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
This action is being made second nonfinal. This case has been inherited by a different examiner and upon further search and consideration, prior art Eisenberger has been found that appears to read on the claimed moving system in claim 1. Note that claim 9 does not positively recite that the sorbent need to physically move.
Applicant’s amendments for claims 1, 4, 12, 14 and 25 overcome the 35 USC 112b rejections.
Applicant remarks for claims 5 and 18, that these are known terms in the art. The 35 USC 112b rejections are withdrawn. Based on applicant’s remarks, any prior art directed to a DAC system would have this capability and read on these limitations.
Applicant’s remark that Goldberg does not teach that the sorbent material selected so heat generated due to the adsorption of carbon dioxide is less than heat consumed in desorbing water (recited in independent claims 1 and 9). It is noted that this is the intended use of the sorbent and how the device is operated. It is also noted that the claim does not specify any particular material or structural configuration for the sorbent. Looking to applicant’s specification, it lists MOF or an amine as a sorbent [0062]. It is noted that newly presented Eisenberger (US 20230023050) also teaches the use of MOF or amines [0033-42] and these are known DAC sorbents.
Applicant also remarks that the ADAC system in Goldberg is not movable between a capture configuration and a regeneration configuration. Applicant remarks that it uses a movable system as shown in figure 1B and 2A. It appears that applicant’s system is on a movable track. However, the claims do not recite any detail as to how the device is movable. For example, movable could mean flipping a switch to turn on and off a device; thus a device is movable between two phases. However, Eisenberger teaches the use of a track to move the sorbent into and out of a regeneration box. Placing sorbents on movable tracks appears known. It is also noted that independent claim 9 does not require actual movement. The ADAC system of Goldberg can be switched/moved from a capture to a regeneration configuration. It is “movable” between the configurations. There is no language in claim 9 that requires physical movement into and out of the regeneration chamber.
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 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 20150004084 A1) in view of Eisenberger (US 20230023050), Wright (US 20150274536 A1) and Okano (US 20160271556 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberg teaches an autothermal direct air capture
(ADAC) system (abstract), comprising:
a chamber 158 comprising an interior (Fig. 2 [0023]);
a water supply 148 comprising water 150 (Fig. 2 [0022]);
a pump 162 (equivalent to claimed vacuum compressor) in fluid
communication with the interior of the chamber 158 (Fig. 2 [0023]);
a moisture swing sorbent 116 configured to release water under an
ambient condition comprising an ambient temperature and an ambient moisture
level, bind water under a first moisture level that is higher than the ambient
moisture level, bind carbon dioxide under the ambient condition, and release
carbon dioxide under a release condition comprising at least one of a first
temperature that is higher than the ambient temperature and the first moisture
level (Fig. 1-2 [0011; 0014]);
a supply 148 of water 150 (equivalent to claimed water reservoir) in fluid
connection with the wetting chamber 136 through a filling mechanism 152, e.g., a
conduit and valve (equivalent to claimed water resupply line) (Fig. 2 [0022]);
and a spray mechanism 154 for spraying droplets 156 of water 150 from
the water supply 148 into the wetting chamber 136 (Fig. 2 [0022]);
wherein the ADAC system is movable between a carbon dioxide collection
module 132 and a drying chamber 134 (equivalent to claimed capture
configuration) and a wetting module 130 (equivalent to claimed regeneration
configuration) (Fig. 2 [0021-0023]);
wherein the sorbent 116 is in the wetting module 130 until the bicarbonate
138 decomposes to carbonate 140 and a stream 142 including water 144 and
carbon dioxide gas 146 [0022] at room temperature [0010] with heat transfer
occurring between streams (Fig. 2 [0019]);
wherein the regeneration module 110 exposes the sorbent to water while
raising the temperature, which allows for the release of CO₂ into the water as the
sorbent returns to ambient temperature, heat exchange between cooling and
warming streams provides the majority of the necessary heat exchange [0019-
0020], the vacuum chamber with pump 162 pulls the CO₂ gas out of the wetting
chamber 136 (Fig. 1-2 [0023]);
wherein the sorbent 116 moves into the wetting chamber 136 while the
ADAC system transitions to the regeneration configuration (Fig. 1-2 [0024]);
and a spray mechanism 154 for spraying droplets 156 of water 150 from
the water supply 148 into the wetting chamber 136 [0022]. This spray mechanism
would propel the droplets into the chamber, in the same manner that a gas flow
from a compressor would. (Fig. 1-2)
Goldberg does not teach: (I) a heat exchanger in thermal contact with the
water resupply line and a product stream passing from the interior of the
chamber and through the vacuum compressor; (II) a circulation compressor
having an input and an output, the input and output in fluid communication with
the interior of the chamber; (III) wherein heat is transferred by the heat
exchanger from the product stream removed from the chamber to the water as it
passes through the water resupply line while the ADAC system is in the
regeneration configuration; and (IV) wherein the circulation compressor is
configured to remove a portion of the gas within the interior of the chamber
through the input and deliver the portion of the gas back to the interior of the
chamber through the output, while the ADAC system is in the regeneration
configuration.
Additionally, Goldberg does not teach that it “moves” the sorbent inside and outside the regeneration unit, it is noted that Eisenberger also teaches a DAC system that comprises MOF or amine sorbents [0033-42] wherein the sorbents #21 physically move along a track taking them inside and outside the regeneration chamber #25 (see fig. 1; [0103-111]). This provides for better carbon capture and more operational efficiency [0007-08].
With respect to (I) and (III), Wright is directed to the extraction of CO₂ from
the atmosphere. [0003] Wright teaches a heat exchanger in thermal contact with
the condenser unit (equivalent to claimed product stream passing through
chamber and vacuum compressor) and evaporator (equivalent to claimed water
resupply line); and wherein heat is transferred from the condenser unit
(equivalent to claimed product stream) to the evaporator unit (equivalent to
claimed water resupply line). [0071-0072] In the system taught by Goldberg, this
heat exchanger would be in thermal contact with the carbon dioxide rich stream
146 and the water resupply line 150/152. (Fig. 2)
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 modified the system taught by
Goldberg to add a heat exchanger in thermal contact with the product stream and
water resupply line because it reduces the heating demand of the system [0057],
as taught by Wright.
With respect to (II) and (IV), Okano is directed to a carbon dioxide collection
system. (abstract) Okano teaches a circulation blower 11 having an input and
output in fluid communication with the carbon dioxide adsorption honeycomb
rotor 1 (equivalent to claimed chamber). This occurs after the desorption zone 5
(equivalent to claimed regeneration configuration) (Fig. 1; [0088; 0091]) In the system taught by Goldberg, this circulation blower would be in fluid communication with the chamber 158. (Fig. 2)
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 modified the system
taught by Goldberg to add a circulation blower in fluid communication
with the chamber because it is energy saving to use the heat exchange between
heating and cooling streams obtained through circulation (abstract), as taught by
Okano. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized a sorbent track system as taught by Eisenberger in Goldberg that would move sorbents such as MOF or amines, which coincide with those claimed by applicant, into and out of a regeneration box which will helps to lower capital expenses and lower operating expenses [0007] and provides for improved carbon removal.
Also, note that the use of the sorbent such as generating heat when adsorbing carbon dioxide is the intended us of the device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP 2115
Regarding claim 4, Goldberg teaches the transition from CO₂ capture to
regeneration comprises the partial evacuation of the vacuum chamber 158 by the
pump 162. (Fig. 2; [0023])
Regarding claim 5, Goldberg teaches the sorbent's CO₂ loading is a function
of the partial pressure of CO2 [0014]. During regeneration, the vacuum chamber
158 is evacuated by the pump 162 and the partial pressure of CO₂ swings from
about 2 kPa to 0.5 kPa, thus increasing the partial pressure of the water vapor to
a majority of the total pressure within the chamber. [0020; 0023]
Regarding claim 6, Wright teaches several potential primary sorbents that
have the ability to bind CO₂ as humidity is decreased and release CO₂ as humidity
is increased. Wright also teaches secondary sorbents such as weak liquid amines
that are capable of reducing the CO₂ content of the gas mixture. Wright teaches
that these sorbents may be used in combination. [0028-0029]
Regarding claim 7, Wright teaches the chamber is filled with water [0032-
0033] and the process is at ambient temperatures. [0075]
Claims 9, 12, 14, 18, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 20150004084 A1) in view of Eisenberger (US 20230023050).
Regarding claim 9, Goldberg teaches an autothermal direct air capture
(ADAC) system (abstract), comprising:
a chamber 158 comprising an interior (Fig. 2 [0023]);
a water supply 148 comprising water 150 (Fig. 2 [0022]);
a moisture swing sorbent 116 configured to release water under an
ambient condition comprising an ambient temperature and an ambient moisture
level, bind water under a first moisture level that is higher than the ambient
moisture level, bind carbon dioxide under the ambient condition, and release
carbon dioxide under a release condition comprising at least one of a first
temperature that is higher than the ambient temperature and the first moisture
level (Fig. 1-2 [0011; 0014]);
wherein the ADAC system is movable between a carbon dioxide collection
module 132 and a drying chamber 134 (equivalent to claimed capture
configuration) and a wetting module 130 (equivalent to claimed regeneration
configuration) (Fig. 2 [0021-0023]);
wherein the sorbent 116 is in the wetting module 130 until the bicarbonate
138 decomposes to carbonate 140 and a stream 142 including water 144 and
carbon dioxide gas 146 [0022] at room temperature (Fig. 2 [0010]); and
wherein the regeneration module 110 exposes the sorbent to water
while raising the temperature, which allows for the release of CO₂ into the water
as the sorbent returns to ambient temperature, heat exchange between cooling
and warming streams provides the majority of the necessary heat exchange
[0019-0020], the vacuum chamber with pump 162 pulls the CO₂ gas out of the
wetting chamber 136 [0023]. (Fig. 1-2).
Goldberg does not specifically each a sorbent utilized by applicant that so that heat generated due to the adsorption of caron dioxide is less than heat consumed in desorbing water. Please note this appears to be the intended use of the sorbent. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP 2115.
However, it is noted that Eisenberger also teaches a DAC system that comprises multiple MOF or amine sorbents [0033-42] wherein the sorbents #21 physically move along a track inside and outside the regeneration chamber #25 (see fig. 1; [0103-111]). This provides for better carbon capture and more operational efficiency [0007-08].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to select a sorbent such as MOF or amine as taught by Eisenberger to use in Goldberg with the reasonable expectation that carbon dioxide removal will occur.
Regarding claim 12, Goldberg teaches the transition from CO₂ capture to
regeneration comprises the partial evacuation of the vacuum chamber 158 by the
pump 162. (Fig. 2; [0023])
Regarding claim 14, Goldberg teaches the moisture swing sorbent 116 is in
the wetting chamber 136 during carbon capture, and the sorbent moves to the
drying chamber 134 for regeneration. (Fig. 2; [0022-0024])
Regarding claim 18, Goldberg teaches a pump 162 (equivalent to claimed
vacuum compressor) in fluid communication with the interior of the chamber 158
(Fig. 2; [0023]). Goldberg teaches the sorbent's CO₂ loading is a function of the
partial pressure of CO₂ [0014]. During regeneration, the vacuum chamber 158 is
evacuated by the pump 162 and the partial pressure of CO₂ swings from about 2
kPa to 0.5 kPa, thus increasing the partial pressure of the water vapor to a
majority of the total pressure within the chamber. (Fig. 2; [0020; 0023])
Regarding claim 26, Goldberg teaches the carbon dioxide is captured from
atmospheric air (equivalent to claimed ambient outdoor air). (abstract)
Regarding claim 27, Goldberg teaches a pump 162 (equivalent to claimed
vacuum compressor) in fluid communication with the interior of the chamber 158
[0023]; wherein in the regeneration configuration the pump 162 pulls the carbon
dioxide gas 146 out of the wetting chamber 136 [0023].
Claims 13, 16 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Goldberg and Eisenberger as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wright (US 20150274536 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Goldberg teaches a supply 148 of water 150 (equivalent to claimed water reservoir) in fluid connection with the wetting chamber 136 through a filling mechanism 152, e.g., a conduit and valve (equivalent to claimed water resupply line) [0022]. Goldberg does not teach a heat exchanger in thermal contact with the water resupply line and the product stream removed from the chamber; wherein heat is transferred from the product stream removed from the chamber to the water as it passes through the water resupply line while the ADAC system is in the regeneration configuration.
Wright is directed to the extraction of CO₂ from the atmosphere. [0003]
Wright teaches a heat exchanger in thermal contact with the condenser unit
(equivalent to claimed product stream passing through chamber and vacuum
compressor) and evaporator (equivalent to claimed water resupply line) [0071-
0072] wherein heat is transferred from the condenser unit (equivalent to claimed
product stream) to the evaporator unit (equivalent to claimed water resupply
line).
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 modified the system taught by Goldberg to include a heat exchanger in thermal contact with the product stream and water resupply line because it reduces the heating demand of the system [0057], as taught by Wright.
Regarding claim 16, Goldberg teaches all limitations as set forth above, but does not teach wherein the sorbent material is in direct contact with liquid water from the water reservoir while the ADAC system is in the regeneration configuration.
Wright teaches that the sorbent material is in direct contact with water as it regenerates. [0032-0034]
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 modified the system taught by Goldberg to include the sorbent being in direct contact with water as it regenerates because the CO₂ is absorbed into and then released from the water, and this system is able to operate without any input heat or work [0032-0039], as taught by Wright.
Regarding claim 22, Wright teaches several potential primary sorbents that
have the ability to bind CO₂ as humidity is decreased and release CO₂ as humidity
is increased. Wright also teaches secondary sorbents such as weak liquid amines
that are capable of reducing the CO₂ content of the gas mixture. Wright teaches
that these sorbents may be used in combination. [0028-0029]
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Wright teaches the chamber is filled with
water [0032-0033] and the process is at ambient temperatures. [0075]
Regarding claim 25, Goldberg teaches all limitations as set forth above, but
does not teach wherein the first gas volume is sized to maintain a temperature of the sorbent material close to the ambient temperature while providing the heat to desorb water while the ADAC system is in the capture configuration.
Wright teaches taking in a specific volume of air (equivalent to claimed first
gas volume) very rapidly and providing heat to the system when water vapor is
compressed. [0038-0039]
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 modified the system taught by Goldberg to include the first gas volume being sized to maintain the sorbent temperature because careful thermal management allows the system to operate without heat or work input [0036-0039], as taught by Wright.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Goldberg and Eisenberger as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Okano (US 20160271556 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Goldberg teaches all limitations as set forth above, but
does not teach wherein the sorbent material is positioned within the interior of the chamber in both the capture configuration and the regeneration configuration, and wherein the first gas volume passes through the interior of the chamber while the ADAC system is in the capture configuration.
Okano is directed to a carbon dioxide collection system. (abstract) Okano
teaches a carbon dioxide adsorption honeycomb rotor 1 (equivalent to claimed
chamber) which holds the sorbent in both capture and regeneration configurations, and wherein the gas flows through the rotor in the adsorption zone (equivalent to claimed capture configuration). [0088-0090; 0105]
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 modified the system taught by Goldberg to include the sorbent material being positioned within the chamber in both capture and regeneration configurations because this system collects carbon dioxide by a high recovery rate and condenses the carbon dioxide to high concentration with little consumption energy [0003], as taught by Okano.
Regarding claim 19, Goldberg teaches all limitations as set forth above, but
does not teach a circulation compressor having an input and an output, the input and output in fluid communication with the interior of the chamber, the circulation compressor configured to remove a portion of a gas within the interior of the chamber through the input and deliver the portion of the gas back to the interior of the chamber through the output, while the ADAC system is in the regeneration configuration.
Okano is directed to a carbon dioxide collection system. (abstract) Okano
teaches a circulation blower 11 having an input and output in fluid communication with the carbon dioxide adsorption honeycomb rotor 1 (equivalent to claimed chamber). This occurs after the desorption zone 5 (equivalent to claimed regeneration configuration) (Fig. 1; [0088; 0091]).
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 modified the system taught by
Goldberg to include a circulation blower in fluid communication with the chamber because it is energy saving to use the heat exchange between heating and cooling
streams obtained through circulation (abstract), as taught by Okano.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg, Eisenberger and Okano as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in view of Lackner (US 20120220019 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Goldberg, Eisenberger and Okano teach all limitations as set forth above, but do not teach wherein the gas delivered to the interior of the chamber by the circulation compressor bubbles through liquid water from the water
reservoir after exiting the output of the circulation compressor, while the ADAC
system is in the regeneration configuration.
Lackner is directed to an air collector configured to capture ambient CO₂ (title). Lackner teaches the gas is delivered to the container (equivalent to claimed chamber) by bubbling it through brine (equivalent to claimed liquid water). (Fig. 3; [0072])
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 modified the system taught by Goldberg to include the bubbling through liquid water because the brine will absorb CO₂ as it bubbles through (See Fig. 3), as taught by Lackner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230023050
US20220355238
US20240408578
US20230211278
WO2019165151
US20260034508
US20260145127
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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 Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights