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 is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-34 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-17, 19-21, 23, 25-26, and 28-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-17, 19-21, 23, and 28-34: Applicant is respectfully advised to select a preferred term between “sorbent material” (e.g., claim 1, line 4; claim 10, line 4) and “sorbent” (e.g., claim 1, step (b), line 1; claim 10, line 5) and use it consistently throughout the claims to improve clarity.
Claim 1: Step (d) appears to end with the punctuation “,;” in view of the strikethrough not extending through either the comma or the semicolon.
Claim 2: Since there is an antecedent of “injecting” in claim 1, step (c), Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article before “injection” in line 3. Likewise, an article is missing before “partial circulation of steam.” In line 3, “evacuation” appears to be a misstatement of “evacuating.”
Claim 8: Applicant is respectfully advised to identify the steps using consistent terminology, i.e., “injecting” in claim 1 versus “desorption heat-up phase” in claim 8; and “extracting” in claim 1 versus “purge phase” in claim 8.
Claim 9: In line 3, the reference character for “the adsorber structure (15)” appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 10: In line 3, “overheated” appears to be a misstatement of “superheated” (claim 1, line 19). In line 5, “an given” appears to be a typographical error for “a given.”
Claim 11: The claim appears to end with a comma.
Claim 13: Applicant is respectfully advised to amend the preamble to “The method” to be consistent with the other dependent claims. In lines 7-10, “the circulated steam” appears to be a misstatement of “the recirculated steam” (lines 3, 5). The claim appears to end with a comma.
Claim 15: “A for carrying out a method” appears to be a misstatement of “A device for carrying out [[a ]]the method.”
Claim 17: In line 3, “partial circulation of steam” lacks an article, and “evacuation” appears to be a misstatement of “evacuating.”
Claim 19: In line 2, “overheated” appears to be a misstatement of “superheated” (claim 1, line 19).
Claim 25: Applicant is respectfully advised to identify the steps using consistent terminology, i.e., “injecting” in claim 1 versus “desorption heat-up phase” in claim 25; and “extracting” in claim 1 versus “purge phase” in claim 25. Applicant is respectfully advised to “the remaining gas flow” (line 5), to “a remaining portion of the purge gas flow” or similar to improve clarity.
Claim 26: In line 2, the reference character for “the adsorber structure (15)” appears to be a typographical error.
Claim 28: In line 5, “overheated” appears to be a misstatement of “superheated” (claim 1, line 19). In line 7, “an given” appears to be a typographical error for “a given.”
Claims 30-33: Applicant is respectfully advised to select either “recirculated” or “circulated” and use it consistently. It is noted that the claims depend from claim 11, which uses “circulated.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 3, 16, 18, and 27 use the term “essentially.” The term “essentially” is not defined in the specification. “Essentially” is interpreted as a broadening modifier which allows for inexactness but does not affect the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(I).
In claim 4, “warm” air is interpreted as air that is warmer than atmospheric temperature (claim 1, (a)).
In claim 16, the claim recites, “wherein step (d) involves extracting at least desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide from said unit and separating gaseous carbon dioxide from steam by condensation in or downstream of said unit, while still contacting the sorbent material with steam by injecting and/or circulating saturated or superheated steam into said unit, thereby flushing and purging both steam and CO2 from the unit . . . while regulating the extraction and/or steam supply to essentially maintain the pressure and/or temperature in the sorbent at the end of the preceding step (c) and/or to essentially maintain the pressure in the sorbent at the end of the preceding step (c).” The phrase “at the end of the preceding step (c)” is interpreted to refer to the beginning of the extraction of step (d), as neither claim 1 nor claim 16 positively recite an end to the injection of steam in step (c).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “means for injecting steam” in claim 15 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “injecting steam” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: steam injection lines 27, entering the corresponding adsorber structure by way of the inlets 16 (p. 31, lines 15-17).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-34 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 1: Lines 14-15 and the last two lines recite, “ambient atmospheric pressure conditions and ambient atmospheric temperature conditions.” It is unclear how the addition of the word “conditions” in each case further limits the claim. Referring to the specification starting at p. 7, line 32, it is recited that “typically ambient atmospheric pressure stands for pressures in the range of 0.8 to 1.1 barabs and typically ambient atmospheric temperature refers to temperatures in the range of −40 to 60° C., more typically −30 to 45° C.” Therefore, ranges are given for “ambient atmospheric pressure” and “ambient atmospheric temperature,” each in the singular. It is unclear what plural “conditions” in each case further entail. In step (d), the claim recites, “extracting at least desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide from said unit and separating gaseous carbon dioxide from steam by condensation in or downstream of said unit.” It is unclear how the carbon dioxide can be extracted from the unit yet be subsequently separated from steam in the unit, i.e., it is unclear if the first alternative of this claim text requires reentry of the carbon dioxide and steam into the unit for the separation.
Claims 2-34 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 4: The claim recites, “wherein step (e) includes breaking of the isolation of the unit to the ambient atmospheric air and drying of the sorbent with a stream of warm air.” It is unclear how this step is integrated with step e, i.e., it is unclear if the step of claim 4 precedes the “bringing the sorbent material to ambient . . .” or follows the “bringing the sorbent material to ambient . . .”. In addition, “breaking of the isolation” appears to be a reference to “isolating said sorbent” in step (b), but intervening steps (c) and (d) require the isolation to be broken to allow for the injection of steam and the extracting of carbon dioxide, so it is unclear what is meant by “breaking the isolation.”
Claim 8: The claim recites, “at least a portion of a purge gas flow exiting an adsorber structure in step (d) is passing a heat exchanger in which at least a part of the steam contained in said purge gas flow condenses.” It is unclear if “an adsorber structure” refers to “an adsorber structure” in claim 1, line 6 since the antecedent is not acknowledged. Likewise, it is unclear if “a purge gas flow” (lines 3, 12) refers to the extracted desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide of step (d). It is unclear if the heat exchanger where condensation occurs is a part of the “condensation” of claim 1, step (d). For the purposes of examination only, these terms will be interpreted as referencing their respective apparent antecedents. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the remaining gas flow” (line 6).
Claim 12: The claim recites, “the circulation loop” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Likewise, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure of regeneration of the sorbent” (line 10).
Claim 13: In line 8, “the outlet” and “the inlet” lack sufficient antecedent basis. In line 7, the claim recites “the circulated steam.” For the alternative case (line 6: “or”), there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inlet” and “the outlet” (line 7 and elsewhere).
Claim 14: It is unclear how “of ambient air” at the end of the claim further limits the claim, noting that claim 1 recites a “gas mixture” rather than ambient air, and “per kg of sorbent of ambient air” appears to be unintelligible.
Claim 15: It is unclear whether the “at least one unit containing an adsorber structure with said sorbent material” is the same feature as “a unit containing an adsorber structure with said sorbent material” (claim 1) since the antecedent is not acknowledged. Furthermore, “the unit” and “said unit” (lines 3, 6, 8) are inconsistent with “at least one unit.”
Claim 19: It is unclear if “remaining ambient air” is different from the “gas mixture” of claim 1, since “remaining” would appear to require an antecedent, which is lacking. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the reactor.”
Claim 20: “Breaking of the isolation” appears to be a reference to “isolating said sorbent” in step (b), but intervening steps (c) and (d) require the isolation to be broken to allow for the injection of steam and the extracting of carbon dioxide, so it is unclear what is meant by “breaking the isolation.”
Claim 21: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “said stream of warm air.”
Claim 25: it is unclear if “a purge gas flow” (lines 2, 11) refers to the extracted desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide of step (d). In line 4, it is unclear what is meant by “at the saturation temperature of the vapor pressure of the gas flow,” i.e., it is unclear how “of the vapor pressure” modifies “the saturation temperature.” It is unclear what is meant by “exiting the adsorber structure in step s sent directly” due to apparent typographical errors. For the purposes of examination only, this text will be interpreted as “exiting the adsorber structure in step (d) is sent directly.” It is unclear if the heat exchanger where condensation occurs (line 3) is a part of the “condensation” of claim 1, step (d). In line 13, it is unclear if the limitation following “preferably” is required by the claim.
Clam 26: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the high flow velocity of the steam.” The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the flow of air” and “the bed.”
Claim 29: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the system” (line 8). It is unclear for step (d) how “no steam exiting the system” (lines 7-8) is compatible with claim 1, step (d) (“extracting at least desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide from said unit and separating gaseous carbon dioxide from steam by condensation in or downstream of said unit”) since step (d) requires steam be extracted from the unit for the separation. Stated differently, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “the system” are if they are different from “said unit.”
Claim 30: There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the circulation loop” (lines 6-7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure of regeneration of the sorbent” (line 9).
Claim 31: It is unclear how phase S2 (recirculating steam without extraction) and phase S3 (extracting gas with recirculating steam) are to be integrated with step (d) (extracting carbon dioxide and steam), i.e., it is unclear if S2 precedes or follows the extracting, it is unclear if S3 concurrent with the extracting, and it is unclear if S2 is directly followed by S3. It is noted that it is unclear if “extraction of gas” (claim 31) is the same as “extracting at least desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide” (claim 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outlet” and “the inlet.”
Claims 32-34 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 31.
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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 6, 10, 13-18, 23, and 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger (US 2014/0010719 A1) in view of Gebald et al. (US 2017/0203249 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eisenberger discloses a method and a system for removing carbon dioxide from ambient air using a sorbent (Abstract) (i.e., a method for separating gaseous carbon dioxide from a gas mixture, said gas mixture containing said gaseous carbon dioxide as well as further gases different from gaseous carbon dioxide) in a cyclic capture and regeneration process ([0238]) (i.e., by cyclic adsorption/desorption using a sorbent material adsorbing said gaseous carbon dioxide),
providing the sorbent material which readily absorbs/binds CO from the air ([0040]) in a carbon dioxide capture structure 1000 (Fig. 10a; [0072]) with a sorbent support substrate 1004 ([0072]) (i.e., using a unit containing an adsorber structure with said sorbent material), which is heated during regeneration or stripping to a temperature not greater than 110° C for the removal of carbon dioxide from the sorbent ([0214], [0215]) (i.e., said adsorber structure being heatable to a temperature of at least 60°C for desorption of at least said gaseous carbon dioxide and said unit being openable to flow-through of said gas mixture and for contacting said gas mixture with said sorbent material for an adsorption step),
wherein the method repeats capturing and regeneration cycles ([0096], [0114]) including (i.e., wherein said method comprises at least the following sequential and in this sequence repeating steps):
moving a flowing mass of ambient air through a large area bed of sorbent for the CO2 ([0143]) using a fan or natural wind flows ([0061]) at usual ambient temperature and temperature ([0119], [0144]) (i.e., contacting said gas mixture with said sorbent material to allow at least said gaseous carbon dioxide to adsorb on said sorbent material under ambient atmospheric pressure conditions and ambient atmospheric temperature conditions in said adsorption step);
moving the carbon dioxide capture structure 1000 to a regeneration box 1014 ([0073]) that is self-sealing ([0230]) at substantially ambient temperature ([0214]) (i.e., isolating said sorbent with adsorbed carbon dioxide in said unit from said flow-through while maintaining the temperature in the sorbent) and pumping out air from the support structure ([0209], [0215]) (i.e., and then evacuating said unit);
flowing relatively hot superheated steam to strip off carbon dioxide from the sorbent to form a vapor comprising primarily carbon dioxide and some saturated steam that flows through exhaust conduit 2008 into a separator where any steam present is condensed until the completion of the steam stripping process, with some of the steam condensed in the sorbent structure itself ([0216]) (i.e., injecting a stream of superheated steam, starting desorption of C02; extracting at least desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide from said unit and separating gaseous carbon dioxide from steam by condensation in or downstream of said unit); and
reducing the pressure in the regeneration chamber and cooling down the sorbent structure before it is put back in contact with the air to capture more CO2 ([0216]) (i.e., bringing the sorbent material to ambient atmospheric pressure conditions and ambient atmospheric temperature conditions).
However, Eisenberger does not explicitly disclose (i) a unit that is evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbarabs or less; (ii) evacuating said unit to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs; or (iii) injecting steam to induce an increase in internal pressure of said unit and an increase of the temperature of the sorbent to a temperature between 60 and 110°C.
