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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on November 7, 2025 has been received. Claims 16-19 are canceled. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-11 are currently under consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant (at page 8, fourth paragraph) argues,
“Although Sweeney indicates that the transportation of "truckloads of used and regenerated sorbent to and from the quayside" (Sweeney, p. 6) there is no teaching of a dedicated storage container that is separate from (i.e., can be connected to, pulled along by or loaded onto) the transportation device for the transport of CaCO3 away from the carbonator. The description presented in Sweeney could be directed to loading the used CaCO3 into the bed of a truck for delivery to the calciner. The bed of the truck is not a separate CaCO₃ storage container that can be connected to, pulled along by or loaded onto the truck, as recited in claim 1.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
Sweeney (at page 6, sixth paragraph) further discloses a “large scale” application of the system, in which a power station that uses calcium looping combustion to capture its CO2 is further used to regenerate the used sorbent (i.e., to convert the CaCO3 back to CaO). In particular, Sweeney discloses, “Lime can be trucked to the point of use in bulk and used sorbent similarly can be moved in bulk by truck.” (with emphasis added).
Sweeney further discloses that, for the ship board application, “The emissions of CO2 per tonne of fuel ranges from 2.75 tonnes for LNP to 3.14 tonnes for fuel oil” (see page 2, under Exhaust gas properties). Sweeney also discloses that, taking into account the conversion efficiency, “The lime requirement would be 4-6 tonnes of lime per tonne of fuel to capture 85% of the CO2” (see page 4, under Lime conversion efficiency). Therefore, in context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the trucking of the material “in bulk” from the location of the ship to the location of the power station would involve the transport of very large quantities, i.e., on the multiple ton scale, of used sorbent material. As such, the argument that the used sorbent could be simply loaded onto a bed of a truck for delivery to the calciner, where the bed of the truck is not a separate structure from the truck, would not make sense in terms of efficiency or cost, since a truck with an integral bed would only be able to transport a relatively small amount of the used sorbent material at a time.
Moran et al. further supports the assertion that trucks used to transport dry materials in bulk inherently include a storage container for storing the bulk material and a transportation device for connecting to and pulling the storage container. Moran et al. was previously cited in the rejections of dependent claims 8 and 11. In particular, Moran et al. (at paragraph [0002], under the Background of the invention) discloses,
“The conventional method of transporting small particle size matter is a process that involves the use of numerous transportation and transload devices that subject the material to a number of ways of contamination and/or spoilage. Conventionally, materials, especially particulate materials are transported by trailer trucks, for example, a tractor with an attached trailer having a storage tanks and accessory fittings to discharge the particulate material. Apart from trailer trucks other transportation means like railcar, barge, etc. are also used in the art. Often, these transport containers are denoted to as hydraulic containers since the container is hydraulically tilted to dislodge the sand from the container. Materials that are typically transported using such trucks include agro products such as wheat grains, corn kernels, beans, flour, sugar, salt, peanuts and the like, and intermediate products for various industrial uses such as lime, silica gel, powdered substances such as acid resins, rare earth substances and powder form of alumina.” (with emphasis added).
Quality Carriers (from the webpage, “What is Dry Bulk Trucking?”) further explains the transportation segment of dry bulk trucking, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, dry bulk trucking involves the transport of large quantities of dry, granular, or powdered materials in bulk. Examples of such materials include chemical powders, such as lime and calcium carbonate, which are transported in dry bulk form (see page 2, first paragraph). The trucks used for this purpose include a storage container (i.e., specialized containers for storing the dry bulk material, such as hopper trailers or pneumatic tankers; see page 4, under item 2) and a transportation device (i.e., the truck part including an engine and operated by a driver), where the storage container can be connected to and pulled along by the transportation device to a desired geographical location.
Applicant (at page 8, last paragraph) further argues,
“Moreover, there is no indication that there is at least one CaCO₃ storage container which is configured to be removed from the vehicle (e.g., ship), for the transport of CaCO3 away from its original position. The description of Sweeney could be construed as directed to a dedicated, stationary CaCO3 storage container on the ship with transfer of the CaCO3 to a truck. This is contrary to recitations of claim 1 where the at least one CaCO₃ storage container both receives CaCO₃ from the carbonator and then is transportable by a vehicle to the calciner. The arrangement in claim 1 eliminates the need to transfer CaCO3 from a storage container to another container (e.g., the bed of a truck) for transport because the recited at least one CaCO3 storage container is also transportable by a vehicle.”
The Office respectfully disagrees.
The rejections are based on the interpretation that the used sorbent storage container of the truck, used to transport the used sorbent in bulk from the location of the ship to the location of the power station (see Sweeney, at page 6, sixth paragraph), corresponds to the claimed “at least one CaCO3 storage container”.
It is noted that claim 1 (at lines 4-5) merely recites:
“at least one CaCO3 storage container for receiving and storing the CaCO3 produced in the carbonator”.
The limitation does not require the at least one CaCO3 storage container to be configured to directly couple to an outlet of the carbonator, such that the at least one CaCO3 storage container receives the produced CaCO3 directly from the carbonator. The limitation also does not require the at least one CaCO3 storage container to be configured to uncouple from the outlet of the carbonator, such that the same CaCO3 storage container can be later connected to, pulled along by, or loaded onto a transportation device. Furthermore, the claim does not exclude the provision of additional containers in the system for the intended use of receiving and storing the CaCO3 that was produced by the carbonator. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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, 4-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney (GB 2527608 A) in view of Moran et al. (US 2017/0015231).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Sweeney discloses a system (apparatus) for energy storage and CO2 capture (i.e., a ship board application, with reference to FIG. 1-2) comprising:
CaO (i.e., fresh lime (CaO) as fresh sorbent, provided in hoppers H1, H2, H3),
a carbonator (i.e., a CO2 sorption reactor SR1, SR2, or SR3) adapted to react CaO with CO2 to produce CaCO3 (i.e., exhaust gas is passed through a bed of lime particles in the sorption reactor SR1, SR2, or SR3, which absorbs CO2 from the exhaust gas by an exothermal reaction under carbonation conditions (see FIG. 1) to convert the lime to limestone (CaCO3), which is a used sorbent; see, e.g., page 1, second paragraph);
at least one CaCO3 storage container for receiving and storing the CaCO3 produced in the carbonator (i.e., an inherent storage container of a truck used to move the used sorbent in bulk to its point of use at a power station; see page 6, sixth paragraph); wherein the CaCO3 storage container is configured to be transportable such that the CaCO3 can be supplied to a geographical location remote from the carbonator for CO2 release (i.e., the storage container which contains the used sorbent in bulk can be transported by the truck from the location of the ship, e.g., at quayside, to the location of the power station for large scale regeneration of the used sorbent; CO2 is released when the used sorbent is regenerated);
the system further comprising:
a calciner located at a geographical location remote from the carbonator (i.e., the power station is remote from the ship, e.g., when at quayside, wherein the power station is equipped with a calciner for calcium looping combustion; see page 6, sixth paragraph), wherein the calciner is adapted to heat the CaCO3 of the transportable CaCO3 storage container to a temperature where CO2 is released to produce CaO (i.e., the used sorbent that was delivered in bulk by the truck to the power station is heated to a temperature in the calcination zone (see FIG. 1), such that the CaCO3 decomposes to CaO and releases CO2);
at least one CaO storage container for receiving and storing the CaO produced in the calciner (i.e., an inherent storage container of a truck to be loaded with the regenerated sorbent comprising fresh lime (CaO) in bulk, for delivering to its point of use, e.g., the ship); and
at least one storage for released CO2 (i.e., the CO2 released during the regeneration of the used sorbent at the power station is compressed, liquefied, and sequestered; see, e.g., page 1, second paragraph; page 7, last paragraph);
wherein the CaCO3 storage container is configured to be connected to, pulled along by, or loaded onto a transportation device (i.e., the storage container containing the used sorbent is connected to the truck which moves the used sorbent in bulk, from the ship, e.g., at quayside, to the geographical location of the power plant).
Moran et al. further supports the Office’s assertion that trucks that are used for transporting materials in bulk inherently include a storage container for storing the materials in bulk and a transportation device (i.e., a device equipped with an engine and operated by a driver) for connecting to and pulling the storage container to a geographical location. In particular, Moran et al. (at paragraph [0002], under the Background) discloses,
“The conventional method of transporting small particle size matter is a process that involves the use of numerous transportation and transload devices that subject the material to a number of ways of contamination and/or spoilage. Conventionally, materials, especially particulate materials are transported by trailer trucks, for example, a tractor with an attached trailer having a storage tanks and accessory fittings to discharge the particulate material. Apart from trailer trucks other transportation means like railcar, barge, etc. are also used in the art. Often, these transport containers are denoted to as hydraulic containers since the container is hydraulically tilted to dislodge the sand from the container. Materials that are typically transported using such trucks include agro products such as wheat grains, corn kernels, beans, flour, sugar, salt, peanuts and the like, and intermediate products for various industrial uses such as lime, silica gel, powdered substances such as acid resins, rare earth substances and powder form of alumina.” (with emphasis added).
Sweeney further discloses that the carbonator is remote from the calciner, but does not state that the carbonator and the calciner are at least 0.5 km (or at least 1 km) apart.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the carbonator and the calciner could be located a considerable distance apart from one another, given the use of trucks for transporting the used sorbent (CaCO3) and the regenerated sorbent (CaO), in bulk, between the two locations. Therefore, it would have been an obvious design consideration for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the carbonator and the calciner at a distance that was at least 0.5 km (or at least 1 km) apart in the system of Sweeney because a truck would have been capable of travelling the claimed distance range, and the specific distance selected between the carbonator and the calciner would be dependent on the geographical location of the power station having the capacity for meeting the intended regeneration demand (see page 6, under 4. The sorbent regeneration system).
Regarding claim 4, Sweeney (at page 6, under the heading “4. The sorbent regeneration system”) discloses, “The used sorbent, which is from 10% up to 40% unreacted lime and over 60% limestone, can be regenerated. The appropriate facility will depend on the scale of the regeneration demand.” For instance, at large scale, the sorbent is regenerated by a calciner that is a component of a power station that uses calcium looping combustion to capture its carbon dioxide, wherein the sorbent can be regenerated when the power station is offline or on low load. As would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, the capacity for producing CaO per hour of a calciner that was located in a power station would be significantly larger than the capacity for consuming CaO per hour by the carbonator (SR1, SR2, or SR3). Therefore, the claimed capacity of the calciner to produce CaO per hour relative to the capacity of the carbonator to consume CaO per hour (i.e., of at least 4 times larger, by weight) is not considered to confer patentability to the claim because the precise capacity ratio would have been considered an obvious design consideration by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an appropriate capacity for the calciner to produce CaO per hour relative to the capacity of the carbonator to consume CaO per hour, such as the claimed capacity of at least 4 times larger by weight, in the system of Sweeney, on the basis of suitability for meeting the scale of the regeneration demand.
Regarding claim 6, Sweeney discloses that the system comprises a plurality of carbonators (i.e., three sorption reactors SR1, SR2, and SR3; see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Sweeney discloses that the system comprises three carbonators (i.e., three CO2 sorption reactors SR1, SR2, and SR3; see FIG. 2) and one calciner (i.e., the calciner at the power station; see page 6, sixth paragraph), such that the system comprises more carbonators than calciners.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Sweeney fails to disclose that the transportable CaCO3 storage container comprises lifting means for lifting and moving the storage container, and CaCO3 container output means for connecting the storage container to the calciner for supplying the CaCO3 from the storage container to the calciner.
Moran discloses a transportable bulk storage container (i.e., a container comprising one or more compartments 105; see FIG. 1-4) for receiving and storing materials that are typically transported by trailer trucks, such as lime or powdered substances (see paragraph [0002]); wherein the transportable bulk storage container 105 is configured to be transportable from one geographic location to another, and the transportable storage container 105 is configured to be connected to, pulled along by, or loaded into some kind of transportation device (i.e., the container is configured to be mounted on a trailer platform 104 to be connected to and pulled by a vehicle, such as a truck). Specifically, Moran et al. discloses that the transportable bulk storage container comprises lifting means (i.e., a material carrier assembly 101 comprising fork lift access cavities 120 and standardized freight corner loading and locking apertures 103 to allow for loading, unloading, and connecting of the material carrier assembly to a truck; see FIG. 1, 3B; paragraphs [0021], [0024]). Moran et al. also discloses that the transportable bulk storage container 105 comprises container output means (i.e., a bottom section 105a for discharging the material from the container, equipped with discharge valves 106 and connected to a material transport conduit 107) for transporting the material from the storage container to an external storage device or an external process (see paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transportable bulk storage container, as taught by Moran et al., for the transportable CaCO3 storage container in the system of Sweeney because the lifting means of the storage container would allow for familiar, standardized loading, unloading, and connecting of the transportable storage container to truck and ocean transportation, and the output means of the storage container would allow for selective transfer of the used sorbent to the calciner in a safe manner (see paragraphs [0018], [0021]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney (GB 2527608 A) in view of Moran et al. (US 2017/0015231), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 101306309 A).
Sweeney fails to disclose that the CaO/CaCO3 are coated with particles comprising SiO2, wherein the particles comprising SiO2 have a diameter in the range of 1-100 nm.
Wu et al. discloses a carbon dioxide capture material (i.e., a nano calcium-based carbon dioxide absorbent modified by silica precipitation, referred to as “nano-SiO2/CaCO3”; see Figures and translation) comprising: CaO/CaCO3, wherein, specifically, the CaO/CaCO3 is coated with particles comprising nano-SiO2 (i.e., the SiO2 coated CaCO3 is prepared by adopting a precipitation method that uses CO2 as a precipitating agent to form a nano-SiO2 coating film on the surface of nano-CaCO3; see translation at page 3-4, under the Summary of the invention).
As evidenced by the TEM images, the particles of nano-sized SiO2 have a diameter within the range of 1 – 100 nm (i.e., FIG. 5 shows the nano-CaCO3 before the addition of SiO2, and FIG. 6-9 show the nano-CaCO3 after the addition of SiO2, wherein the scale of the images is 50 nm; see also page 7, second paragraph, under 1. Absorbent characterization).
In use, the carbon dioxide capture material reacts according to the reversible chemical reaction formula: CaO + CO2 ↔ CaCO3 (see page 3 of the original document), wherein, during an absorption step, CaO in the capture material reacts with carbon dioxide to form CaCO3, and during a regeneration step, the spent capture material is heated to a decomposition temperature to decompose the CaCO3 to CaO and release carbon dioxide.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the carbon dioxide capture material of Wu et al. for the CaO/CaCO3 in the system of Sweeney because the carbon dioxide capture material would be able to be regenerated at lower temperatures, and the carbon dioxide capture material would exhibit improved cycling carbon absorption rate, carbon absorption capacity, carbon absorption speed, and enhanced stability of the cycle (see Abstract; translation at page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney (GB 2527608 A) in view of Moran et al. (US 2017/0015231), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eckert (EP 0046848 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Sweeney fails to disclose that the transportable CaCO3 storage container comprises CaCO3 container input means for connecting the storage container to the carbonator for supplying CaCO3 from the carbonator to the storage container.
Eckert discloses a transportable storage container (i.e., a silo container 4 of a silo vehicle; see Figure; translation) for receiving, storing, and transporting a highly disperse, powdery material, wherein, specifically, the transportable storage container 4 comprises container input means (i.e., an input connection to a filling hose 3) for connecting the transportable storage container to a source of the material (i.e., a silo 1) for supplying the material from the source 1 to the transportable storage container 4.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the transportable storage container with input means, as taught by Eckert, for the transportable CaCO3 storage container in the system of Sweeney because the used sorbent could be loaded into the transportable storage container in such a way that the transport volume was significantly reduced, and without the properties of the used sorbent material being impaired (see translation at page 2).
While Eckert does not state that the input connection means (i.e., the connection to the filling hose 3) is in the form of a “quick-release” input connection means, the examiner takes Official notice that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide a quick-release input connection means in the modified system of Sweeney because the provision of quick-release connection means for facilitating rapid connection and disconnection of a hose, without tooling, would have been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Sweeney further discloses that the carbonator (SR1, SR2, SR3) comprises carbonator CaCO3 output means (i.e., at outlet of the sorption reactor for removal of used sorbent to a used lime hopper; see FIG. 1). Therefore, in the modified system of Sweeney, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the carbonator CaCO3 output means to connect to the CaCO3 container input means of the transportable CaCO3 storage container (i.e., by way of a filling hose between the used lime hopper to the transportable storage container) for supplying the CaCO3 from the carbonator to the transportable CaCO3 storage container.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, CLAIRE X 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.
/JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774