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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 have been amended. Claims 9-20 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Objection to Claim 6 has been maintained because applicant has not amended the claim sufficiently to obviate the objection.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) of Claims 1-8 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102 of Claims 1, 3 and 7 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103 of Claims 2, 4-5 and 8 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: unnecessary punctuation mark.
Claim 1 recites: “…the reaction fluid distribution system is distributing the reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media,;” The “comma” is not necessary in this limitation.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 1 as reciting: “…the reaction fluid distribution system is distributing the reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media;”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: incomplete phrase.
Claim 5 recites: “…wherein the aqueous hydroxide reaction fluid includes one of hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.” It appears that the missing word is “sodium” before the word “hydroxide”.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 5 as reciting: “…wherein the aqueous hydroxide reaction fluid includes one of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect plural form.
Claim 6 recites: “The counterflow air contactor of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the tower frame and fan include fiberglass and the basins include hydroxide and carbonate corrosion resistant material.” According to claim 1, there is only one basin being claimed. Therefore, the plural form of “basins” is incorrect.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting: “The counterflow air contactor of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the tower frame and fan include fiberglass and the basin includes hydroxide and carbonate corrosion resistant material.”
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect spelling.
Claim 9 recites: “…the reaction fluid basin located vertically adajcent the tower frame…” The correct word should be “adjacent”.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 9 as reciting: “…the reaction fluid basin located vertically adjacent the tower frame…”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: incomplete phrase.
Claim 20 recites: “…wherein the reaction fluid is includes one of hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.” Firstly, the article “is” is grammatically incorrect in this limitation. Secondly, it appears that the missing word is “sodium” before the word “hydroxide”.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 20 as reciting: “…wherein the reaction fluid includes one of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-10, 12, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0101107, with an effective filing date of April 17, 2018, hereinafter Heidel).
In regards to Claim 9, Heidel discloses a counterflow air contactor configured for large-scale and continuous removal of a pollutant from ambient air comprising:
a tower frame located adjacent a reaction fluid basin (#205) and a water basin (#105), the water basin (#105) being separate from the reaction fluid basin (#205) (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
reaction fluid dispersion media (#204 CO2 capture packing) supported in said tower frame (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
a reaction fluid distribution system (#203) in communication with said tower frame and adjacent the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) and configured to distribute a reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
a water distribution system (#103) fluidly isolated from the reaction fluid distribution system (#203) (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
a humidifier section (#201, #102, #104, #206), adjacent to the tower frame comprising a water dispersion media (#104) supported adjacent the tower frame and the water distribution system (#103) located vertically adjacent the water dispersion media (#104), the water basin (#105) vertically adjacent the humidifier section (#201, #102, #104, #206) and configured to collect water from the water distribution system (#103) (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129], [0133] and [0136]; Heidel discloses that in some cases, the CO2 capture system (#200) may include multiple hydration sub-systems (#201), i.e. humidifier sections, coupled with multiple gas-liquid contactor sub-systems (#221). In view of this, it is reasonably expected that Heidel reasonably discloses two humidifier sections in communication with the tower frame, and hence, it is reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the two humidifier sections will reasonably include substantially the same structural limitations, as claimed by the applicant.);
a fan (#207) in communication with the tower frame and configured to draw ambient air through the humidifier section (#201, #102, #104, #206) and through the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) as the reaction fluid distribution system (#203) is distributing the reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129], [0133] and [0135]);
the reaction fluid basin (#205) located vertically adjacent the tower frame and configured to catch a reaction product from a reaction between the reaction fluid and the pollutant in the ambient air as well as unreacted reaction fluid (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0135]).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that although Heidel is silent in regards to the reaction fluid distribution system being located in the tower frame, Heidel has the reaction fluid distribution system in fluid communication with the tower frame. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious to relocate the reaction fluid distribution system to be in the tower frame as it has been held that the relocation of parts is a mere engineering design choice, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Examiner notes that although Heidel is silent in regards to wherein the water dispersion media being supported in the tower frame, it is considered reasonably obvious to relocate the water dispersion media to be supported in the tower frame, as claimed by the applicant, as it has been held that the relocation of parts is a mere engineering design choice, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Examiner notes that although Heidel is silent in regards wherein the fan is supported by the tower frame, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the fan must be reasonably supported by the tower frame in order to efficiently pull the atmospheric air through the humidifier section and the CO2 capture system and out of the systems.
In regards to Claim 10, Heidel discloses wherein the water dispersion media (#104) is a splash fill (see paragraph [0133]).
In regards to Claim 12, Heidel discloses wherein the pollutant is carbon dioxide and the reaction fluid comprises a hydroxide solution (see paragraphs [0129]-[0130]).
In regards to Claim 17, Heidel discloses a counterflow air contactor configured for large-scale and continuous removal of a pollutant from ambient air comprising:
a tower frame located vertically adjacent a reaction fluid basin (#205) and a water basin (#105), the water basin (#105) being separate from the reaction fluid basin (#205) (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
reaction fluid dispersion media (#204 CO2 capture packing) supported in said tower frame (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
a reaction fluid distribution system (#203) in communication with said tower frame and configured to distribute a reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
at least one a humidifier section (#201, #102, #104, #206), adjacent to the tower frame, the water basin (#105) vertically adjacent the at least one humidifier section (#201, #102, #104, #206) (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129], [0133] and [0136]);
a fan (#207) in communication with the tower frame and configured to draw ambient air through the at least one humidifier section (#201, #102, #104, #206) and through the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129], [0133] and [0135]);
the reaction fluid basin (#205) configured to catch a reaction product from a reaction between the reaction fluid and the pollutant in the ambient air as well as unreacted reaction fluid (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0135]).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that although Heidel is silent in regards to the reaction fluid distribution system being located in the tower frame, Heidel has the reaction fluid distribution system in fluid communication with the tower frame. Therefore, it is considered reasonably obvious to relocate the reaction fluid distribution system to be in the tower frame as it has been held that the relocation of parts is a mere engineering design choice, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Examiner notes that although Heidel is silent in regards wherein the fan is supported by the tower frame, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the fan must be reasonably supported by the tower frame in order to efficiently pull the atmospheric air through the humidifier section and the CO2 capture system and out of the systems.
In regards to Claim 18, Heidel discloses a water distribution system (#103) fluidly isolated from the reaction fluid distribution system (#203) (see figure 2 and paragraph [0129]).
In regards to Claim 20, Heidel discloses wherein the reaction fluid (CO2 capture solution) includes one of sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (see figure 2 and paragraph [0130]).
Claims 11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel in view of Heidel (US Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0354925, hereinafter ‘925).
In regards to Claim 11, Heidel discloses the counterflow air contactor as recited in claim 9, but is silent in regards to wherein the CO2 capture packing (#204), i.e. reaction fluid dispersion media, is a film fill.
However, ‘925 teaches an air contactor system for removing carbon dioxide from atmospheric air. The air contactor system comprises a liquid-gas contactor comprising packing material, a basin collection system fluidly coupled to the packing material, and a liquid stream (CO2 capture solution) for distributing a reaction fluid, i.e. KOH, over the packing material. The capture solution may be composed of potassium hydroxide wherein the solution circulates internal to the liquid-gas contactors to keep a wetted film replenished on fill media known as structured packing. As this solution reacts with carbon dioxide, the hydroxide is depleted as carbonate is produced, and a carbonate-rich bleed stream can be removed from the liquid-gas contactor basin (see figures 3 and 11 and paragraphs [0096] and [0126]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the counterflow air contactor as disclosed by Heidel by substituting a known packing material for another known packing material, such as a film fill, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘925 teaches an air contactor system for removing carbon dioxide from atmospheric air comprising a liquid-gas contactor comprising packing material, a basin collection system fluidly coupled to the packing material, and a liquid stream (CO2 capture solution) for distributing a reaction fluid, i.e. KOH, over the packing material, wherein the capture solution may be composed of potassium hydroxide, whereby the solution circulates internal to the liquid-gas contactors to keep a wetted film replenished on fill media known as structured packing, and this solution reacts with carbon dioxide, the hydroxide is depleted as carbonate is produced, and a carbonate-rich bleed stream can be removed from the liquid-gas contactor basin (see figures 3 and 11 and paragraphs [0096] and [0126]-[0127]).
In regards to Claim 13, Heidel discloses the counterflow air contactor as recited in claim 9, but Heidel is silent in regards to wherein the reaction product comprises a carbonate.
However, ‘925 teaches an air contactor system for removing carbon dioxide from atmospheric air. The air contactor system comprises a liquid-gas contactor comprising packing material, a basin collection system fluidly coupled to the packing material, and a liquid stream (CO2 capture solution) for distributing a reaction fluid, i.e. KOH, over the packing material. The capture solution may be composed of potassium hydroxide wherein the solution circulates internal to the liquid-gas contactors to keep a wetted film replenished on fill media known as structured packing. As this solution reacts with carbon dioxide, the hydroxide is depleted as carbonate is produced, and a carbonate-rich bleed stream, i.e. reaction product comprises a carbonate, can be removed from the liquid-gas contactor basin (see figures 3 and 11 and paragraphs [0096] and [0126]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the counterflow air contactor as disclosed by Heidel by having the reaction product to comprise a carbonate, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘925 teaches an air contactor system for removing carbon dioxide from atmospheric air comprising a liquid-gas contactor comprising packing material, a basin collection system fluidly coupled to the packing material, and a liquid stream (CO2 capture solution) for distributing a reaction fluid, i.e. KOH, over the packing material, wherein the capture solution may be composed of potassium hydroxide, whereby the solution circulates internal to the liquid-gas contactors to keep a wetted film replenished on fill media known as structured packing, and this solution reacts with carbon dioxide, the hydroxide is depleted as carbonate is produced, and a carbonate-rich bleed stream can be removed from the liquid-gas contactor basin (see figures 3 and 11 and paragraphs [0096] and [0126]-[0127]).
In regards to Claim 15, Heidel discloses wherein the water distribution system (#103) comprises a water header and water spray nozzles (see figure 2 and paragraph [0134]), but fails to disclose wherein the reaction fluid distribution system comprises a reaction fluid header and reaction fluid spray nozzles.
However, ‘925 teaches an air contactor system for removing carbon dioxide from atmospheric air. The air contactor system comprises a liquid-gas contactor comprising packing material, a basin collection system fluidly coupled to the packing material, and a liquid stream (CO2 capture solution) for distributing a reaction fluid, i.e. KOH, over the packing material. The capture solution may be composed of potassium hydroxide wherein the solution circulates internal to the liquid-gas contactors to keep a wetted film replenished on fill media known as structured packing. The potassium hydroxide aqueous solution is distributed using a distribution header system, including pressurized piping and spray nozzles (see figures 3 and 11 and paragraphs [0096] and [0126]-[0127]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the counterflow air contactor as disclosed by Heidel by having the reaction fluid distribution system to comprise a reaction fluid header and reaction fluid spray nozzles, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘925 teaches an air contactor system for removing carbon dioxide from atmospheric air comprising a liquid-gas contactor comprising packing material, a basin collection system fluidly coupled to the packing material, and a liquid stream (CO2 capture solution) for distributing a reaction fluid, i.e. KOH, over the packing material, wherein the capture solution may be composed of potassium hydroxide, whereby the solution circulates internal to the liquid-gas contactors to keep a wetted film replenished on fill media known as structured packing, and the potassium hydroxide aqueous solution is distributed using a distribution header system, including pressurized piping and spray nozzles (see figures 3 and 11 and paragraphs [0096] and [0126]-[0127]).
In regards to Claim 16, Heidel discloses the counterflow air contactor as recited in claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the tower frame and fan include fiberglass and the reaction fluid basin and the water basin include corrosion resistant material.
However, ‘925 teaches a basin and nozzles system for distributing liquid solutions over packing for capturing carbon dioxide from dilute sources, for example atmospheric CO2 (see paragraphs [0073] and [0087]). A liquid stream, which may include potassium hydroxide, is distributed and falls off packing material into a liquid collection basin system (see paragraph [0096]). As further shown in figure 6, the CO2 capture system includes a tower frame and an induced fan supported by said tower frame and located downwind of the packing material and is configured to draw ambient air from a plenum upward into the system, through the packing material before leaving a fan cowling outlet (see figure 6 and paragraph [0102]).
‘925 further teaches wherein the air the cooling tower packing material may comprise Brentwood XF12560 which is constructed from PVC that is completely resistant to strong hydroxide, has an efficient cross-flow geometry which produces low air-side pressure drop, and possess a similar surface area per volume as common stainless steel tower packing. Further, the air contactor structure itself could utilize a combination of fiberglass reinforced plastic and steel materials to create the support structure (see paragraphs [0141] and [0152]). In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, to also have the fan to be made of fiberglass and the basins to be made of corrosion resistant material to maintain and further extend the life of the air contactor as whole.
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the counterflow air contactor as disclosed by Heidel by having the tower frame and fan to include fiberglass and the basins to include corrosion resistant material, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as ‘925 teaches a basin and nozzles system for distributing liquid solutions over packing for capturing carbon dioxide from dilute sources, for example atmospheric CO2, wherein liquid solutions useful include sodium hydroxide solution and potassium hydroxide solution, whereby a liquid stream, which may include potassium hydroxide, is distributed and falls off packing material into a liquid collection basin system, and as further shown in figure 6, the CO2 capture system includes a tower frame and an induced fan supported by said tower frame and located downwind of the packing material and is configured to draw or force ambient air from a plenum upward into the system, through the packing material and through a drift eliminator material before leaving a fan cowling outlet, wherein the air the cooling tower packing material may comprise Brentwood XF12560 which is constructed from PVC that is completely resistant to strong hydroxide, has an efficient cross-flow geometry which produces low air-side pressure drop, and possess a similar surface area per volume as common stainless steel tower packing and the air contactor structure itself could utilize a combination of fiberglass reinforced plastic and steel materials to create the support structure, thereby obtaining a system having improved corrosion resistance which improves and extends the life of the air contactor as a whole (see figure 6 and paragraphs [0073], [0087], [0102], [0141] and [0152]). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel in view of Meek, G. (US Pat. No. 3,500,615, hereinafter Meek).
In regards to Claim 14, Heidel discloses the counterflow air contactor as recited in claim 9. Heidel discloses wherein the system described is shown as an induced flow dual cell cross flow gas contactor. In this configuration, the fan is located downwind of the packing material and functions to pull airflow into the system through the packing material before leaving the fan cowling outlet (see figure 6 and paragraph [0102]). Although Heidel does not show the humidifier sections, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, that the fan draws air through the two humidifier sections in a crossflow direction, as claimed by the applicant.
Heidel fails to disclose wherein the fan draws air through the reaction fluid dispersion media in a counterflow direction.
However, Meek teaches a gas liquid contact apparatus for removing a pollutant from atmospheric air with a reaction fluid comprising a tower frame (#12) located adjacent a reaction fluid basin (#14), a reaction fluid dispersion media (#10) supported in the tower frame (#12) and a reaction fluid distribution system (#16, #18) located in the tower frame adjacent the reaction fluid dispersion media (#10) and configured to distribute a reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media (#10), a fan (#24) supported by the tower frame (#12) configured to draw ambient air through the reaction fluid dispersion media (#10) as the reaction fluid distribution system (#16, #18) distributes the reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media (#10), and the fan draws the air through the reaction fluid dispersion media (#10) in a counterflow direction (see figure 1 and column 2, lines 14-17, lines 29-43).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the counterflow air contactor as disclosed by Heidel by relocating the reaction fluid dispersion media in order for the fan to draw air through the reaction fluid dispersion media in a counterflow direction, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Meek teaches a gas liquid contact apparatus for removing a pollutant from atmospheric air with a reaction fluid comprising a tower frame located adjacent a reaction fluid basin, a reaction fluid dispersion media supported in the tower frame and a reaction fluid distribution system located in the tower frame adjacent the reaction fluid dispersion media and configured to distribute a reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media, a fan supported by the tower frame configured to draw ambient air through the reaction fluid dispersion media as the reaction fluid distribution system distributes the reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media, and the fan draws the air through the reaction fluid dispersion media in a counterflow direction, thereby obtaining a counterflow air contactor having improved carbon dioxide removal efficiency (see figure 1 and column 2, lines 14-17, lines 29-43), and also since it has been held that the relocation of parts within a system is a mere engineering design choice, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Examiner’s Comments
In regards to Claims 5-6, no art rejection has been made for these claims, these have only been objected for minor informalities, as explained in the above office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are allowed.
In regards to Claim 1, Heidel et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0101107)-which is considered the closest prior art of record, discloses a counterflow air contactor configured for large-scale and continuous removal of a pollutant from ambient air comprising:
a tower frame located above a reaction fluid basin (#205), reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) supported in the tower frame (see figure 2 below and paragraph [0129]);
a reaction fluid distribution system (#203) in communication with the tower frame and above the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204), the reaction fluid distribution system (#203) containing reaction fluid including aqueous hydroxide (potassium hydroxide) and configured to distribute the reaction fluid over said the reaction fluid dispersion media (#204) (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129]-[0130]);
a fan (#207) in communication with the tower frame located adjacent the reaction fluid distribution system (#203), open to ambient atmosphere on a top side, and configured to draw or force ambient air from the ambient atmosphere through an inlet (#102) that is open to the ambient atmosphere (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129] and [0131]);
the reaction fluid basin (#205) located adjacent the tower frame and configured to catch a reaction product from a chemical reaction between the aqueous hydroxide reaction fluid and the pollutant in the ambient air, wherein the chemical reaction causes mass transfer of the pollutant from the ambient air to the aqueous hydroxide reaction fluid, as well as unreacted reaction fluid (see figure 2 below and paragraphs [0129] and [0135]).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The differences between Heidel and the instant invention is that Heidel fails to disclose: (1) wherein the fan is configured to draw or force ambient air from and through a plenum and upward through the reaction fluid dispersion media in a direction opposite to a downward flow of said reaction fluid from said reaction fluid distribution system as the reaction fluid distribution system is distributing the reaction fluid over the reaction fluid dispersion media; (2) wherein the reaction fluid distribution system and the reaction fluid dispersion media are located beneath the fan, and (3) wherein the tower frame defines the plenum beneath a diameter of the fan.
Applicant discloses on paragraphs [0017]-[0019] of published specification that: “According to another embodiment of the invention, a central reaction unit (the air contactor) includes an air mover preferably located atop the central unit to draw air through the bottom side of the central unit into a plenum of the central unit, and up and out the top of the device (counterflow). Approximately 6-40 feet of film fill, preferably EvapPak or TechClean brand film fill, is stacked within the central reaction unit. Any film fill is suitable for use in the reaction unit provided that it provides a support media to the aqueous solution to spread out in a thin film which results in a high contact area with the interacting ambient air. The film fill preferably has a surface area to volume ratio of at least 124 square meters per cubic meter (38ft2/ft3), and more preferably at least 210 m2/m3 (64ft2/ft3). According to a further preferred embodiment, the film fill is selected/configured to keep the interacting air-side pressure drop less than 250 Pa. Ambient air is drawn up through the plenum of the air contactor by the fan. A spray header is located in the central reaction unit beneath the fan. A suitable aqueous reaction solution, for example, potassium or sodium hydroxide in the case of carbon dioxide removal, is pumped to the spray header and is sprayed over the fill.”
There is no reason, motivation or suggestion in Heidel, alone or in combination, which would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to have a counterflow air contactor with the above configuration, as claimed by the applicant, in order to arrive at the claimed invention. For this reason, the above claims are considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding Heidel (‘107) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Heidel explicitly discusses why a hydroxide solution would not be used stating "[e]xamples of some solutions which may be considered problematic as hydration solutions include, for example, strong alkaline solutions, such as, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate; and inclusion of additional components, such as catalysts and enzymes, that are known to improve the CO2 uptake kinetics of the CO2 capture solution, or any other solutions or chemicals that are normally employed in CO2 capture systems. Accordingly, the cited art is silent to and does not disclose "the reaction fluid basin located adjacent the tower frame and configured to catch a reaction product from a chemical reaction between the aqueous hydroxide reaction fluid and the pollutant in the ambient air, wherein the chemical reaction causes mass transfer of the pollutant from the ambient air to the aqueous hydroxide reaction fluid," as recited in claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the disclosure in Heidel related to the “examples of solutions which may be considered problematic” are related to the liquid solutions in the hydration section, i.e. humidifier section, and not related to the CO2 capture section, as can be seen in paragraph [0102] of Heidel. Heidel further discloses in paragraph [0103] that: “Conversely, CO2 capture solutions used in processes such as DAC and CCS are solutions that are selected and used specifically for their better performance/ability in capturing at least a portion of CO2 when contacted with a CO2 containing gas. Examples include, alkaline solutions, such as, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate; and the solution can include additional components, such as catalysts and enzymes, that are known to improve the CO2 uptake of the CO2 capture solution.” This is one of the reasons why both distribution systems (#103 hydration solution distribution unit and #203 CO2 capture solution distribution unit) are separate from each other. In view of this, the argument is not considered persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights