CTFR 17/937,619 CTFR 83829 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 12, 13, and 15-18 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 claims are rejected for the following reason. Claim 12 has been amended to include the newly introduced claim limitation “a hydrogen production unit configured for receiving a hydrocarbon source to produce a waste gas stream comprising hydrogen and from greater than 0 vol% to less than 40 vol% carbon dioxide.” However, no support is found for this newly introduced claim limitation in the originally filed specification. Applicant state that support for the newly introduced claim limitation can be found in paragraphs [0044]-[0048]. While the specification, at paragraph [0058], provides support for a facility configured to produce a waste gas stream comprising from greater than 0 vol% to less than 40 vol% carbon dioxide, nowhere in the specification, including at the cited paragraphs [0044]-[0048], is there a support for “a hydrogen production unit configured for receiving a hydrocarbon source to produce a waste gas stream comprising hydrogen and from greater than 0 vol% to less than 40 vol% carbon dioxide” as currently recited in amended claim 12 in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 16 is 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 16 recites the limitation " the facility " in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshner et al. (US 2020/0055672) in view of Reddy (US 6,500,241) and Terrien et al. (US 2012/0291481) . Regarding claim 12, the reference Keshner et al. discloses a system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (see paras. [0001]; [0014]), the system comprising: a facility configured to produce a waste gas stream comprising from greater than 0 vol% to less than 40 vol% carbon dioxide (see paras. [0029]; [0059]; [0071]); a separation unit (205, 303), which may be referred to as a pre-concentrator, configured for increasing a concentration of carbon dioxide in the waste gas stream, thereby producing a concentrated byproduct stream (see paras. [0062]-[0065]; Figs. 2, 3, 9); a water dissolution system (211, 307, 500A; 950) configured for dissolving carbon dioxide from the concentrated byproduct stream in water, thereby producing a dissolved byproduct stream and an undissolved byproduct stream (see paras. [0062]-[0065]; [0072]; [0090]; [0100]; Figs. 2, 3, 9); and an injection well (214, 980) operable to inject the dissolved byproduct stream into a reservoir containing mafic or ultramafic rock to allow components of the concentrated byproduct stream to react in situ with components of the mafic rock to precipitate and store components of the byproduct stream in the reservoir (see Abstract; paras. [0007]; [0009]; [0015]; [0062]; [0101]; Figs. 2, 9). The reference Keshner et al. is, however, silent with respect to the system including the features: a hydrogen production unit configured for receiving a hydrocarbon source to produce a gas stream comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide; a separation unit configured for separating the hydrogen from carbon dioxide in the gas stream, thereby producing a concentrated byproduct stream comprising carbon dioxide and a hydrogen product stream; wherein the separation unit is a pre-concentrator that is one or more selected from the group consisting of a monoethanolamine (MEA) solution absorption unit, a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit, a metal-organic framework (MOF) unit, and a chemical looping combustion unit. The reference Reddy teaches a system (100) for coproduction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide from a hydrocarbon source (112) (see col. 3, lines 3-35; Fig. 1). The reference Reddy teaches that the system (100) comprises: a hydrogen production unit (114, 118) configured for receiving a hydrocarbon source (112) to produce a gas stream (120) comprising hydrogen and carbon dioxide (see col. 3, lines 3-26; Fig. 1); a separation unit (130, 140, 150) configured for separating the hydrogen from carbon dioxide in the gas stream (120), thereby producing a concentrated byproduct stream (134, 154) comprising carbon dioxide and a hydrogen product stream (132, 142) (see col. 3, lines 26-38; Fig. 1). The reference Reddy further teaches that the separation unit (130, 140, 150) may include a monoethanolamine (MEA) solution absorption unit (which may be referred to as a pre-concentrator) (see col. 4, lines 20-28) and a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit (see col. 3, lines 31-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, seeking to reduce carbon dioxide gas emissions from the hydrogen production unit of Reddy, to arrange the system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions taught by Keshner et al. downstream of the separation unit (130, 140, 150) of Reddy so as to similarly sequester the carbon dioxide in the concentrated byproduct stream of Reddy in underground rock structures as taught by Keshner et al., and predictably arrived at the instantly claimed system, because, as evidenced by the reference Terrien et al. (see paras. [0003]; [0027]), it is known in the art to recover carbon dioxide produced as a waste or byproduct gas in a hydrogen production unit, and sequester the recovered carbon dioxide in geological formations. Regarding claim 13, the references Keshner et al., Reddy, and Terrien et al., teach the system, where the type of rock present in the reservoir includes igneous rock, such as volcanic rock or basalt (see Keshner et al.: paras. [0007]; [0009]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inject the dissolved byproduct stream into a reservoir containing broken and fractured basaltic rock or silicate rock, since the reference Keshner et al. teaches injecting a highly concentrated solution of carbon dioxide in water into a reservoir containing broken and fractured rock that can react with dissolved carbon dioxide in the water to attain a rapid and economical conversion of carbon dioxide into stable carbonates (see paras. [0032]-[0034]). Further, the reference Keshner et al. teaches that the type of rock suitable to react with the dissolved carbon dioxide include igneous rock, such as volcanic rock or basalt (see paras. [0007]; [0009]; [0015]), which are considered to encompass the basaltic rock or silicate rock recited in claim 13. Regarding claim 15, as no structural distinction is seen between the separation unit (130, 140, 150) of Reddy and the instantly claimed separation unit, the separation unit of Reddy is considered capable of increasing the CO 2 concentration from less than 10 vol% to above 40 vol%. Regarding claim 16, the references Keshner et al. Reddy, and Terrien et al. teach the system, where the facility includes a power production facility (see Keshner et al.: paras. [0007]; [0070]; [0073]). Regarding claims 17 and 18, the references Keshner et al. Reddy, and Terrien et al. teach the system, where the reservoir can be between about 300 m and 850 m below the surface (see Keshner et al. para. [0093]). Further, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed system and the system of Keshner et al., Reddy, and Terrien et al., the reservoir as taught of Keshner et al. can suitably be at temperature in the range as claimed by applicant. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 2 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 3 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 4 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 5 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 6 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 7 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 8 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 17/937,619 Page 9 Art Unit: 1774
Prosecution Insights