DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the current claim amendments. In light of the amendments, a new grounds of rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (hereinafter Ge) US 2014/0113346 in view of Penders et al. (hereinafter Penders) US 2014/0106440.
Regarding claim 1, Ge discloses a method comprising: collecting exhaust gas comprising carbon dioxide (CO2) at a wellsite to provide a collected exhaust gas (Raw natural gas is generally obtained from oil wells, gas wells, and condensate wells.) as discussed in at least paragraph 190; and contacting the collected exhaust gas with a stream comprising water in the presence of a carbonic anhydrase catalyst in a chamber (bioreactor/absorber) to hydrate the CO2 and form a bicarbonate solution (For example, this processes includes contacting a CO2 containing gas with an absorption mixture that includes water, biocatalysts, such as carbonic anhydrases, and a carbonate compound to enable dissolution and transformation of CO2 into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions, thereby producing a CO2 depleted gas and an ion-rich solution; and subjecting the ion-rich solution to desorption where the carbonate compound promotes release of the bicarbonate ions from the ion-rich solution producing a CO2 gas stream and an ion-depleted solution.) as discussed in at least paragraphs 195, 201 and 202.
While Ge discloses that recycled components (e.g., water and carbonate) can be combined with the liquid stream entering the absorber discussed in at least paragraph 203. Ge does not expressly disclose that the stream comprising water includes a recycle stream comprising at least a portion of the bicarbonate solution recycled directly to the chamber.
Penders discloses a method, process, apparatus, use and formulation for dual biocatalytic conversion of CO2 containing gas into carbon containing bio-products by enzymatic hydration of CO2 into bicarbonate ions in the presence of carbonic anhydrase wherein a recycle stream comprising at least a portion of the bicarbonate solution recycled directly to the chamber (Part of the ion-rich solution 24 may be recycled back to the absorber reactor 16 via an ion-rich solution return line. The absorber 16 may also have other recycle or return lines, as desired, depending on operating conditions and reactor design) discussed in paragraphs 83-85, 108-110, 199 and 332.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ge with a recycle stream comprising at least a portion of the bicarbonate solution recycled directly to the chamber as taught Penders such that the stream comprising water includes a recycle stream comprising at least a portion of the bicarbonate solution in order to improve mixing of the bottoms of the absorber reactor to avoid accumulation of precipitates and reactor deadzones. Furthermore, recycling bicarbonate in CO2 capture processes are known to offer several environmental, economic, and technical advantages such as lower energy requirements, higher conversion efficiency and cost reduction potential.
Regarding claim 2, Ge discloses wherein contacting the collected exhaust gas with water in the presence of the carbonic anhydrase catalyst to form the bicarbonate solution further comprises introducing the collected exhaust gas into a packed bed chamber comprising a packed bed (The systems may utilize a variety of bioreactors, including without limitation, a packed bed, a fluidized bed, a continuous stirred tank, or any other bioreactor disclosed herein.) comprising the carbonic anhydrase catalyst (For example, the immobilized carbonic anhydrase may be coated on the packing material.) as discussed in at least paragraph 202.
Regarding claim 3, Ge discloses wherein contacting the collected exhaust gas with water in the presence of the carbonic anhydrase catalyst to form the bicarbonate solution further comprises introducing a stream comprising the water via a top of the packed bed chamber and injecting the collected exhaust gas via a bottom of the packed bed chamber (The systems may utilize a variety of bioreactors, including without limitation, a packed bed, a fluidized bed, a continuous stirred tank, or any other bioreactor disclosed herein. When a packed or fluidized bed bioreactor is used, the gas and liquid streams entering the bioreactor can be in a co-current or counter current configuration.) as discussed in at least paragraph 202.
Regarding claim 4, Ge discloses removing the bicarbonate solution from the bottom of the packed bed chamber and removing a CO2 reduced gas from a top of the packed bed chamber (The CO2 in the gas stream is absorbed by the liquid, and the treated gas stream leaves the top of the absorber.) as discussed in at least paragraph 203.
Regarding claim 6, Ge discloses cooling the collected exhaust gas prior to contacting the collected exhaust gas with water in the presence of a carbonic anhydrase catalyst to form a bicarbonate solution (The flue gas exiting the combustion chamber is treated to remove ash, NO and/or SQ. Rather than exhausting the gas by a stack, the gas is sent to additional heat exchangers and energy recovery systems to cool it down to an adequate temperature for the biological process. Energy is produced by this step. The cooled gas is then treated in a gas treatment unit to remove additional contaminants that may be harmful to the biological process, and finally, CO2 is removed by a bioreactor that contains a free and/or immobilized polypeptide, such as a carbonic anhydrase, that converts CO2 to bicarbonate, and the low CO2 gas is blown to the atmosphere.) as discussed in at least paragraphs 200-202.
Regarding claim 7, Ge discloses wherein the carbonic anhydrase catalyst comprises a zinc as discussed in at least paragraph 255.
However, Ge does not explicitly disclose that the zinc containing metalloenzyme selected from selected from α-carbonic anhydrase, β-carbonic anhydrase, and γ-carbonic anhydrase.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to provide a zinc containing metalloenzyme selected from selected from α-carbonic anhydrase, β-carbonic anhydrase, and γ-carbonic anhydrase, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 8, Ge discloses substantially continuously collecting the exhaust gas comprising carbon dioxide (CQ) at the wellsite to provide the collected exhaust gas; and/or substantially continuously contacting the collected exhaust gas with water in the presence of the carbonic anhydrase catalyst to form the bicarbonate solution as discussed in at least paragraphs 177, 194 and 203.
Regarding claim 9, Ge discloses further processing the bicarbonate solution to produce a product (The bicarbonate containing solution may be processed in subsequent reactions for example to generate pure CO2) as discussed in at least paragraph 194.
Regarding claim 10, Ge discloses producing substantially pure CO2 from the bicarbonate solution (The bicarbonate containing solution may be processed in subsequent reactions for example to generate pure CO2) as discussed in at least paragraph 194.
Regarding claim 11, Ge discloses producing substantially pure CO2 from the bicarbonate solution further comprises introducing the bicarbonate solution into a packed bed chamber comprising the or another carbonic anhydrase catalyst to form the substantially pure CO2 (The bicarbonate containing solution may be processed in subsequent reactions for example to generate pure CO2) as discussed in at least paragraph 194.
Regarding claim 12, Ge does not explicitly disclose injecting at least a portion of the bicarbonate solution into a well at the or another wellsite to sequester CO2 in a subterranean formation.
However, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject at least a portion of the bicarbonate solution into a well at the or another wellsite to sequester CO2 in a subterranean formation in order to help reduce and/or remediate the emissions of greenhouse gas of which is known to be a major contributor to global warming.
Regarding claim 18, Ge discloses a method comprising: producing bicarbonate solution comprising bicarbonate via hydration, in the presence of a carbonic anhydrase catalyst, of carbon dioxide in an exhaust gas produced at a wellsite (Raw natural gas is generally obtained from oil wells, gas wells, and condensate wells…For example, this processes includes contacting a CO2 containing gas with an absorption mixture that includes water, biocatalysts, such as carbonic anhydrases, and a carbonate compound to enable dissolution and transformation of CO2 into bicarbonate and hydrogen ions, thereby producing a CO2 depleted gas and an ion-rich solution; and subjecting the ion-rich solution to desorption where the carbonate compound promotes release of the bicarbonate ions from the ion-rich solution producing a CO2 gas stream and an ion-depleted solution.) as discussed in at least paragraphs 195, 201 and 202.
Ge also discloses wherein the carbonic anhydrase catalyst is immobilized by covalent grafting silica coated bead discussed in at least paragraphs 175 and 177, wherein the silica coated bead provides a support packed matrix in the packed bed chamber discussed in at least paragraphs 194 and 202.
Ge does not expressly disclose that the silica is coated on porous steel. However, Ge does disclose that the packing materials may be a polymer such as nylon, polystyrene a polyethylene, a ceramic such as silica, or a metal such as aluminum. See paragraph 194.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ge to provide a silica coated porous steel packing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Ge discloses wherein the producing is performed substantially continuously as discussed in at least paragraphs 177, 194 and 203.
Regarding claim 20, Ge does not explicitly disclose wherein the bicarbonate solution comprises from about 5 to about 100 weight percent (wt%) bicarbonate.
However, Ge does imply that the bicarbonate solution comprises from about 5 to about 100 weight percent (wt%) bicarbonate (The bicarbonate containing solution may be processed in subsequent reactions for example to generate pure CO2) as discussed in at least paragraph 194. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to provide a bicarbonate solution from about 5 to about 100 weight percent (wt%) bicarbonate, since providing a requisite bicarbonate solution is within the common knowledge of a skilled artesian and depends on its intended use.
Regarding claim 21, Ge discloses wherein the chamber is a packed bed chamber discussed in at least paragraphs 184 and 205, and wherein the carbonic anhydrase catalyst is immobilized by covalent grafting silica coated bead discussed in at least paragraphs 175 and 177, wherein the silica coated bead provides a support packed matrix in the packed bed chamber discussed in at least paragraphs 194 and 202.
Ge does not expressly disclose that the silica is coated on porous steel. However, Ge does disclose that the packing materials may be a polymer such as nylon, polystyrene a polyethylene, a ceramic such as silica, or a metal such as aluminum. See paragraph 194.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Ge to provide a silica coated porous steel packing, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP §2144.07.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYDIA EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3242. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Wednesday 08:00-18:00 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYDIA EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights