DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teir et al. (“Case study for production of calcium carbonate from carbon dioxide in flue gases and steelmaking slag”).
With regard to Claim 1, Teir teaches modifying an elevated temperature CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream to produce a conditioned CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream (Page 41, 4.1. Operational costs; the pipeline could be designed to bring the flue gas temperature close to that of the carbonator to cool the heat produced by the exothermic reaction in the carbonator).
Teir teaches sequestering CO2 from the conditioned CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream by using a CO2 sequestration process that converts an amount of gaseous CO2 from the conditioned CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream into a solid carbonate (Page 39, Fig. 2).
With regard to Claims 2 and 7, Teir teaches removing heat from the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream, wherein the removing heat comprises employing a heat exchanger (Pages 41-42, 4.1. Operational costs; Both the extractor and carbonator are exothermal processes. Both can be cooled by cooling the feed solution if additional cooling is required… the pipeline could be designed to bring the flue gas temperature close to that of the carbonator to cool the heat produced by the exothermic reaction in the carbonator…The most efficient way to heat/cool the reactor is to place a heat exchanger in the feed solution pipe since the energy requirement for heating/cooling is quite small).
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Teir teaches the method further comprising removing one or more physical components of the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream, wherein the one or more physical components include moisture (H2O), particulates, pollutants and combinations thereof (Page 39, Fig. 2; NH3 removal; Page 40, 3.3. Additional process units; A scrubber for removal of ammonia from the flue gas stream exiting the carbonator). NH3 is construed as a “pollutant”.
With regard to Claim 8, Teir teaches the method further comprising employing one or more of the removed physical components in the CO2 sequestration process (Page 39, Fig. 2; NH3 removal, the NH3 is fed into the extractor).
With regard to Claim 9, Teir teaches the method wherein the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream comprises a flue gas from an industrial plant (Page 39, Fig. 2; Flue gas 177,000 t; Page 40, 3.2. Calcium carbonate precipitation and filtration; Calcium carbonate precipitation takes place by bubbling flue gas through the solution containing ammonia, ammonium chloride and calcium ions leached from the slag).
With regard to Claim 20, Teir teaches the method wherein the CO2 sequestration process comprises carbonate precipitation (Page 40, 3.2. Calcium carbonate precipitation and filtration; Calcium carbonate precipitation takes place by bubbling flue gas through the solution containing ammonia, ammonium chloride and calcium ions leached from the slag).
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2020/0346165 A1) as evidenced by Andersen et al. (US 2008/0099122 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Lu teaches modifying an elevated temperature CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream to produce a conditioned CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream (Paragraph 0061, The industrial flue gas can be preheated to a temperature in the range of about 400° C. to about 500° C. against a hot stream in the system before entering the carbonator, and this can be useful to maintain a preferred operating temperature of the carbonator).
Lu teaches sequestering CO2 from the conditioned CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream by using a CO2 sequestration process that converts an amount of gaseous CO2 from the conditioned CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream into a solid carbonate (Paragraph 0015, when limestone (CaCO3) is utilized as the raw material in the reactor, the solids that are produced can include quicklime (CaO). In the carbonator, the quicklime can be reacted with a carbon dioxide-containing stream to produce CaCO3, which can be recycled back to the reactor).
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Lu teaches the method further comprising removing one or more physical components of the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream, wherein the one or more physical components include moisture (H2O), particulates, pollutants and combinations thereof (Paragraph 0056, the oxidant source does not need to be free of acid gas compounds or particulates. As described herein, the acid gases and particulates can effectively be scrubbed out by the mineral product, solids separation, and/or water separation; Paragraph 0068, any residual SOx and NOx in the flue gas will be oxidized to terminal acid species via the oxygen in the flue gas; Paragraph 0118, Depending on the amount of SOx and NOx in the kiln flue gas, the flue gas can be optionally scrubbed by a water stream to remove residual SOx and NOx species in the forms of H2SO4 and HNO3).
With regard to Claim 8, Lu teaches the method further comprising employing one or more of the removed physical components in the CO2 sequestration process (Paragraph 0069, nitrogen and sulfur contaminants can be of minimal to moderate economic concern but not technical concern. NOx and SOx species that are formed will bond to the partially oxidized mineral product. For example, in embodiments where quicklime (CaO) is formed from limestone in the reactor, NOx and SOx will combine with the CaO to create calcium sulfate (gypsum) and calcium nitrate (Norwegian saltpeter)). Further, evidentiary reference Andersen notes that gypsum is an aggregate material (Paragraph 0024 of Andersen, An aggregate material can also be included, which is one or more of…limestone…gypsum dihydrate, calcium carbonate, calcium aluminate, and combinations thereof).
With regard to Claim 9, Lu teaches the method wherein the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream comprises a flue gas from an industrial plant (Fig. 3, industrial flue gas 203).
With regard to Claims 10 and 11, Lu teaches the method wherein the elevated temperature CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream has a temperature of 150°F or higher and 200°F or higher (Paragraph 0061, The industrial flue gas can be preheated to a temperature in the range of about 400° C. to about 500° C. against a hot stream in the system before entering the carbonator).
With regard to Claim 20, Lu teaches the method wherein the CO2 sequestration process comprises carbonate precipitation (Paragraph 0036, The method likewise can comprise processing a flue gas including carbon dioxide through the carbonator such that at least a portion of the carbon dioxide from the flue gas is reacted with the quicklime to form CaCO3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 16-19 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.
With regard to Claim 3, the closest prior art to this claim is: Teir et al. (“Case study for production of calcium carbonate from carbon dioxide in flue gases and steelmaking slag”), Lu et al. (US 2020/0346165 A1), Andersen et al. (US 2008/0099122 A1), and Zappa (“Pilot-scale Experimental Work on the Production of Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) from Steel Slag for CO2 Fixation”).
Teir teaches contacting the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream with an aggregate (Page 39, Fig. 2). The input solution into the carbonator can be reasonably interpreted as an “aggregate” (Pages 39-40, 3.1. Calcium extraction from slag).
However, Teir is silent to the method wherein removing heat comprises contacting the CO2 containing multi-component gaseous stream with an aggregate.
Furthermore, there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Teir with Lu due to the differing operating conditions of the carbonators. Teir teaches the carbonator operated at 60°C (Page 40, 3.2. Calcium carbonate precipitation and filtration; As aragonite is the wanted product in this case study, the carbonator temperature is kept at 60 °C), while Lu teaches the carbonator operated at a temperature of least 600 °C (Paragraph 0061, The operating temperature of the carbonator thus can be in a range of about 600° C. to about 650° C).
Claims 4, 12-13, and 16-19 would be allowable due to their dependence on Claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-11, filed February 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112, and claims 1-13 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Lu et al. (US 2020/0346165 A1) as evidenced by Andersen et al. (US 2008/0099122 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 20 over Teir et al. (“Case study for production of calcium carbonate from carbon dioxide in flue gases and steelmaking slag”), and Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, and 20 over Lu as evidenced by Andersen. The new grounds of rejection over Lu as evidenced by Andersen interpret the “modifying” disclosed in claim 1 as preheating the industrial flue gas.
Conclusion
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 ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights