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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 04, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirofumi (JP 2019172595 machine translation) in view of Portland cement Association “hereinafter Portland” (Alternative Fuel (2019) .
Applicants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for utilizing CO2 in cement production exhaust gas, wherein methane is generated by adding hydrogen to CO2 in the exhaust gas from cement production facility or C02 which is separated and recovered from the exhaust gas, to use the methane as an alternative fuel to fossil fuel for cement production facility.
Hirofumi teaches a methanation method for preparing methane for alternative fuel comprising: a methanation method in which hydrogen and carbon dioxide contained in combustion exhaust gas (generated from cement factory) of carbon-containing fuel are used as raw materials, and methane is obtained by methanation reaction using a catalyst, and a) A step of contacting the combustion exhaust gas with a carbon dioxide absorbent to absorb carbon dioxide in the combustion exhaust gas; b) a first gas mainly composed of carbon dioxide by heating the carbon dioxide absorbent that has absorbed carbon dioxide. C) adding a first amount of hydrogen, which is a first amount of hydrogen, to the first gas to form a second gas, and passing the second gas through a desulfurizer filled with a desulfurizing agent; A step of removing sulfur compounds in the two gases; and d) methanation through which a second amount of hydrogen, which is a second amount of hydrogen, is added to the third gas that has undergone the step of removing the sulfur compounds, and then passed through a methanation catalyst. Converting the gaseous compounds to methane. [0006], [0027]; various embodiments and description of drawings.
Hirofumi does not explicitly discloses methane as an alternative fuel for cement production facility. However, Portland teaches the cement industry has a long history of safe and efficient use of alternative fuels, ranging from used tires and biomass to a wide variety of secondary and waste materials. Cement kilns heat limestone and other raw materials to over 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit during the cement manufacturing process. The high operating temperature and long residence times make cement kilns extremely efficient at combusting any fuel source with high heating value while maintaining emissions at or below the levels from traditional fossil fuels. The final product, cement, is the main component in concrete, a critical component of roads, buildings, water projects, and other forms of resilient infrastructure that are desperately needed at this time. For the cement industry, secondary materials that would otherwise have little market value are valuable commodities, offering a cost effective and environmentally sustainable alternative to traditional fossil fuels. See page 1, 2nd paragraph.
It is well-established in the art of industrial processes, particularly those involving waste utilization and energy efficiency in cement production, to use waste heat and alternative fuels on-site to reduce costs and emissions.
Once a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention is presented with a method to create a valuable fuel (methane) from a waste product (CO₂ exhaust) generated at a specific industrial location (cement plant), it would be an obvious and logical design choice to utilize that fuel locally to power the existing facility's energy requirements, such as the kilns. This integration is a standard engineering practice for maximizing efficiency and minimizing transportation costs.
The lack of explicit mention of the final use location in the prior art does not negate the fact that such use is an inherent and obvious suggestion arising from the combination of known industrial practices and the specific disclosure of Hirofumi.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAFAR F PARSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0643. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM-6:30PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/JAFAR F PARSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights