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 12/03/2025.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-15 are pending and being examined. Claims 2-3, 5, and 8 are canceled. Claim 12 is amended with no new subject matter being introduced.
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 1, 4, 6-7, 9-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2014/0234192 A1) in view of Gonnard et al. (US 2016/0144314 A1).
Considering claims 1, 6 and 14-15, Hirata teaches a three-component absorbent for absorbing CO2 and H2S in a gas, the absorbent comprising a straight chain secondary monoamine, a cyclic secondary polyamine, and a straight chain amine group with steric hindrance (Hirata, claim 1). Hirata teaches the cyclic secondary polyamine can be selected from piperazine or piperazine derivative (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) (Hirata, claim 4). Hirata teaches the secondary linear monoamine is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (I) by teaching that it is 2-ethylaminoethanol (N-ethylaminoethanol), or 2-n-butylaminoethanol (Hirata, [0032]).
Hirata teaches examples of amines with high steric hindrance include tertiary amines (Hirata, [0066]-[0070]).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the secondary linear monoamine is 30 to 55 wt% (Hirata, claim 2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of more than 30% by weight and less than 45% by weight overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2), he does not explicitly teach that it is more than 15% by weight and less than 30% by weight.
However, Hirata teaches steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine including to within the claimed range of more than 15% by weight and less than 30% by weight. 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 further reduce the formation of amine carbonate and reduce heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hirata teaches a sum of the combination percentages of the straight chain secondary monoamine, the cyclic secondary polyamine, and the at least one amine (i.e., tertiary linear monoamine) is 70wt% or less (Hirata, claim 2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of more than 55% by weight overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Hirata teaches examples of amines with high steric hindrance include tertiary amines such as N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) (i.e., tertiary linear monoamine represented by claimed Formula (II)) (Hirata, [0066]-[0070]), he does not explicitly teach it is selected from the claimed group of compounds.
However, Gonnard teaches a method of decarbonating a gas by contacting it with an amine solution comprising a mixture of tertiary amines and secondary amines (Gonnard, claims 1 and 8-9). Gonnard teaches the tertiary amine is selected from a group of compounds which include N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and N-ethyldiethanolamine (Gonnard, claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use N-ethyldiethanolamine as the tertiary linear monoamine in Hirata’s absorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because N-ethyldiethanolamine is known to be a suitable tertiary amine for CO2 absorption in a solution with secondary amines.
Hirata teaches the concentration of the secondary cyclic amine is lower than the concentration of the secondary linear amine by teaching the cyclic secondary amine (cyclic secondary polyamine) is 1 to 15 wt% and the straight chain secondary amine is 30 to 55 wt% (Hirata, claim 2).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt% and the cyclic secondary amine is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2), he does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine is lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine.
However, Hirata teaches the desire to improve CO2 absorption performance and the action and effect of releasing captured CO2 in an absorbent regenerator (Hirata, [0051]). Hirata teaches the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]). Hirata teaches the cyclic secondary polyamine (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) functions as a reaction accelerator (Hirata, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentrations of the tertiary linear monoamine and the secondary cyclic diamine including such that the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine is lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine. 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 desired CO2 absorption capacity and desired heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). For example, selection of 10 wt% cyclic secondary amine and 15 wt% tertiary linear monoamine, both of which are within the ranges taught by Hirata, would result in the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine to be lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine.
The claims are directed to an absorbent and the recitation “after the absorbent absorbs one or both of CO2 and H2S in an absorber, the absorbent becomes a rich solution, the rich solution is pressurized with a pump and supplied to an absorbent regenerator, and the rich solution is regenerated in the absorbent regenerator with a higher pressure than the absorber” is the manner in which the absorbent is used and does not impart any structural limitations to the absorbent. Hirata and Gonnard teach/obviate the claimed absorbent; thus, the absorbent of Hirata/Gonnard is capable of being used in the claimed manner.
Hirata teaches a concentration of the secondary linear monoamine is 30 to 55 wt%, a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt%, and the cyclic secondary amine is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2) (Hirata, claim 2).
Hirata teaches the desire to improve CO2 absorption performance and the action and effect of releasing captured CO2 in an absorbent regenerator (Hirata, [0051]). Hirata teaches the secondary linear monoamine constitutes the main absorbent for CO2 (Hirata, [0032]), the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]), and the cyclic secondary polyamine (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) functions as a reaction accelerator (Hirata, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentrations of each amine including such that a weight ratio of the tertiary linear monoamine to a total weight of the secondary linear monoamine and the secondary cyclic diamine is more than 0.3 and less than 0.85 and a weight ratio of the tertiary linear monoamine to the secondary linear monoamine is more than 0.5 and less than 1.0. 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 desired CO2 absorption capacity and desired heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination of Hirata and Gonnard teaches/obviates the claimed absorbent. Thus, it would be expected that the Hirata/Gonnard absorbent would also have a viscosity ratio after CO2 absorption of less 0.9 relative to the viscosity of an absorbent after CO2 absorption, which consists of 45% by weight of the secondary chain monoamine (a), 5% by weight of the tertiary linear monoamine (b), and 5% by weight of the aforementioned secondary cyclic diamine (c).
Considering claims 4, Hirata teaches the secondary linear monoamine is a compound represented by the claimed Formula (I) by teaching that it is 2-methylaminoethanol, 2-ethylaminoethanol, 2-isopropylaminoethanol, or 2-n-butylaminoethanol (Hirata, [0032]).
Considering claim 7, Hirata teaches the total concentration of the three amines is 70 wt% or less (Hirata, claim 2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of more than 46% by weight and 75% by weight or less overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Considering claim 9, Hirata teaches a method for removing one or both of CO2 and H2S, the method comprising bringing by an absorber a gas containing one or both of CO2 and H2S into contact with an absorbent to remove one or both of CO2 and H2S from the gas; removing by an absorbent regenerator the one or both of CO2 and H2S from a rich solution and regenerating a lean solution in which the one or both of CO2 and H2S has been removed; and reusing by an absorber the lean solution as the absorbent (Hirata, claim 12).
Hirata teaches using a three-component absorbent for absorbing CO2 and H2S in a gas, the absorbent comprising a straight chain secondary monoamine, a cyclic secondary polyamine, and a straight chain amine group with steric hindrance (Hirata, claims 1 and 12). Hirata teaches the cyclic secondary polyamine can be selected from piperazine or piperazine derivative (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) (Hirata, claim 4).
Hirata teaches examples of amines with high steric hindrance include tertiary amines (Hirata, [0066]-[0070]).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the secondary linear monoamine is 30 to 55 wt% (Hirata, claim 2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of more than 30% by weight and less than 45% by weight overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2), he does not explicitly teach that it is more than 15% by weight and less than 30% by weight.
However, Hirata teaches steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine including to within the claimed range of more than 15% by weight and less than 30% by weight. 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 further reduce the formation of amine carbonate and reduce heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hirata teaches a concentration of the secondary linear monoamine is 30 to 55 wt%, a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt%, and the cyclic secondary amine is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2) (Hirata, claim 2).
Hirata teaches the desire to improve CO2 absorption performance and the action and effect of releasing captured CO2 in an absorbent regenerator (Hirata, [0051]). Hirata teaches the secondary linear monoamine constitutes the main absorbent for CO2 (Hirata, [0032]), the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]), and the cyclic secondary polyamine (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) functions as a reaction accelerator (Hirata, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentrations of each amine including such that a weight ratio of the tertiary linear monoamine to a total weight of the secondary linear monoamine and the secondary cyclic diamine is more than 0.3 and less than 0.85 and a weight ratio of the tertiary linear monoamine to the secondary linear monoamine is more than 0.5 and less than 1.0. 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 desired CO2 absorption capacity and desired heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hirata teaches examples of amines with high steric hindrance include tertiary amines such as N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) (i.e., tertiary linear monoamine) (Hirata, [0066]-[0070]), he does not explicitly teach it is selected from the claimed group of compounds.
However, Gonnard teaches a method of decarbonating a gas by contacting it with an amine solution comprising a mixture of tertiary amines and secondary amines (Gonnard, claims 1 and 8-9). Gonnard teaches the tertiary amine is selected from a group of compounds which include N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and N-ethyldiethanolamine (Gonnard, claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use N-ethyldiethanolamine as the tertiary linear monoamine in Hirata’s absorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because N-ethyldiethanolamine is known to be a suitable tertiary amine for CO2 absorption in a solution with secondary amines.
Hirata teaches the concentration of the secondary cyclic amine is lower than the concentration of the secondary linear amine by teaching the cyclic secondary amine (cyclic secondary polyamine) is 1 to 15 wt% and the straight chain secondary amine is 30 to 55 wt% (Hirata, claim 2).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt% and the cyclic secondary amine is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2), he does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine is lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine.
However, Hirata teaches the desire to improve CO2 absorption performance and the action and effect of releasing captured CO2 in an absorbent regenerator (Hirata, [0051]). Hirata teaches the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]). Hirata teaches the cyclic secondary polyamine (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) functions as a reaction accelerator (Hirata, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentrations of the tertiary linear monoamine and the secondary cyclic diamine including such that the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine is lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine. 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 desired CO2 absorption capacity and desired heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). For example, selection of 10 wt% cyclic secondary amine and 15 wt% tertiary linear monoamine, both of which are within the ranges taught by Hirata, would result in the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine to be lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine.
Hirata teaches removing by an absorbent regenerator with a pressure higher than the absorber, the one or both of CO2 and H2S from the rich solution and regenerating a lean solution in which the one or both CO2 and H2S has been removed by teaching the rich solution is pressurized with a rich solution pump prior to being supplied to the regenerator (Hirata, [0079]).
The combination of Hirata and Gonnard teaches/obviates the claimed absorbent. Thus, it would be expected that the Hirata/Gonnard absorbent would also have a viscosity ratio after CO2 absorption of less 0.9 relative to the viscosity of an absorbent after CO2 absorption, which consists of 45% by weight of the secondary chain monoamine (a), 5% by weight of the tertiary linear monoamine (b), and 5% by weight of the aforementioned secondary cyclic diamine (c).
Considering claim 10, Hirata teaches the secondary linear monoamine is selected from 2-methylaminoethanol (N-methylaminoethanol), 2-ethylaminoethanol (N-ethylaminoethanol), 2-isopropylaminoethanol, or 2-n-butylaminoethanol (Hirata, [0032]).
Considering claim 11, Hirata teaches the secondary cyclic diamine is a piperazine derivative such as 2-methylpiperazine (Hirata, [0021] and [0045]).
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al. (US 2014/0234192 A1) in view of Gonnard et al. (US 2016/0144314 A1) and Asprion et al. (US 2009/0199713 A1).
Considering claim 9, Hirata teaches a method for removing one or both of CO2 and H2S, the method comprising bringing by an absorber a gas containing one or both of CO2 and H2S into contact with an absorbent to remove one or both of CO2 and H2S from the gas; removing by an absorbent regenerator the one or both of CO2 and H2S from a rich solution and regenerating a lean solution in which the one or both of CO2 and H2S has been removed; and reusing by an absorber the lean solution as the absorbent (Hirata, claim 12).
Hirata teaches using a three-component absorbent for absorbing CO2 and H2S in a gas, the absorbent comprising a straight chain secondary monoamine, a cyclic secondary polyamine, and a straight chain amine group with steric hindrance (Hirata, claims 1 and 12). Hirata teaches the cyclic secondary polyamine can be selected from piperazine or piperazine derivative (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) (Hirata, claim 4).
Hirata teaches examples of amines with high steric hindrance include tertiary amines (Hirata, [0066]-[0070]).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the secondary linear monoamine is 30 to 55 wt% (Hirata, claim 2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of more than 30% by weight and less than 45% by weight overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2), he does not explicitly teach that it is more than 15% by weight and less than 30% by weight.
However, Hirata teaches steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine including to within the claimed range of more than 15% by weight and less than 30% by weight. 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 further reduce the formation of amine carbonate and reduce heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hirata teaches the desire to improve CO2 absorption performance and the action and effect of releasing captured CO2 in an absorbent regenerator (Hirata, [0051]). Hirata teaches the secondary linear monoamine constitutes the main absorbent for CO2 (Hirata, [0032]), the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]), and the cyclic secondary polyamine (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) functions as a reaction accelerator (Hirata, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentrations of each amine including such that a weight ratio of the tertiary linear monoamine to a total weight of the secondary linear monoamine and the secondary cyclic diamine is more than 0.3 and less than 0.85 and a weight ratio of the tertiary linear monoamine to the secondary linear monoamine is more than 0.5 and less than 1.0. 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 desired CO2 absorption capacity and desired heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hirata teaches examples of amines with high steric hindrance include tertiary amines such as N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) (i.e., tertiary linear monoamine) (Hirata, [0066]-[0070]), he does not explicitly teach it is selected from the claimed group of compounds.
However, Gonnard teaches a method of decarbonating a gas by contacting it with an amine solution comprising a mixture of tertiary amines and secondary amines (Gonnard, claims 1 and 8-9). Gonnard teaches the tertiary amine is selected from a group of compounds which include N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and N-ethyldiethanolamine (Gonnard, claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use N-ethyldiethanolamine as the tertiary linear monoamine in Hirata’s absorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because N-ethyldiethanolamine is known to be a suitable tertiary amine for CO2 absorption in a solution with secondary amines.
Hirata teaches the concentration of the secondary cyclic amine is lower than the concentration of the secondary linear amine by teaching the cyclic secondary amine (cyclic secondary polyamine) is 1 to 15 wt% and the straight chain secondary amine is 30 to 55 wt% (Hirata, claim 2).
Hirata teaches a concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine (i.e., straight chain amine group with steric hindrance) is 1 to 15 wt% and the cyclic secondary amine is 1 to 15 wt% (Hirata, claim 2), he does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine is lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine.
However, Hirata teaches the desire to improve CO2 absorption performance and the action and effect of releasing captured CO2 in an absorbent regenerator (Hirata, [0051]). Hirata teaches the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]). Hirata teaches the cyclic secondary polyamine (i.e., secondary cyclic diamine) functions as a reaction accelerator (Hirata, [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentrations of the tertiary linear monoamine and the secondary cyclic diamine including such that the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine is lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine. 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 desired CO2 absorption capacity and desired heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery with a reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range overlaps the range taught by Hirata (see MPEP §2144.05(I)). For example, selection of 10 wt% cyclic secondary amine and 15 wt% tertiary linear monoamine, both of which are within the ranges taught by Hirata, would result in the concentration of the cyclic secondary amine to be lower than the concentration of tertiary linear monoamine.
Hirata teaches removing by an absorbent regenerator with a pressure higher than the absorber, the one or both of CO2 and H2S from the rich solution and regenerating a lean solution in which the one or both CO2 and H2S has been removed by teaching the rich solution is pressurized with a rich solution pump prior to being supplied to the regenerator (Hirata, [0079]).
In the alternative, Asprion teaches an absorption medium for removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream which comprises at least one amine (Asprion, claims 1, 7, 11-13); Asprion teaches frequently the carbon dioxide liberated in the desorption column is subsequently compressed and fed to a pressure tank or sequestration; in these cases it is advantageous to carry out the regeneration of the absorption medium at an elevated pressure for example 2 to 10 bar; the loaded absorption medium is compressed by means of a pump to the regeneration pressure and introduced into the desorption column; the carbon dioxide occurs in this manner at a higher pressure level and under some circumstances a compression stage can be saved (Asprion, [0097]). Hirata teaches compressing the CO2 released from the regenerator (Hirata, [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove by an absorbent regenerator with a pressure higher than the absorber, the one or both of CO2 and H2S from the rich solution and regenerate a lean solution in which the one or both CO2 and H2S has been removed. 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 operate the regenerator at desired higher pressure and reduce the amount of compression required for the released CO2 with a reasonable expectation of success.
The combination of Hirata and Gonnard teaches/obviates the claimed absorbent. Thus, it would be expected that the Hirata/Gonnard absorbent would also have a viscosity ratio after CO2 absorption of less 0.9 relative to the viscosity of an absorbent after CO2 absorption, which consists of 45% by weight of the secondary chain monoamine (a), 5% by weight of the tertiary linear monoamine (b), and 5% by weight of the aforementioned secondary cyclic diamine (c).
Considering claim 12, Hirata is silent regarding the absorbent regenerator pressure and temperature and does not explicitly teach internal pressure of 130 kPa or more and less than 200 kPa and a temperature of 110°C or higher.
However, Asprion teaches an absorption medium for removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream which comprises at least one amine (Asprion, claims 1, 7, 11-13); Asprion teaches frequently the carbon dioxide liberated in the desorption column is subsequently compressed and fed to a pressure tank or sequestration; in these cases it is advantageous to carry out the regeneration of the absorption medium at an elevated pressure for example 2 to 10 bar; the loaded absorption medium is compressed by means of a pump to the regeneration pressure and introduced into the desorption column; the carbon dioxide occurs in this manner at a higher pressure level and under some circumstances a compression stage can be saved (Asprion, [0097]). Hirata teaches compressing the CO2 released from the regenerator (Hirata, [0081]).
Asprion teaches regeneration by heating for example to 70 to 110°C, he also teaches a higher pressure in the regeneration necessitates a higher regeneration temperature and teaches regeneration at 120°C (Asprion, [0095], [0097], [0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the pressure and temperature of the regeneration including to within the claimed range of a pressure of 130 kPa or more and less than 200 kPa and a temperature of 110°C or higher. 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 operate the regenerator at desired higher pressure and reduce the amount of compression required for the released CO2 while operating at a temperature wherein desorption occurs at desired pressure with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 13, Hirata teaches absorbing and removing/recovering CO2 from CO2-containing gas such as flue gas (Hirata, [0003]), he is silent regarding the CO2 partial pressure at an inlet of the absorber and does not explicitly teach that it is 0.003-0.1 MPa.
However, Asprion teaches flue gases have very low carbon dioxide partial pressures, since they generally result at a pressure close to atmospheric pressure and typically comprise 3 to 13% by volume carbon dioxide (i.e., 0.003-0.013 MPa) (Asprion, [0005]); Asprion teaches that in a preferred embodiment the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in the gas stream is less than 200 mbar, usually 20-150 mbar (0.002-0.015 MPa) (Asprion, [0019].
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 CO2 partial pressure at an inlet of the absorber during absorption in which CO2 in a gas to be treated to be 0.003-0.1 MPa. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because carbon dioxide partial pressure of a flue gas is known to be within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Hirata fails to teach the claimed composition with the claimed viscosity have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It should be noted that 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, the rejection is based on a modification of Hirata’s absorbent wherein the concentration of the tertiary linear monoamine is varied (i.e., increased) in order to further reduce the formation of amine carbonate and reduce heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery.
The combination of Hirata and Gonnard teaches/obviates the claimed absorbent. Thus, it would be expected that the Hirata/Gonnard absorbent would also have a viscosity ratio after CO2 absorption of less 0.9 relative to the viscosity of an absorbent after CO2 absorption, which consists of 45% by weight of the secondary chain monoamine (a), 5% by weight of the tertiary linear monoamine (b), and 5% by weight of the aforementioned secondary cyclic diamine (c).
Applicant argues criticality of the claimed range and provides the Tanaka Declaration to show that the claimed ranges are critical to achieve the unexpected results of reducing viscosity. However, Hirata teaches the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance reduces heat consumption rate for CO2 recovery by suppressing the formation of amine carbonate/carbamate with a high heat of reaction (Hirata, [0051]-[0056], [0066]-[0069]). As evidenced in section 3.2.2 of Conway (Conway et al., “CO2 absorption into aqueous amine blended solutions containing monoethanolamine (MEA), N,N-dimethylethanolamine (DMEA), N,N-diethylethanolamine (DEEA) and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) for post-combustion capture processes”, Chemical Engineering Science 126 (2015) 446-454), increased amounts of carbonates/carbamates lead to increases in solution viscosity. Thus, it would be expected that increasing the amount of the tertiary linear monoamine which has high steric hindrance would result in suppressing an increase in viscosity because Hirata teaches that the steric hindrance suppresses the formation of amine carbonate/carbamate and Applicant’s result of suppressing viscosity increase is not unexpected.
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Gonnard’s natural gas has more than 0.1 MPa of CO2 partial pressure at CO2 absorber inlet which is in direct contrast to the claimed range of 0.003 MPa or more and 0.1 MPa or less have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It should be noted that 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, Hirata teaches removing/recovering CO2 from CO2-containing gas such as flue gas and Asprion is used to teach the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in a flue gas is less than 200 mbar, usually 20-150 mbar (0.002-0.015 MPa).
Gonnard is not used to teach the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide in a flue gas. Gonnard is merely used to teach that both N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and N-ethyldiethanolamine are suitable tertiary amines that can be used in a mixture with a secondary amine for CO2 absorption.
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