page 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the source of the first/second metal ions to be calcium aluminum cement and to include a transition metal such as Zr in the sorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a sorbent with improved CO2 capture and stability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Mawanga does not explicitly teach the sorbent is in the form of pellets having a dimension of 500 µm to 3000 µm.
However, Garg teaches sorptive pellets suitable for removal of carbon dioxide from a gas stream in a fixed bed reactor and the like have a dimension of 0.1 mm to 3 mm (100-3000 µm) (Garg, abstract and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the sorbent of Mawanga to be in the form of pellets having a dimension of 500 µm to 3000 µm. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to use the sorbent in a fixed bed reactor or the like to remove carbon dioxide from a gas stream with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Mawanga teaches away from the claimed invention by implying that forming sorbent pellets should be entirely avoided have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Mawanga’s disclosure that powders are preferred does not imply that sorbent pellets should be entirely avoided. Mawanga teaches pelletizing sorbent powders into pellets (Mawanga, page 18). Mawanga also teaches the use of pellets in fluidized bed reactors (Mawanga, page 7).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Mawanga’s preferred embodiment of using powder sorbent does not constitute a teaching away from using pelletized sorbent because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage pelletizing the sorbent in or order to use it in a fluidized bed reactor.
Applicant’s arguments that the mere concept that a powder could be put into pellet form does not render obvious the claimed sorbent composition in pellet form has been considered but is not persuasive. The claims are directed to a composition in pellet form. Mawanga teaches the composition in addition to pelletizing sorbent powders into pellets (Mawanga, page 18). Mawanga also teaches the use of pellets in fluidized bed reactors (Mawanga, page 7). Garg teaches fine powders are generally not suitable for use in fluidized bed reactor, since larger particles are needed to promote stable fluidization at practical throughput velocities; it would be desirable to convert fine powder into granules for use in fluidized bed or moving bed reactors, or pellets or extrudates for use in a fixed or moving bed reactor; pellets are useful to allow a reasonable pressure drop through the fixed or moving bed reactor; pellets may also be useful for ebullated, expanded, moving or fluidized bed reactors (Garg, [0005]). Mawanga clearly teaches forming pellets from the powders and use of pellets in a fluidized bed reactors; in light of Garg’s teaching that powders are not suitable for use in fluidized bed reactors and forming powders into pellets is desirable for fluidized bed reactors for stable fluidization and reasonable pressure drop, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to convert the powders of Mawanga into pellets with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant cites Mawanga’s disclosure that the active phase of the sorbent should be as small as possible as this increases the surface area for the reaction and enhances the kinetics. However, this disclosure does not criticize using the powder in pellet form in order to enable its use in a fluidized bed; it merely suggests that the reaction kinetics maybe be slightly decreased due to a larger size (i.e., pellets).
Applicant cites the Rout Declaration and J. Sun et al. reference as evidence that it would not be obvious to pelletize the powder taught by Mawanga. However, it should be noted that Mawanga clearly teaches pelletizing the powder (Mawanga, page 18) and the need to use pelletized sorbent for fluidized bed reactors. The claims do not require a particular performance or rate of carbon dioxide capture, they only require a sorbent suitable for carbon dioxide capture; the evidence provided does not show that the pelletized powder of Mawanga would not be capable of capturing carbon dioxide.
The J. Sun reference discloses carbide slag powder has a high specific surface area that decreases for the carbide slag pellets resulting in lower cyclic CO2 sorption capacity; this disclosure does not criticize the use of pellet sorbent in fluidized bed reactors. Even though pellets result in a lower cyclic CO2 sorption, they are still capable of CO2 sorption and are preferred for fluidized bed reactors. Moreover, the J. Sun reference is specific to carbide slag sorbent and not a dolomite sorbent.
Arguments regarding the method of pelletizing is not relevant. The claims are not directed to the method of pelletizing and one of ordinary skill in the art, would be capable of selecting a method of pelletization suitable for forming pellets that can be used in a fluidized bed reactor especially in light of Mawanga teaching pelletizing dolomite powder.
It should be noted that Applicant in instant specification discloses preparation of Al-Zr doped sorbent by wet mixing wherein in the final step, the dried mixture is milled to obtain a fine powder before granulation or pelletization (see Example 2 of instant specification). Thus, Applicant also pelletizes the sorbent powder.
The Rout Declaration notes that industrial application of dolomite sorbent powders is extremely difficult because powdered sorbents are generally not suitable for industrial use because they lack the requisite physical properties such as high mechanical strength and attrition resistance. This is not commensurate in scope with the claims nor the rejection. It is already known that powders cannot be used in fluidized bed reactors and that pellets are preferred. The claim language requires the sorbent to be in pelletized form, the combination of Mawanga/Garg obviates the sorbent being in pelletized form in order to enable its used in industrial applications that use fluidized bed reactors and/or moving bed reactors.
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Garg does not relate specifically to dolomite sorbents have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mawanga teaches the use of dolomite and/or doped dolomite to capture CO2; he also teaches the use of pellets for CO2 capture (Mawanga, page 7). Garg teaches sorptive pellets suitable for removal of carbon dioxide from a gas stream in a fixed bed reactor and the like have a dimension of 0.1 mm to 3 mm (100-3000 µm). Thus, both Mawanga and Garg are in the field CO2 capture using CO2 sorbent pellets.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Mawanga teaches the claimed sorbent in addition to teaching the use of pellets in CO2 capture. Garg is merely used for his teaching of suitable pellet size for a CO2 capture sorbent in a CO2 capture reactor and not for teaching the claimed sorbent. It is unclear why a person skilled in the art would not look to Garg to determine a suitable pellet size for a CO2 capture sorbent in a CO2 capture reactor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights