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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-23, 26, and 29are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 26, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17, 24-25,27-28,30-34,36,43,49,52-55,59, and 63 in the reply filed on June 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN104645808 A)
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a system in which ammonia water is used to remove sulfur oxides and carbon dioxide from a flue gas (Wang [0070]). In further detail, the system first removes sulfur dioxide from the process gas in a purification device (Wang [0072]) followed by carbon dioxide being removed from the gas (Wang [0073]). Wang then teaches an ammonia removal step (Wang [0074]). While the purified gas is released into the atmosphere, the remaining liquid is recirculated to the first purification device for reuse (Wang [0074]). This disclosure meets the limitations set in the instant claim requiring a desulfurization and decarbonation method using ammonia to remove sulfur oxides and CO2 where the process involves: (1) removing, using desulfurization circulating fluid, SO2 from the process gas. (2) removing, using a decarbonization circulating fluid, CO2 from the process gas; and (3) removing, using desulfurization circulating fluid, free ammonia from the process gas; and returning the desulfurization circulating fluid to the desulfurization apparatus.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wang discloses that the purification process would produce ammonium sulfate (Wang [0062]) that is mixed into fertilizer (Wang[0028]). This means that the system would lead to the production of an ammonium sulfate containing fertilizer (Wang[0067]). Therefore, this disclosure fulfills the limitations set in the instant claims requiring the decarbonization/desulfurization method to include the production of fertilizer containing ammonium sulfate.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the same process as claimed, removing carbon dioxide at similar concentrations (6-20% in [0070]) to the instant invention (12%) in the examples using ammonia. It is expected the CO2 removal efficiency would be at the same or similar level as the instantly claimed invention and in the range claimed.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN104645808 A) and further in view of Liu (US 20110174032 A1)
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Wang discloses a purification process where flue gas contacts an ammonia solution leading to the production of CO2 gas.(Wang [0014]). However, the prior art only discloses that ammonium sulfate (Wang [0062]) is produced as fertilizer (Wang[0028]). While Wang does not note the inclusion of ammonium bicarbonate into fertilizer, Lui teaches a process of ammonia absorption where a carbon dioxide stream (Lui [0048]) contacts ammonia water to create ammonia bicarbonate (Liu [0048]). Liu further discloses that ammonium bicarbonate is a fertilizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a byproduct of Wang (ammonium bicarbonate)to create a valuable product described in Liu (ammonium bicarbonate containing fertilizer).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses carbon dioxide regeneration via regeneration tower, which contains a top and bottom section (Wang[0064]). Liu teaches the method of using CO2 to create an ammonium bicarbonate fertilizer(Liu [0057]). One of ordinary skill in the art would apply the teachings of Liu to Wang in order to use a byproduct of the process in Wang in order to produce a valuable product (fertilizer).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN104645808 A) and further in view of Niitsuma (US 8460630 B2).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wang discloses the use of a regeneration tower however, they do not indicate the pressure within the apparatus. On the other hand, Niitsuma which describes a process of recovering hydrogen and carbon dioxide simultaneously (Niitsuma [Abstract]) discloses the pressure levels used in the apparatus. In the description of the invention, Niitsuma discloses a step to regenerate the adsorption tower, leading to a high CO2 concentration in the offgas (Niitsuma [C9 L64-68]). Niitsuma further teaches that the MPA of the offgas in the tower is 0.01 to 0.5 MPA (Niitsuma [C10 L13-15]). With the limitations in the instant claim being 0.2-0.7 MPA and 0.3-0.5 MPA there is a significant overlap between the regeneration pressure of the system. This would result in a prima facie case of similar ranges. “"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a range between 0.2-0.7 MPA and 0.3-0.5MPA, because prior art dictated the use of a low-pressure range in the regeneration tower that encompasses/overlaps the limitations set by the instant claims.
Claim(s) 13,14, 16, 24, 33, 34, 36, 59, and 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN104645808 A) and further in view of Luo (CN 109529549 A).
Regarding claim 13, Wang does not disclose the gas velocity of the flowing gas in the tower. However, Lou teaches that the regeneration tower is run with a gas velocity of 2.35 m/s (Lou [0082]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try to apply the gas velocity found in Lou to Wang since the structure found in Lou is applied to Wayne. This means that one of ordinary skill in the art can apply similar parameters to the system in Wang with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Wang does not disclose the gas velocity of the flowing gas in the tower. However, Lou provides a gas velocity in the range of 1.5 m/s to 3.5 m/s (Lou[0037]) within the tower. Since the range provided by the prior art has a significant overlap with the range required by the instant invention a prima facie case exists. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply a gas velocity between the parameters set by the prior art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 16, Wang does not disclose the presence of a downstream product. However, Lou teaches that CO2 removal from a process gas results in a downstream product (Lou [0005]). Wang and Lou both present systems that perform decarbonization and desulfurization using an ammonia based absorbent fluid and a regeneration tower for CO2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to identify the similarities in the integrated desulfurization and decarbonation systems and come to the conclusion that a downstream product would exist in the system.
Regarding claim 24, Wang does not teach oil extraction as a use for the downstream product. However, Lou teaches that the downstream product from the extraction process is used to assist in oil extraction (Lou [0005]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that due to substantial similarities between the processes presented in the prior art [the decarbonization and desulfurization of flue gas using ammonia] (Wang [0065]) (Lou [0013]) they would also have similar uses for their downstream products.
Regarding claim 33, Wang does not disclose the ammonium sulfate/sulfite concentration in the circulating fluid. However, Lou discloses two absorption solutions, the first stage solution as the absorbing circulating fluid and the second stage as the concentrated circulating fluid. The first stage absorption circulating solution contains 0.6% ammonium sulfite, 24.3% ammonium sulfate. The second stage absorption circulating fluid contains 0.2% ammonium sulfite, 24.4% ammonium sulfate (Lou [0099]). Both Wang and Lou utilize an ammonium containing fluid as an absorbent to the flue gas with variable levels of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the composition of the absorbent stream in Lou to Wang. See MPEP 2143(g).
Regarding claims 34, Wang does not disclose the pH of the circulating fluids. However, Lou discloses the pH of the first stage absorption circulating solution as 5.9, the second stage absorption circulating solution has a pH of 5.3(Lou [0099]). Both Wang and Lou utilize an ammonium containing fluid as an absorbent to the flue gas with variable levels of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the composition of the absorbent stream in Lou to Wang. See MPEP 2143(g).
Regarding claim 36, Wang does not disclose the pH of the circulating fluid used in the system. However, the absorbent liquid used in Lou varies between a pH of 4-6.4 (Lou [0029]). In comparison to the pH of the concentrated circulating fluid being between 2 and 4.5, and the absorbing circulating fluid having a pH between 4.8 to 6.2, there is a significant overlap between the absorbent’s liquid and an overlap with the concentrated absorbent solution. This would result in a prima facie case of similar ranges. “"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a pH from the reference to achieve a circulating fluid with a pH between 4.8 to 6.2. On the other hand, the pH of the concentrated absorbent solution and the pH of the prior art are so close that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the properties of the absorbent from the prior art would be similar to that of the instant invention.
Regarding claims 59 and 63, Wang does not disclose a specific temperature where desulfurization and decarbonization takes place. On the other hand, Lou specifies the use of differing temperatures during operation period which is between 40°C -75°C (Lou [0037]). While the temperature range in Lou has a slight overlap with the claimed ranges. For this reason, a prima facie case of optimization exists. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use routine experimentation to find the optimal temperatures for the desulfurization/decarbonation process. See MPEP 2144.II(a).
Claim(s) 25,27-28,and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN104645808 A) and further in view of Kelemen P, Benson SM, Pilorgé H, Psarras P and Wilcox J (2019) An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in Minerals and Geological Formations. Front. Clim. 1:9. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2019.00009.
Regarding claim 25, 27-28, and 30, Wang does not disclose the sequestering of CO2 after it is removed from the flue gas. However, Kelemen discloses that underground sequestration can be used as long-term storage (Kelemen[Introduction ¶2]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kelemen (underground sequestration) to Wang in order to avoid the release of CO2 gas, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31,32, 37,43,49,and 52-55 are 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.
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 31-32, 37,43,49,and 52-55 , Wang discloses a system in which ammonia water is used to remove sulfur oxides and carbon dioxide from a flue gas (Wang [0070]). Lui teaches a process of ammonia absorption where carbon dioxide contacts with ammonia water to create ammonia bicarbonate (Liu [0048]) which is turned into fertilizer (Liu [0057]) . Lou teaches a regeneration column that contains a top and bottom section, which performs CO2 regeneration (Lou [0013]) and the parameters used such as the composition of the absorbent fluid(Lou [0099]). Lastly Kelemen disclosed the storage method for the carbon dioxide extracted from the flue gas in the form of underground sequestering(Kelemen[Introduction ¶2]).
Among the prior references there is no teaching or suggestion that the application of ammonia removal from the process gas takes place between the decarbonization and desulfurization steps as required by claims 31 and 32. Regarding claims 37,43,49, and 52-55, the prior art does not teach nor suggest the concentration the ammonia bicarbonate nor do they address the ammonia to carbon dioxide ratio required by the instant claims. For these reasons claims 31,32, 37,43,49,and 52-55 are considered novel and nonobvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 EST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736