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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s 11/10/25 election without traverse of Group I (claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-27, and 29) is acknowledged. Claim 30 is withdrawn from further consideration per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11’s “the components” is understood to refer to the recited regenerators and reboilers.
Drawings
The 1/9/23 drawings are provisionally accepted. Due to their complexity and/or numerosity, applicant’s assistance is requested to ensure that all component labels therein are correctly identified in the specification and vice versa. 37 CFR 1.3 (courtesy required).
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, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-14, 19-23, 26-27 all recite “low-grade heat” and/or “high-grade heat”, which are terms of degree and/or relative/subjective terms (MPEP 2173.05(b) I&IV), but do not also recite/define what will meet, qualify as, or infringe the quoted phrases. Said claims are rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. because the foregoing uncertainty causes confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof. MPEP 2173.02. While said terms/phrases have been interpreted for prior art purposes as meaning heat producing and/or sustaining the T claimed values/ranges, these rejections nevertheless need addressing.
Claim 29 recites “an intensified solvent”, which is defined on p. 21 (last par.) of the application-as-filed as “a solvent that can achieve a high CO2 loading… and forms a greater proportion of bicarbonate salts than carbamate salts.” However, what will meet or infringe “high” CO2 loading (the cited paragraph’s optional value/range not being definitive/dispositive) is unclear, causing confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof, rendering claim 29 rejected for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. MPEP 2173.02(b). While “high” CO2 loading is interpreted for prior art purposes via the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (MPEP 2111.03) to mean any desired CO2 loading, this rejection nevertheless needs addressing.
Claim 29 contains the trademark/trade name “CDRMax”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (BPAI 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. As the trademark/trade name is used here to identify/describe a given solvent composition (but does not recite its components and concentrations), the identification/description is indefinite.
Applicant is hereby advised that, as independent claim 1 and various dependent claims are rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 19-22, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP1736231A1 (2006) (attached to applicant’s 1-9-23 IDS) (“’231”). Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 19, 24, and 26-27, ‘231 teaches a method comprising, in Ex. 12, contacting a CO2-comprising (e.g. flue) gas 11 with CO2-lean solvent 16 in absorber column 13 to give a CO2-rich solvent 14, passing it through a cross-over heat exchanger 23 to a low-grade heat regenerator 15-M (parts 23 and 15-M thus being in fluid communication with absorber 13) operating at 112.6-107oC to form a CO2-lean solvent, which is fed through a low-grade heat reboiler 21 (thus in fluid communication with absorber low-grade heat regenerator 15-M) to pass to high-grade heat regenerator 15-L at 110oC (this is regarded as reboiler 21’s operating T) and thereafter to high-grade heat reboiler 18, which operates at 123.4-137oC; low-grade heat regenerator 15-M and high-grade heat regenerator 15-L are combined to form overall regenerator unit 15. See ‘231 at, e.g., par. 63-67 (label definitions) and 81; Fig. 21.
Regarding claims 11-12, ‘231’s components 15-M, 21, 15-L, and 18 are in fluid communication as claimed; CO2-comprising solvent 28 leaving low-grade heat reboiler 21 passes to high-grade heat regenerator 15-L as claimed. See id.
Regarding claims 20-21, CO2-comprising solvent travels from low-grade heat regenerator 15-M to low-grade heat reboiler 21, and then to high-grade heat regenerator 15-L. See id.
Regarding claim 22, ‘231’s low-grade heat reboiler 21 is downstream of its low-grade heat regenerator 15-M and upstream of its high-grade heat regenerator 15-L. See id.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
In considering the obviousness rejections below, the applicant should note that the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention has the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the claimed invention. The references of record in the application reasonably reflect this level of skill.
Claims 7, 23, and 25 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ’231. Regarding claim 7, while ‘231’s Ex. 12 high-grade heat regenerator 15-L is considered to operate at 100oC as detailed above, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ascertain and employ a desired operating T therefor, such as within the claimed range, via routine experimentation- it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, while ‘231 does not appear to introduce such a gas into either of its regenerators or reboilers, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so to achieve and/or maintain a desired operating T, as this would be a simpler and thus more cost effective way of doing so rather than employing chillers to achieve such an effect. MPEP 2143 I.(G).
Regarding claim 25, although ‘231 does not specify the residual CO2 loading (if any) of its CO2-lean solvent 16, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat ‘231’s solvent regeneration steps until a desired residual CO2 loading (if any) is achieved, such as within the claimed range, via routine experimentation- it is “well within the expected skill of the technician to operate a process continuously [or thus, repeatedly]." See, e.g., In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248, 252 (CCPA 1963) (internal citations omitted) and In re Citron, 140 USPQ 220, 222 (CCPA 1964) (affirming BPAI’s upholding of Examiner’s rejection of claims repeating prior-taught steps as obvious); MPEP 2144.04 V.E. See also MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller.
Claim 29 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘231 as illustrated by CA2817549C (2018) (“’549”)1. Regarding claim 29 (interpreted as detailed above), ‘231 teaches the effectiveness and appropriateness of employing alkanolamines such as MDEA as its CO2 solvent, making it prima facie obvious to do so. See ‘231 at, e.g., par. 35; MPEP 2143 I.(E) & 2144.07. While ‘231 is silent as to whether MDEA forms a greater proportion of bicarbonate salts than carbamate salts, ‘549 so teaches. See ‘549 at, e.g., par. 4.
Claim Objections/Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 18 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. The most pertinent prior art is ‘231 as detailed above. Regarding claim 13, ‘231 does not teach or suggest that its low-grade heat regenerator and low-grade heat reboiler are hydraulically independent with (i.e. not in fluid communication with), and thermally dependent with (i.e. in thermal communication with), its high-grade heat regenerator and high-grade heat reboiler per claim 13. Modifying ‘231 to arrive at the claimed relationships would involve splitting ‘231’s integral regenerators 15-M and 15-L into two distinct units, which is regarded as a non-obvious variation as it would undesirably involve more piping and pipe routing, both of which carry unavoidable risks of leakage. Accord, Ex parte Knudsen (Appeal 2010-008434) (BPAI 2012) (see https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-web/#/search/documents?proceedingNumber=2010008434) at pp. 6-7 (stating that splitting simultaneously-performed prior art steps into a sequential performance thereof is non-obvious without more). Regarding claim 14, while ‘231’s Ex. 12/Fig. 21 does split its CO2-rich solvent stream 14 into sub-streams 20-1 (which is passed to/through low-grade heat regenerator 15-M and low-grade heat reboiler 21) and 20-2, sub-stream 20-2 is passed to/through regenerator 15-U, which is not high-grade heat regenerator 15-L; rerouting sub-stream 20-2 into high-grade heat regenerator 15-L would involve a non-obvious material alteration to ‘231’s mode of operation. MPEP 2143.01 VI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ February 6, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
1 Note: ‘549 is not meant to be combined with ‘231, but is merely cited to illustrate certain properties about ‘231’s amine solvents upon which ‘231 is silent.