DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 8/4/26 containing amendments and remarks to the claim.
Claims 35-39 and 42-49 are currently pending. Claims 50-55 remain withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the previous rejection however, an updated search brings new prior art in light of the amendment.
This rejection is now Final.
FINAL REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 35-40 and 42-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Indefiniteness
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “a metal oxide additive that comprises one or more Al, Ca, Zr in combination with Al or Zr” is indefinite. The phrase does not clearly define the permitted composition. Because Al and Zr appear on both sides of “in combination with,” the language permits “Al in combination with Al” or “Zr in combination with Zr.” Thus, it is unclear whether ZrO2 alone satisfies, two different metals are required, Ca must be combined with Al or Zr, or the intended additive must be mixed oxide such as CaZrO3.
Regarding claim 39, the phrase “mixing an additive precursor with the material” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “which reacts with the CO2 sorbent” refers to the material or to the additive precursor. Claim 35 requires the metal carbonate-based material to comprise a metal oxide additive, whereas claim 39 recites mixing an additive precursor with the material to form the additive. It is therefore unclear if the additive in claim 35 is initially present in the material or is formed subsequently from the additive precursor. Additionally, it is unclear whether “which reacts with the CO2 sorbent” refers to the material or the additive precursor.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
Regarding claims 35, 43, 44, and 45, the phrase “the additive” lacks antecedent basis. It is assumed to refer to the “a metal oxide additive.”
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.
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 35-40, 42-46, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrión et al. Journal of CO2 Utilization 28 (2018) 374-384 in view of Ping et al. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 4, (2016), 2047-2055.
Regarding claims 35, 36, 39, and 40, Sarrión teaches a method of storing energy comprising:
Heating a metal-carbon based material comprising a CO2 sorbed product (CaCO3), and a metal oxide additive (ZrO2), to desorb CO2 from the material and convert the CO2 sorbed product (CaCO3), to a CO2 sorbent (CaO) (page 376, section 2.2, lines 11-12);
The ZrO2 metal oxide additive prevents sintering of the CaO CO2 sorbent (page 377, 2nd column, lines 11-15); wherein
The sorbing and desorbing steps are performed under a CO2 atmosphere, and wherein the metal oxide does not comprise Mayenite (page 376, section 2.2).
Sarrión does not explicitly mention a crust formation that prevents the CO2 sorbent (CaO) and CO2 from reacting to form the CO2 sorbed product (CaCO3) during an adsorption step.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that since the materials and storage process are similar, then Sarrión would effectively teach a crust formation that prevents the CO2 sorbent (CaO) and CO2 from reacting to form the CO2 sorbed product (CaCO3) during an adsorption step absent any evidence to the contrary.
Alternatively, Ping teaches a CO2 sorption durability of Zr modified CaO sorbents with cage-like hollow sphere structure. The formation of CaZrO3 with a cage-like porous structure facilitated CO2 diffusion and minimized thermal sintering. Ping teaches that ZrO2 reacts with CaO to form a rigid CaZrO3 cage structure that reduces sintering and maintains diffusion pathways (abstract)
Thus, it would have been obvious to incorporate Ping’s ZrO2 into the CO2 sorbent of Sarrión because the modification would mitigate formation of diffusion inhibiting crusts during repeated carbonation and calcination. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to preserve CO2 accessibility and improve the sorbent’s cyclic stability.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the calcination (desorption) was performed at 950 ⁰C and the carbonation (absorption) at 850 ⁰C (page 376, section 2.2).
Regarding claim 42, the additive includes CaZrO3 or Ca3Al2O6 (section 2.1).
Regarding claim 43, Sarrión teaches Ca3Al2O6 additive but does not explicitly teach Ca5Al6O14 and Ca9Al6O18. However, it would have been obvious to use known calcium aluminates such as Ca5Al6O14 and Ca9Al6O18 because the particular calcium aluminate formed depends on the amounts of Ca and Al used and the heating conditions. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust these known conditions to form suitable calcium aluminates and reduce sintering of the sorbent with a reasonable expectation of maintaining CO2 sorption capacity.
Regarding claim 44, Sarrión teaches a mass ratio of metal oxide additive to the CO2 sorbed product is about 28.6% /71.4% (page 376, line 6 of the first column). It would have been obvious to optimize the ratio by routine experimentation and arrive at the claimed 10 wt% to 70 wt%.
Regarding claim 45, Sarrión and Ping teach the combination above. Ping teaches a CO2 sorption durability of Zr modified CaO sorbents with cage-like hollow sphere structure. The formation of CaZrO3 with a cage-like porous structure facilitated CO2 diffusion and minimized thermal sintering. Ping teaches that ZrO2 reacts with CaO to form a rigid CaZrO3 cage structure that reduces sintering and maintains diffusion pathways (abstract).
The modification would further allow the CO2 sorbent to migrate through a particle from an inner region to the particle to the surface of the particle to react with the CO2 present at the surface of the particle to form the CO2 product.
Regarding claim 46, Sarrión teaches sorbing CO2 onto the CO2 sorbent to reform the sorbed product and release energy (equation 1, page 374).
Regarding claim 48, Sarrión teaches pure CO2 is provided as a gas at higher temperatures (page 376 section 2.2).
Claims 47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarrión et al. Journal of CO2 Utilization 28 (2018) 374-384 in view of Ping et al. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 4, (2016), 2047-2055 in view of Melsert US Patent 10,464,815.
Regarding claims 47 and 49, Sarrión does not explicitly teach reducing the CO2 pressure for the desorption. Instead, Sarrión reduces the concentration.
Melsert teaches that reducing CO₂ pressure affects the rate of carbonation of the CaO sorbent (column 13 lines 35-41). Because carbonation and calcination are opposing directions of the same reversible reaction (scheme 1 column 6 line 64) and are both controlled by CO2 partial pressure, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by reducing CO₂ pressure would promote desorption of CO₂ from CaCO₃ relative to the pressure used during absorption. The sorbent power cycle includes atmospheric pressure (column 9 line 26), thus overlaps the range of 'up to about 60 bar'.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use known process conditions for desorption and adsorption including the pressure and reducing the pressure for desorption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 35-40 and 43-49have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights