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 Applicant’s amendments filed 01/21/2026.
Claims 1-4, 28, 37-51 are pending and being examined. Claims 5-27 and 29-36 are canceled. Claims 1, 4, 28 are amended and claims 37-51 are newly added with no new subject matter being introduced.
New grounds of rejection are made in light of the amendments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 37-41 are allowed.
Claims 49-51 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.
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 28, 42, 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamad (US 2019/0120106 A1) in view of Cook (US 2011/0067390 A1).
Considering claim 28, Hamad teaches a system for capturing carbon dioxide in exhaust gases of a vehicle installed on the vehicle comprising a contactor; the contactor comprising a two sides wherein one side adsorbs CO2 and the other side thermally desorbs the CO2 (Hamad, abstract). Hamad teaches the system can be used for CO2 management from the exhaust of trains that operate through the combustion of carbon containing fuels (i.e., locomotive comprising an internal combustion engine) (Hamad, [0004],[0024]). Hamad teaches the desorbed/released CO2 can be compressed and stored onboard the vehicle (i.e., train) (Hamad, [0008]).
Thus, Hamad teaches a train comprising a carbon capture train comprising an intake in fluid communication with a carbon capture system (i.e., exhaust feeding the contactor) comprising a collection chamber (i.e., contactor side that adsorbs CO2), a desorption chamber (i.e., contactor side that releases/desorbs CO2), a compressor, and a carbon dioxide storage container for storing carbon dioxide compressed by the compressor of the carbon capture system.
Hamad teaches use of the heat of exhaust gases to generate energy output to provide either electrical or mechanical energy for all or part of the energy needed for the compressor to compress CO2 (Hamad, [0026]-[0027]). Hamad teaches cooling the exhaust gas and recovering the energy from the cooling prior to adsorption of CO2 (Hamad, [0028]).
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 train to comprise an energy storage device for storing electrical power received from the energy capture system via a power transfer interface and for providing electrical power to the carbon capture system. 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 convert the thermal energy recovered from the carbon dioxide capture system (i.e., cooling exhaust prior to adsorption) to electrical energy and use it to compress the CO2 recovered from the carbon capture system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Hamad does not explicitly teach a carbon capture train car that is separably connected to the locomotive via a coupler.
However, Cook teaches a train comprising one or more locomotives coupled to one or more tenders which contain at least one of an exhaust after-treatment or a waste heat recovery system and optionally one or more other locomotive subsystems, such as dynamic braking, energy storage, driven wheels, and fuel storage is provided (Cook, abstract). Cook teaches a tender to house an exhaust after-treatment system eases space constraints on the locomotive power traction car (Cook, [0011]-[0013], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a carbon capture train car that is separably connected to the locomotive via a coupler. 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 ease space constraints on the locomotive power traction car with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 42, Cook teaches significant amount of energy is expelled from the locomotive when going downhill or coming to a stop due to dynamic breaking; in dynamic breaking systems, the energy of the train is converted into electricity and can be stored (Cook, [0016]).
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 energy capture system to be a regenerative braking system. 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 capture an unused source of energy and use it where needed on the train with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 45, Hamad does not explicitly teach the regenerative braking system is arranged in the locomotive.
Cook teaches energy generated during braking is provided to the system direct current (DC) bus (Cook, [0037]), the locomotive comprises the DC bus which is electrically connected to a standard dynamic braking resistive grid power (Cook, [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the regenerative braking system in the locomotive. 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 have the energy capture system in close proximity to where the energy is generated (i.e., locomotive).
Moreover, rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious (see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C)). In the instant case the location of the regenerative braking system is a design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device.
Considering claim 46, Hamad does not explicitly teach the train further comprising a pump for reducing a collection chamber pressure of the collection chamber.
However, Hamad teaches the adsorption pressure/temperature depends on the particular sorbent being used (Hamad, [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to include a means for pressure adjustment of the collection chamber such as a pump. 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 ensure the collection chamber is operated at desired pressure for desired CO2 adsorption with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 47, Hamad teaches a storage unit for storing compressed CO2 onboard (Hamad, [0008] and 32 of Figs. 1-2), he does not explicitly teach an outlet valve in fluid communication with the carbon dioxide storage container.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an outlet valve in fluid communication with the carbon dioxide storage container. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to empty the storage container for re-use with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 48, Cook teaches an exhaust transfer interface for transferring exhaust gases of the locomotive from the exhaust of the locomotive to the intake of the carbon capture train car (Cook, 40 of Fig. 1, [0066]).
Claims 43-44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamad (US 2019/0120106 A1) in view of Cook (US 2011/0067390 A1) and Cook (US 2021/0129873 A1, Cook’873).
Considering claims 43-44, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 28 limitations except for the energy capture system comprises a solar panel array for providing electrical power to the energy storage device.
Hamad teaches recovering thermal energy on board a train and converting it to either electrical or mechanical energy, he does not explicitly teach the energy capture system comprises a solar panel array for providing electrical power to the energy storage device.
However, Cook’873 teaches railcars comprising storage battery banks charged by solar panels and regenerative brakes and diverting generated power to train engines (Cook, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the energy capture system to comprise a solar panel array for providing electrical power to the energy storage device comprising a battery. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated do so in order to generate and store electrical power using an available energy source (i.e., solar) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Hamad and Salehpoor fail to disclose an intake with an opening that extends into a slipstream of the train have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Hamad does not teach a locomotive and a carbon capture train car connected to the locomotive via a coupler have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration and in light of the amendments, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Cook (US 2011/0067390 A1).
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 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