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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 10/9/2025 and 11/18/2025 have been entered. Claims 21-25 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 101, 112(a) and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the final Office Action mailed 8/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “signal-controlled tanks” does not have support in the written specification. The specification discusses tanks and that the flows into and out of tanks are controlled, however, the specification does not disclose that these tanks are “signal-controlled tanks.” Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation that the with the controller “provide control signals to … the inlet/outlet ports of the wet scrubber” does not have support in the written specification. The specification only discusses the controller controlling each of the supply/storage tanks, but makes no mention as to the controller also providing control signals to the wet scrubber and therefore, the specification does not provide support for the controller controlling the inlet/outlet ports of the wet scrubber. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation that the controller receives “feedback signals indicating composition of the produced ionic solids and the alkaline liquids” does not have support in the written specification. The specification only discusses “composition” in regards to the exhaust gas, but not in regards to the ionic solids and the alkaline liquids. Additionally, the specification makes no mention as to a “feedback signal” nor does the specification discuss a controller which receives any time of information, especially about the composition. Further, the specification makes no mention as to the determining what the “composition” is of the produced ionic solids and the alkaline liquids. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation that with the controller “responsive to the feedback signals, route the produced ionic solids … for reuse or further processing” does not have support in the written specification. As discussed above, the specification does not mention anything about a feedback signal and therefore, the limitation that controlling the produced ionic solids and alkaline liquids based upon the feedback signal does not have support in the specification. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation that the with the controller “control dispensing of the flue gasses containing CO2 through the wet scrubber” does not have support in the written specification. The specification only discusses the controller controlling each of the supply/storage tanks, but makes no mention as to the controller also controlling dispensing of the flue gases and therefore, the specification does not provide support for the controller controlling the flue gases through the wet scrubber. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation “signal-controlled acid dosing tanks and acid tanks” does not have support in the written specification. The specification only discusses acid tanks, but makes no mention as to different types of acid tanks and especially not ones that “signal-controlled acid tanks” another that is just “acid tanks” Claims 24 and 25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “signal-controlled acid dosing tanks” does not have support in the written specification. The specification discusses tanks and that the flows into and out of tanks are controlled, however, the specification does not disclose that these tanks are “signal-controlled tanks.” Claims 24 and 25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “signal-controlled membrane degasification system” does not have support in the written specification. The specification discusses membrane, but makes no mention that the membrane degasification system is membrane is “signal-controlled.” Claims 25 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation that the with the controller “to selectively provide control signals to the signal-controlled membrane degasification system” does not have support in the written specification. The specification only discusses the controller controlling each of the supply/storage tanks, but makes no mention as to the controller also controlling the membrane degasification system and therefore, the specification does not provide support for the controller controlling the membrane degasification system. Claim 25 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation that the with the controller “controllably directing the freed CO2 to a signal-controlled CO2 storage tank” does not have support in the written specification. The specification only discusses the controller controlling each of the supply/storage tanks, but makes no mention as to the controller also controlling the freed CO2 and therefore, the specification does not provide support for the controller controlling the freed CO2. Claim 25 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 21-25 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.
Claim 21 recites “indicating composition of the produced ionic solids and the alkaline liquids,” however, it is unclear what is meant by composition. Does composition refer to the concentration of the solid and liquid, does it refer to what materials are in the solid and liquid, does it refer to the pH of the system, or does it refer to something else. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 21 recites “a signal-controlled sodium bicarbonate tank” and further recites “a plurality of signal-controlled tanks.” Claim 21 is therefore unclear if the signal-controlled sodium bicarbonate tank is one of the plurality of signal-controlled tanks or is an additional tank from the plurality of signal-controlled tanks. Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 23 recites “a signal-controlled acid dosing tank” and claim 21 recites “a plurality of signal-controlled tanks.” Claim 23 is therefore unclear if the signal-controlled acid dosing tank is one of the plurality of signal-controlled tanks or is an additional tank from the plurality of signal-controlled tanks. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the signal-controlled membrane degasification system" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2020/0131045, hereinafter Horiishi in view of United States Application Publication No. 2015/0190751, hereinafter Naito.
Regarding claim 21, Horiishi teaches a control and storage system (figure 2) operative for use with a carbon capture system having a wet scrubber (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), flue gases containing CO2 and other detrimental flue gases selectively flowing therethrough, a mixing tank (item MSC) containing water which functions to receive and mix a blended solution and a solubilizer to chemically produce an ionic solid and an alkaline liquid (figure 2), and various flow paths functionally connected with the output of the wet scrubber to controllably release the captured CO2 therefrom (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)) to be further processed through a membrane degasification system to produce various elements for reuse and/or storage (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)), the control and storage system comprising: a plurality of signal-controlled tanks including the mixing tank (item MXC), one or more ionic solid storage tanks (item CA1), one or more alkaline liquid solution tanks (item NAST); the blended solution (item CA2) and the solubilizer (item W2) from the respective signal-controlled tanks into the mixing tank to form the reaction mixture for chemically producing ionic solids and alkaline liquids (figure 2); route the produced ionic solids to the ionic solid storage tank and the produced alkaline liquids to the alkaline liquid storage tank for reuse or further processing (figure 2).
Horiishi fails to teach a controller configured to provide control signals to a plurality of signal-controlled tanks including the mixing tank, one or more ionic solid storage tanks, one or more alkaline liquid solution tanks, and the inlet/outlet ports of the wet scrubber; control dispensing of the blended solution and the solubilizer from the respective signal-controlled tanks into the mixing tank to form the reaction mixture for chemically producing ionic solids and alkaline liquids; receive feedback signals indicating composition of the produced ionic solids and the alkaline liquids; responsive to the feedback signals, route the produced ionic solids to the ionic solid storage tank and the produced alkaline liquids to the alkaline liquid storage tank for reuse or further processing; and control dispensing of the flue gases containing CO2 through the wet scrubber and the alkaline liquid from the signal-controlled alkaline liquid tank to the inlet port of the wet scrubber for initiating CO2 capture and for directing the enriched CO2 in the form of sodium bicarbonate to a signal-controlled sodium bicarbonate tank.
Naito teaches a system for removing impurities from exhaust gas in which a controller is utilized to control the tanks of the system and to monitor the pH of the tanks so that the tanks can be controlled by the controlling utilizing the pH (Naito, paragraph [0048]) and controlling the we scrubber (Naito, paragraph [0049]) so that the system can monitor and control the pH level of the tanks (Naito, paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a controller to the system of Horiishi which measures the pH (composition) and controls each of the tanks and wet scrubber based upon the measured pH because it would allow for the system to monitor and control the pH level of the tanks (Naito, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Horiishi teaches the controller is configured to selectively provide control signals to direct fluid flow from the sodium bicarbonate tank to respective ones of the various fluid pathways for further processing the sodium bicarbonate solution to release the CO2 for commercial use or further processing (see supra).
Regarding claim 23, modified Horiishi teaches wherein the controller is further configured to selectively provide control signals to signal-controlled acid dosing tanks and acid tanks (item A3); controllably direct the fluid flow from the signal-controlled sodium bicarbonate tank to respective signal-controlled acid dosing tanks (see supra); and controllably and selectively provide control signals to the signal-controlled acid tanks for mixing the acid(s), selected from the group of sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, or phosphoric acid, for loosening the CO2 from the solution for additional processing (see supra).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-20 under 101, 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Horiishi and Naito.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Marris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796