DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-15) and species 13 (Fig. 13) in the reply filed on 5/12/2025 with traverse is acknowledged. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/12/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims sets do not have a separate classification and an allegation that the claim sets would not require a separate field of search. This is not persuasive because the requirement is a lack of unity requirement under PCT Rule 13.1 and the claims sets were shown to lack unity and therefore the allegation is without merit. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 12, 13, 16-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Further, it is noted that claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn as the elected species 13 does not direct the second liquefied CO2 stream to storage or into an oxyfuel combustion engine.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14, 15 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “providing an oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream” is indefinite since an oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream has already been recited and it is unclear if this is the same or other stream.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “the at least a portion of the first waste gas stream” is indefinite for reintroducing “a portion” improperly and it is not clear why the recitation is not --the at least the portion of the first waste gas stream--.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the at least a portion of the first waste gas stream” is indefinite for reintroducing “a portion” improperly and it is not clear why the recitation is not --the at least the portion of the first waste gas stream--.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “the at least a portion of the first waste gas stream” is indefinite for reintroducing “a portion” improperly and it is not clear why the recitation is not --the at least the portion of the first waste gas stream--.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “carbon capture efficiency of >90% is provided from a recovery stream of the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream” is indefinite as claim 1 states that it is the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream that is separated and therefore it is not clear how the recovery stream is related to the separations already claimed and it is not clear how to determine the capture efficiency relative to some other stream that does not appear to be involved in the separations.
In regard to claim 15, the recitation, “separating the recovery stream to provide the first liquefied CO2 stream and the first waste gas stream” is indefinite since claim 1 indicates that the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream is separated and it is unclear if the present separating is the same separating of claim 1 or another separating as presently recited and the recitation creates ambiguity and confusion for not properly referencing the previously recited separating.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stallman (EP 2 505 948). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Stallman teaches a method (see whole disclosure) of recovering carbon dioxide (CO2) from an oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (24), comprising at least the steps of: providing the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (24 or 155 to 165); separating the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (24) to provide a first liquefied CO2 stream (166) and a first waste gas stream (168); condensing at least a portion of the first waste gas stream (168) to provide a partly condensed waste gas stream (after 170); and separating the partly condensed waste gas stream (after 170) to provide a second waste gas stream (174) and a second liquefied CO2 stream (172).
In regard to claim 8, Stallman teaches that the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (24 or 155 to 165) is provided from a power generator (para. 40).
In regard to claim 9, Stallman teaches that the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (155 to 165) is provided from an initial oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (24) that has been cooled (para. 69), separated (para. 61, water separated), compressed (para. 60) and dehydrated (para. 61, 62).
In regard to claim 10, Stallman teaches that the second waste gas stream (174) comprises <75% of the carbon dioxide of the first waste gas stream (168)( majority of CO2 from 168 in the second liquid carbon dioxide stream 172).
In regard to claim 11, Stallman teaches a carbon capture efficiency of >90% is provided (para. 8).
In regard to claim 15, Stallman teaches dividing the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream into a recycle stream (20) and a recovery stream (toward 38, 43); and the separating of the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (155 to 165) is performed by separating the recovery stream (toward 38, 43) to provide the first liquefied CO2 stream (166) and the first waste gas stream (168).
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corden (WO 2012/114120). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Corden teaches a method (see whole disclosure) of recovering carbon dioxide (CO2; page 1, line 15) from an oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (100, 205; page 2, line 18-24, page 13, lien 30-32), comprising at least the steps of: providing the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (100, 205); separating the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (100, 205) to provide a first liquefied CO2 stream (220) and a first waste gas stream (215); condensing at least a portion of the first waste gas stream (215) to provide a partly condensed waste gas stream (600); and separating the partly condensed waste gas stream (600) to provide a second waste gas stream (610) and a second liquefied CO2 stream (615).
In regard to claim 8, Corden teaches that the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (100, 205) is provided from a power generator (page 1, line 30).
In regard to claim 9, Corden teaches that the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (205) is provided from an initial oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (100) that has been cooled (in 115, 200A), separated (water separated, page 2, line 29, page 3, line 20-30, page 13, line 18-27, page 19, line 29-32), compressed (para. 60) and dehydrated (water separated, page 2, line 29, page 3, line 20-30, page 13, line 18-27, page 19, line 29-32).
In regard to claim 10, Corden teaches that the second waste gas stream (610) comprises <75% of the carbon dioxide of the first waste gas stream (215)(majority of CO2 from 215 in the second liquid carbon dioxide stream 615).
In regard to claim 11, Corden teaches a carbon capture efficiency of >90% is provided (page 6, line 15-17).
In regard to claim 14, Corden teaches recycling at least a portion of the second liquefied CO2 stream (615) into a recovery stream (process stream downstream of 100) of the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (100).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NPL (Anna Skorek Osikowska) hereafter ASO. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, ASO teaches a method (see whole disclosure) of recovering carbon dioxide (CO2) from an oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (flue gas), comprising at least the steps of: providing the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (flue gas); separating the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (flue gas) to provide a first liquefied CO2 stream (5f) and a first waste gas stream (7f); condensing at least a portion of the first waste gas stream (7f) to provide a partly condensed waste gas stream (8f); and separating the partly condensed waste gas stream (8f) to provide a second waste gas stream (9f) and a second liquefied CO2 stream (12f).
In regard to claim 8, ASO teaches that the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (flue gas) is provided from a power generator (page 422).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallman (EP 2 505 948) in view of Audun (2010/0251763). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Stallman teaches most of the claim limitations, including that the condensing of the at least the portion of the first waste gas stream (168) is provided by indirect cooling with a heat exchange medium (refrigerant, para. 64, 70), but does not explicitly teach that the condensing is provided by using indirect heat exchange with a liquefied natural gas that cools the heat exchange medium and cools the first waste gas stream, as claimed. However, Audun teaches that it is well known to assist with cooling an oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (para. 124) using a liquefied natural gas (see cooling in Fig. 12) and teaches indirect cooling of a cooling medium (see nitrogen) with the liquefied natural gas (LNG) and that the indirect cooling is used to provide condensation of CO2 from the oxyfuel combustion engine exhaust stream (see CO2 condensation). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the chilling heat exchangers of Stallman with liquid natural gas cooling in situations where LNG is economically available to increase flexibility of operation, supplement refrigeration to the system to increase the condensation of CO2, and additionally provide useful vaporization of LNG. Note that liquefied natural gas is a combustion engine fuel stream and is cryogenic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
May 21, 2025