Regarding (i) and (ii), Gebald discloses a method for separating gaseous carbon dioxide from a mixture (Abstract) including further gases ([0011]) in a cyclic adsorption-desorption process ([0010]) using a sorbent material for adsorbing carbon dioxide (claim 1) under ambient atmospheric pressure conditions and ambient atmospheric temperature conditions ([0014]). Gebald teaches an adsorber structure that is evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbar or less and is evacuated to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs (claim 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger by providing (i) a unit that is evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbarabs or less; and (ii) evacuating said unit to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs as taught by Gebald because (1) Eisenberger teaches pumping out air to form a partial vacuum (Eisenberger; [0209]) but does not specify a target pressure; and (2) an evacuation pressure of 20-400 mbarabs is sufficient to evacuate a unit (Gebald, [0015]).
Regarding (iii), Gebald teaches injecting steam to heat sorbent material to 80-130° C ([0026]) wherein the pressure can be allowed to increase ([0027]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger in view of Gebald by providing (iii) injecting steam to induce an increase in internal pressure of said unit and an increase of the temperature of the sorbent to a temperature between 60 and 110°C as taught by Gebald because (1) Eisenberger teaches that the superheated steam is not greater than 130° C (Eisenberger, [0216]) but does not specify a sorbent temperature; and (2) sorbent material heated by steam to 80-130° C can release gaseous carbon dioxide from a sorbent material (Gebald, [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Eisenberger teaches that after carbon dioxide is stripped off, condensed steam in the sorbent structure can be evaporated upon pumping out to reduce the pressure of and cool down the sorbent structure before it is put back in contact with the air ([0216]) (i.e., wherein after step (d) and before step (e) the following step is carried out: (d1) ceasing the injection and evacuation of said unit, thereby causing evaporation of water from said sorbent and both drying and cooling the sorbent).
Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose that the evacuation is to pressure values between 20-500 mbarabs.
However, when the prior art teaches the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find the optimum or workable ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). Since Gebald teaches that cooling under vacuum prior to repressurizing to ambient pressure can have an end pressure as low as a few mbar (i.e., a few millibar or greater, provided there is a vacuum) ([0065], [0066]), the skilled practitioner would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the vacuum pressure during an evacuation step after the steam stripping of carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 3, Eisenberger teaches the pumping out of air before heat is directed through CO2-laden substrate by steam ([0215]) (i.e., in step (b) said unit is evacuated while not heating the sorbent).
Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose evacuating to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs, or 100-200 mbarabs.
However, when the prior art teaches the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find the optimum or workable ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). Since Gebald teaches evacuating a unit to an initial pressure in the range of 20-200 mbar without actively heating ([0022]), the skilled practitioner would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing an evacuation pressure before injecting steam.
Regarding claim 6, Gebald teaches heating sorbent to 80-130° C ([0026]) (i.e., wherein in step (c) the sorbent is heated to a temperature in the range of 80-110° C). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, Gebald teaches a molar ratio of steam that is injected to the gaseous carbon dioxide released that is less than 20:1 ([0019]) to reduce the energy demand for steam generation ([0073]) (i.e., wherein in step (d) the molar ratio of steam to carbon dioxide is in the range of 4:1-40:1). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, Gebald teaches that steam is injected so that sorbent material is heated to a temperature in the range of 80-130° C ([0026]), which implicitly teaches the control of the steam injection based upon temperature of the sorbent (i.e., wherein at least one of step (c) and step (d) is controlled based on at least temperature of the sorbent).
Regarding claim 14, Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose that in step (c) a unit outlet is opened such that a fraction between 0.1-10% of the injected steam is used to flush the unit by leaving through the unit outlet thus purging the reactor of remaining ambient air while the sorbent material temperature is increasing, and/or wherein in step (a) adsorption of CO2 from said gas mixture occurs by forced convection of said gas mixture at flow rates of 20m3/h to 200 m3/h per kg of sorbent of ambient air.
Gebald teaches an outlet at 7 (Fig. 1; [0095]) and a pre-purge step in which less than 10% of the total steam injected into the unit during a steam injection step is used ([0032]) for flushing remaining air ([0062]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger in view of Gebald by providing in step (c) a unit outlet that is opened such that a fraction between 0.1-10% of the injected steam is used to flush the unit by leaving through the unit outlet thus purging the reactor of remaining ambient air while the sorbent material temperature is increasing as taught by Gebald because (1) a purging step using a fraction of total injected steam can flush remaining air (Gebald, [0032], [0062]); and (2) since a pre-purge would follow an adsorption step in the method taught by Eisenberger in view of Gebald, the skilled practitioner would have expected the steam to increase the temperature of the sorbent during the pre-purge .
Regarding claim 15, Eisenberger teaches the carbon dioxide capture structure 1000 (Fig. 10a; [0072]) with a sorbent support substrate 1004 ([0072]) (i.e., comprising at least one unit containing an adsorber structure with said sorbent material) which is heated during stripping to a temperature not greater than 110° C by superheated steam for the removal of carbon dioxide from the sorbent ([0214], [0215]) (i.e., the adsorber structure being heatable to a temperature of at least 80° C for the desorption). Gebald teaches an adsorber structure that is evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbar or less (claim 1) (i.e., the unit being evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbarabs or less). Gebald teaches a line 4 for injecting steam superheated steam (Fig. 1; [0095]; claim 1) (i.e., comprising means for injecting steam into the unit to flow-through and contact the sorbent material under superheated steam conditions with a superheated steam temperature of up to 140° C at the pressure level in said unit), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
However, Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose (i) a unit being openable to flow-through of the gas mixture across and/or through said sorbent material and for contacting it with the sorbent material for the adsorption step; or (ii) a unit comprising no further internal or external heating means for heating the sorbent.
Regarding (i), Gebald teaches an adsorption valve 3 (Fig. 1; [0133]) that can be sealed to enable evacuation after a desired loading level is reached ([0095]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger in view of Gebald by providing (i) a unit being openable to flow-through of the gas mixture across and through said sorbent material and for contacting it with the sorbent material for the adsorption step as taught by Gebald because (1) Eisenberger teaches adsorption of carbon dioxide from a gas and a subsequent vacuum step (Eisenberger, [0143], [0209]) but does not disclose the valve9s0 needed for these functions; and (2) adsorption valve 3 (Gebald, Fig. 1; [0133]) that can be sealed to enable evacuation after a desired loading level is reached (Gebald, [0095]).
Regarding (ii), since Eisenberger teaches heating by steam which is controlled to avoid exceeding a threshold value ([0216]), it would have been obvious for the practitioner of Eisenberger in view of Gebald that the desired heating of a sorbent for regeneration can be achieved without the need for further heating equipment, thus eliminating the need for such additional equipment.
Regarding claim 16, Eisenberger teaches flowing relatively hot superheated steam to strip off carbon dioxide from the sorbent to form a vapor comprising primarily carbon dioxide and some saturated steam that flows out of stripping chamber 2006 through exhaust conduit 2008 into a separator where any steam present is condensed until the completion of the steam stripping process, with some of the steam condensed in the sorbent structure itself ([0216]) (i.e., wherein step (d) involves extracting at least desorbed gaseous carbon dioxide from said unit and separating gaseous carbon dioxide from steam by condensation in or downstream of said unit) in what is presented as a single step (i.e., while still contacting the sorbent material with steam by injecting, thereby flushing and purging both steam and CO2 from the unit, while regulating the extraction and/or steam supply to essentially maintain the pressure and/or temperature in the sorbent at the end of the preceding step (c) and/or to essentially maintain the pressure in the sorbent at the end of the preceding step (c)). It is noted that it is implicit in Eisenberger that the vapor including the carbon dioxide is flowed out/extracted sequentially after the flowing/injecting of steam since the saturated steam is not recited to include carbon dioxide and since the “vapor” refers to the resulting carbon dioxide and steam mixture.
However, Eisenberger does not explicitly disclose flushing and purging both steam and CO2 from the unit at a molar ratio of steam to carbon dioxide between 4:1 and 40:1.
Gebald teaches a molar ratio of steam that is injected to the gaseous carbon dioxide released that is less than 20:1 ([0019]) to reduce the energy demand for steam generation ([0073]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger in view of Gebald by flushing and purging both steam and CO2 from the unit at a molar ratio of steam to carbon dioxide between 4:1 and 40:1 as taught by Gebald because a molar ratio of steam that is injected to the gaseous carbon dioxide released that is less than 20:1 can reduce the energy demand for steam generation (Gebald, [0019], [0073]). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 17, Eisenberger teaches that after carbon dioxide is stripped off, condensed steam in the sorbent structure can be evaporated upon pumping out to reduce the pressure of and cool down the sorbent structure before it is put back in contact with the air ([0216]) (i.e., wherein after step (d) and before step (e) the following step is carried out: (d1) ceasing the injection and evacuation of said unit, thereby causing evaporation of water from said sorbent and both drying and cooling the sorbent).
Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose that the evacuation is to pressure values between 20-250 mbarabs.
However, when the prior art teaches the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find the optimum or workable ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A). Since Gebald teaches that cooling under vacuum prior to repressurizing to ambient pressure can have an end pressure as low as a few mbar (i.e., a few millibar or greater, provided there is a vacuum) ([0065], [0066]), the skilled practitioner would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the vacuum pressure during an evacuation step after the steam stripping of carbon dioxide.
Regarding claim 18, Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose that after step (b) and before step (c) the following step is carried out: (b1) flushing the unit of non-condensable gases by a stream of non-condensing steam while essentially holding the pressure at the end of step (b), holding the pressure at the end of step (b) in a window of ±50 mbarabs of the pressure at the end of step (b) and/or holding the temperature below 70°C or below 60°C.
Gebald teaches a pre-purge step in which steam is used to flush out remaining air from a unit while holding the adsorber structure at a temperature of 35-60° C ([0062]) using non-condensing steam ([0071]) (i.e., flushing the unit of non-condensable gases by a stream of non-condensing steam while holding the temperature below 70°C or below 60°C) to improve the lifetime of the sorbent material and increase the purity of the recovered CO2 ([0062]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger in view of Gebald by, after step (b) and before step (c) the following step is carried out: (b1) flushing the unit of non-condensable gases by a stream of non-condensing steam holding the temperature below 70°C or below 60°C as taught by Gebald because (1) Eisenberger teaches removing trapped air from a substrate before steam stripping (Eisenberger, [0215]); and (2) flushing out remaining air while using steam can improve the lifetime of the sorbent material and increase the purity of the recovered CO2 (Gebald, [0062]).
Regarding claim 23, Gebald teaches injecting steam to heat sorbent material to 80-130° C ([0026]) (i.e., wherein in step (c) the sorbent is heated to a temperature in the range of 85-98°C). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 28, Gebald teaches a molar ratio of steam that is injected to the gaseous carbon dioxide released that is less than 20:1 ([0019]) to reduce the energy demand for steam generation ([0073]) (i.e., wherein in step (d) the molar ratio of steam to carbon dioxide is in the range of 10:1-30:1), noting that it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose that the extraction and/or steam supply is regulated to maintain the temperature in the sorbent in a window of ±10° C, or in the window of ±5°C from the temperature at the end of the preceding step, and/or that in step (c) steam, either saturated at the current pressure or overheated to between 95°C and 110°C, is introduced to the sorbent material at a ratio of 1 kg/h to 10 kg/h of steam per kg of sorbent in an given flow direction, until the prevalent pressure lies between 800mbar and 950mbar, such that the sorbent temperature reaches values between 90°C and 105°C by adsorption and/or condensation of said steam on the sorbent material.
However, Eisenberger teaches steam supplied is to not exceed certain threshold temperatures such as 130° during steam flow and vapor outflow ([0216]) (i.e., steps (c) and (d)). Since Eisenberger teaches the steam flow and the outflow as part of the same step ([0216]), “the end of the preceding step” is interpreted as corresponding to the period of steam flow/injection prior to extraction/outflow, it would have been obvious to maintain the temperature applied within the range specified by Eisenberger throughout the steam flow/vapor outflow. In addition, the temperature ranges of Eisenberger are interpreted to be a teaching that the temperature of steam, and therefore the temperature of the sorbent, are result-effect variables. A result-effective variable is one which the skilled practitioner would desire to optimize, and is considered prima facie obvious and without patentable weight. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, the claimed temperature variation parameters (i.e., the extraction and/or steam supply is regulated to maintain the temperature in the sorbent in a window of ±10° C, or in the window of ±5°C from the temperature at the end of the preceding step) are interpreted to be obvious as a matter of routine targeting of the predetermined temperature as indicated by the prior art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger in view of Gebald, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Eisenberger (US 2013/0312606 A1, hereinafter “Eisenberger ‘606”).
Eisenberger in view of Gebald does not explicitly disclose that in at least one of step (c) and step (d) the flow velocity of the steam in the adsorber structure is above 0.05 m/s.
Eisenberger ‘606 discloses a method of removing and capturing concentrated carbon dioxide from carbon dioxide laden air using a sorbent (claim 1), wherein CO2 is stripped from the sorbent using saturated steam ([0051]). Eisenberger teaches that an input air flow velocity of 2.5 m/sec ([0075]) and an initial stream burst during stripping with a velocity that is at least 10 times faster than the air flow speed ([0079]), and at least 0.5 meters per second ([0093]), to provide a sharper front, so no steam will come out the back end ([0127]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Eisenberger in view of Gebald by, in at least one of step (c) and step (d), using a flow velocity of the steam in the adsorber structure that is above 0.05 m/s as taught by Eisenberger ‘606 because (1) an initial stream burst during stripping with a velocity that is at least 10 times faster than the air flow speed to provide a sharper front than the air case, so no steam will come out the back end (Eisenberger ‘606, [0079], [0127]); (2) it has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 (I)); and (3) the teaching of Eisenberger ‘606 that an initial steam burst should be faster than an air flow speed in order to form a desired steam front and prevent reverse flow of steam is a teaching that the speed of steam is a result-effective variable. A result-effective variable is one which the skilled practitioner would desire to optimize, and is considered prima facie obvious and without patentable weight. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). The teaching of Eisenberger ‘606 establishes that one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing these speeds.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 11-13, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 17927603 (reference application) in view of in view of Gebald et al. (US 2017/0203249 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (i) the reference document does not suggest a unit being evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbarabs or less; (ii) the instant claim does not consider gas or steam flow speeds as in the reference application; (iii) the reference document does not suggest evacuating said unit after isolating sorbent to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs; (iv) the instant claim does not consider injecting steam essentially at ambient atmospheric pressure conditions; (v) the instant claim does not explicitly recite extracting while circulating or injecting steam as in the reference application; and (vi) the reference application is silent regarding bringing the sorbent to ambient atmospheric pressure conditions.
Regarding (ii), (iv), and (v), these limitations are additional limitations with respect to the instant claim, and a less-limited claim is obvious in view of a more-limited claim.
Regarding (i) and (iii), Gebald discloses a method for separating gaseous carbon dioxide from a mixture (Abstract) including further gases ([0011]) in a cyclic adsorption-desorption process ([0010]) using a sorbent material for adsorbing carbon dioxide (claim 1) under ambient atmospheric pressure conditions and ambient atmospheric temperature conditions ([0014]). Gebald teaches an adsorber structure that is evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbar or less and is evacuated to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs for carrying out a desorption step (claim 1), so it would be obvious to evacuate a unit after isolating sorbent to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs, and to provide a unit evacuable to such pressures.
Regarding (vi), Gebald teaches repressurizing a unit to atmospheric pressure ([0016]) in order to adsorb pressure from atmospheric air ([0018]), so it would be obvious to bring the sorbent to ambient atmospheric pressure conditions.
In addition, claims 5 and 11-13 correspond to claim 1 of the reference application because claim 1 of the reference application recites injecting and circulating steam during the extracting, and claim 16 corresponds to claim 9 of the reference application because the reference application claim recites the claimed ratio.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Additional Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 19-22, 24-26, and 29-34 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 19-22, 24-26, and 29-34.
The concept of a method for separating gaseous carbon dioxide from a gas mixture, said gas mixture containing said gaseous carbon dioxide as well as further gases different from gaseous carbon dioxide,
-by cyclic adsorption/desorption using a sorbent material adsorbing said gaseous carbon dioxide,
using a unit containing an adsorber structure with said sorbent material, said unit being evacuable to a vacuum pressure of 400 mbarabs or less, and said adsorber structure being heatable to a temperature of at least 60°C for desorption of at least said gaseous carbon dioxide and said unit being openable to flow-through of said gas mixture and for contacting said gas mixture with said sorbent material for an adsorption step, wherein said method comprises at least the following sequential and in this sequence repeating steps (a) - (d):
(a) contacting said gas mixture with said sorbent material to allow at least said gaseous carbon dioxide to adsorb on said sorbent material under ambient atmospheric pressure conditions and ambient atmospheric temperature conditions in said adsorption step;
(b) isolating said sorbent with adsorbed carbon dioxide in said unit from said flow- through while maintaining the temperature in the sorbent and then evacuating said unit to a pressure in the range of 20-400 mbarabs;
(c) injecting a stream of saturated or superheated steam and thereby inducing an increase in internal p