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
The amendments filed November 7th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 16-30 remain pending in the application. The amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 9th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed November 7th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-17 and 25-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Okubo, M. et al. High-Efficiency Carbon Dioxide Reduction Using Nonthermal Plasma Desorption, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 54 (December 2018), pp. 6422-6429 (hereinafter referred to as Okubo) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Okubo, and further in view of Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20210094337 A to Byeon.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo, M. et al. High-Efficiency Carbon Dioxide Reduction Using Nonthermal Plasma Desorption, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 54 (December 2018), pp. 6422-6429 (hereinafter referred to as Okubo), and further in view of Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20210094337 A to Byeon (hereinafter referred to as Byeon).
Regarding claim 16, Okubo teaches a process for CO2 capture and production of CO (Abstract “Consequently, CO2 adsorbed by the adsorbent is desorbed with higher concentration and reduced to CO with high efficiency”), the process comprising: i) providing a CO2 containing gas flow; ii) adsorbing CO2 from the CO2 containing gas flow on the sorbent (Abstract “In the physical adsorption process, approximately 10% CO2 gas with flow rate 10 L/min is prepared … It is then introduced into the flow channel, and CO2 is adsorbed by the adsorbent.”); iii) applying plasma conditions on the CO2 adsorbed sorbent to allow for desorption of CO2 from the CO2 adsorbed sorbent and conversion to CO (Abstract “After the adsorption process, the circulation flow channel is set and the N2 plasma flow is generated with a blower. Consequently, CO2 adsorbed by the adsorbent is desorbed with higher concentration and reduced to CO with high efficiency.”); iv) and collecting CO from the gas flow of step iii) (Abstract “The generated CO can be reused as a fuel”, this indicates that the CO is collected and reused). Okubo does not teach wherein the process is carried out in an integrated plasma-sorbent reactor containing a sorbent in which non-thermal plasma is configured to directly contact the sorbent.
However, Byeon teaches a plasma reactor containing a CO2 sorbent (¶0031 “According to an embodiment of the present application, by filling the carbon dioxide absorbing laminate in the plasma reactor, it is possible to improve better carbon dioxide absorption performance and significantly improve the lifespan of the device.”) wherein the plasma is configured to directly contact the sorbent (Fig. 6, wire electrode 26 passes through the interior of the plasma reactor 2, contacting the sorbent 25).
Okubo and Byeon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying plasma conditions to carbon dioxide sorbents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Okubo to incorporate the integrated plasma-sorbent reactor as taught by Byeon to improve the CO2 absorption performance (or in the case of the sorbent as taught by Okubo, the adsorption performance). Furthermore, modifying the process as taught by Okubo to allow for the application of plasma conditions directly in the adsorption bed would result in a more efficient system with less individual components.
Regarding claim 17, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Okubo further teaches wherein the gas flow of step iii) is again subjected to step ii) for adsorbing unreacted CO2 (Fig. 8, time-dependent CO2 and CO concentrations with five-time repeated adsorption and desorption).
Regarding claim 18, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Byeon further teaches wherein the CO2 containing gas flow is air (¶0021 “In one example, the plasma reactor includes an inlet through which outside air is introduced”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the process as taught by Okubo and modified by Byeon could be used for the purpose of capturing CO2 from a feed stream that comprises outdoor air.
Regarding claim 25, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Okubo further teaches wherein the sorbent is chosen from the group including hydrotalcites, zeolites, activated carbon, solid supported amines, solid supported metal organic frameworks, or any combination thereof (Abstract “As an adsorbent, the molecular sieve zeolite 13X is used”).
Regarding claim 26, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Okubo further teaches wherein a shape of the sorbent is chosen from the group including pellets, spheres, and 3D printed structures to optimize the plasma discharge and the adsorption capacity and minimize the pressure drop ( Section B. Adsorption and Desorption “Next, after packing adsorbent pellet inside chamber 3”).
Regarding claim 27, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Okubo further teaches wherein the process is used for syngas production (Abstract “The generated CO can be reused as a fuel.”).
Claims 19-20 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo and Byeon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Economics Group. Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations [online]. 7th edition. Research Triangle Park, NC, 2018 [retrieved on 2025-05-01]. Retrieved from the Internet: < https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/final_carbonadsorberschapter_7thedition.pdf> Chapter 1. (hereinafter referred to as Sorrels).
Regarding claim 19, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Okubo further teaches the use of multiple adsorption chambers (III. Experimental Results and Discussion, experiment A was performed with two adsorption chambers, experiment B was performed with three adsorption chambers). Okubo is silent on the arrangement of the adsorption chambers.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption chambers, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that when the adsorption chambers are placed in parallel, as is disclosed in claim 19, the beds are capable of treating large gas flows (Section 1.6.2 “Multiple beds, operating in parallel, would be needed to treat large gas flows, as there are practical limits to the sizes to which adsorber vessels can be built.”).
Okubo, Byeon, and Sorrels are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using adsorbent chambers for gas separation. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the adsorbent chambers as taught by Okubo and Byeon in parallel in order to treat large gas flows, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 20, Okubo and Byeon teach the process as applied to claim 16 above. Okubo further teaches the use of multiple adsorption chambers (III. Experimental Results and Discussion, experiment A was performed with two adsorption chambers, experiment B was performed with three adsorption chambers). Okubo is silent on the arrangement of the adsorption chambers.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption chambers, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that placing the adsorption chambers in series can decrease the likelihood of breakthrough (Section 1.6.3.2 “placing multiple vessels in a series can substantially decrease concerns of breakthrough.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the adsorbent chambers as taught by Okubo and Byeon in series in order to prevent breakthrough while running the feed stream through the adsorption chambers, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 29, Okubo teaches an apparatus for CO2 capture and production of CO comprising at least two reactors (III. Experimental Results and Discussion, experiment A was performed with two adsorption chambers), wherein at least one reactor is configured for adsorbing CO2 from the CO2 containing gas flow on a sorbent (Abstract “In the physical adsorption process, approximately 10% CO2 gas with flow rate 10 L/min is prepared … It is then introduced into the flow channel, and CO2 is adsorbed by the adsorbent.”) and at least one reactor is configured for desorption of CO2 from CO2 adsorbed sorbent and conversion to CO, and wherein the at least two reactors are configured to apply plasma conditions (Abstract “After the adsorption process, the circulation flow channel is set and the N2 plasma flow is generated with a blower. Consequently, CO2 adsorbed by the adsorbent is desorbed with higher concentration and reduced to CO with high efficiency.”). Okubo does not teach an integrated plasma-sorbent reactor and wherein the reactor is configured to apply non-thermal plasma conditions directly to the sorbent. Okubo is silent on the arrangement of the adsorption chambers.
However, Byeon teaches a plasma reactor containing a CO2 sorbent (¶0031 “According to an embodiment of the present application, by filling the carbon dioxide absorbing laminate in the plasma reactor, it is possible to improve better carbon dioxide absorption performance and significantly improve the lifespan of the device.”) wherein the plasma is configured to directly contact the sorbent (Fig. 6, wire electrode 26 passes through the interior of the plasma reactor 2, contacting the sorbent 25).
Okubo and Byeon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying plasma conditions to carbon dioxide sorbents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Okubo to incorporate the integrated plasma-sorbent reactor as taught by Byeon to improve the CO2 absorption performance (or in the case of the sorbent as taught by Okubo, the adsorption performance). Furthermore, modifying the process as taught by Okubo to allow for the application of plasma conditions directly in the adsorption bed would result in a more efficient system with less individual components.
As to the configuration of the reactors, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption chambers, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that when the adsorption chambers are placed in parallel, as is disclosed in claim 19, the beds are capable of treating large gas flows (Section 1.6.2 “Multiple beds, operating in parallel, would be needed to treat large gas flows, as there are practical limits to the sizes to which adsorber vessels can be built.”).
Okubo, Byeon, and Sorrels are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using adsorbent chambers for gas separation. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the adsorbent chambers as taught by Okubo and Byeon in parallel in order to treat large gas flows, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 30, Okubo teaches an apparatus for CO2 capture and production of CO comprising at least two reactors (III. Experimental Results and Discussion, experiment A was performed with two adsorption chambers), wherein at least one reactor is configured for adsorbing CO2 from the CO2 containing gas flow on a sorbent (Abstract “In the physical adsorption process, approximately 10% CO2 gas with flow rate 10 L/min is prepared … It is then introduced into the flow channel, and CO2 is adsorbed by the adsorbent.”) and at least one reactor is configured for desorption of CO2 from CO2 adsorbed sorbent and conversion to CO, and wherein the at least two reactors are configured to apply plasma conditions (Abstract “After the adsorption process, the circulation flow channel is set and the N2 plasma flow is generated with a blower. Consequently, CO2 adsorbed by the adsorbent is desorbed with higher concentration and reduced to CO with high efficiency.”). Okubo does not teach an integrated plasma-sorbent reactor and wherein the reactor is configured to apply non-thermal plasma conditions directly to the sorbent. Okubo is silent on the arrangement of the adsorption chambers.
However, Byeon teaches a plasma reactor containing a CO2 sorbent (¶0031 “According to an embodiment of the present application, by filling the carbon dioxide absorbing laminate in the plasma reactor, it is possible to improve better carbon dioxide absorption performance and significantly improve the lifespan of the device.”) wherein the plasma is configured to directly contact the sorbent (Fig. 6, wire electrode 26 passes through the interior of the plasma reactor 2, contacting the sorbent 25).
Okubo and Byeon are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of applying plasma conditions to carbon dioxide sorbents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process as taught by Okubo to incorporate the integrated plasma-sorbent reactor as taught by Byeon to improve the CO2 absorption performance (or in the case of the sorbent as taught by Okubo, the adsorption performance). Furthermore, modifying the process as taught by Okubo to allow for the application of plasma conditions directly in the adsorption bed would result in a more efficient system with less individual components.
As to the configuration of the reactors, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption chambers, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that placing the adsorption chambers in series can decrease the likelihood of breakthrough (Section 1.6.3.2 “placing multiple vessels in a series can substantially decrease concerns of breakthrough.”).
Okubo, Byeon, and Sorrels are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using adsorbent chambers for gas separation. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the adsorbent chambers as taught by Okubo and Byeon in series in order to prevent breakthrough while running the feed stream through the adsorption chambers, as supported by Sorrels.
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776