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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the discharge unit for sending the carbon dioxide reactant from the separator to the absorption tower to capture sulfur oxides in the flue gas must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites: “…a separator for collecting a reactant containing carbon dioxide captured in the absorption tower and separating a carbon dioxide reactant and a waste solution from the reactant; and a discharge unit for sending the carbon dioxide reactant from the separator to the absorption tower to capture sulfur oxides in the flue gas, and discharging the captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant, and residual flue gas.”
The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for this claimed underlined subject matter. According to paragraph [59] of instant specification, “[T]he carbon dioxide reactant separated in the separator 140 is sent to the absorption tower 110 to capture sulfur oxides in the remaining flue gas after carbon dioxide is captured.” Therefore, there is no disclosure in the instant specification of a discharge unit for sending the carbon dioxide reactant from the separation to the absorption tower to capture sulfur oxides in the flue gas.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by claims 12- of copending Application No. 18/727386 (reference application).
Claim 12 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 1 of instant invention, thereby anticipating the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 3 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 4 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 5 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 6 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 2 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 10 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 of copending application no. 18/727386 discloses substantially similar structural limitations as in claim 9 of instant invention, thereby reading on the subject matter of the claimed invention.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Language inconsistency.
Claim 1 recites: “…a mixer for supplying a basic alkali mixture; an absorption tower for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas by reacting the basic alkaline mixture…” Language consistency is recommended in order to avoid confusion.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret Claim 1 as reciting: “…a mixer for supplying a basic alkaline mixture; an absorption tower for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas by reacting the basic alkaline mixture…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: monitoring unit for monitoring a filling level and pH of the basic alkaline mixture in the absorption tower, and a control unit for controlling the supply amount of the basic alkaline mixture by the monitoring unit in claim 9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant discloses on paragraphs [67]-[68] of instant specification that: “The system 100 for capturing carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide for ships may further include: a monitoring unit 160 for monitoring the filling level and pH of the basic alkaline mixture in the absorption tower; and a control unit 161 for controlling the supply amount of the basic alkaline mixture by the monitoring unit 160. The monitoring unit 160 manages the values of the gas meter, the pH meter, and the flow meter measured in all processes of the carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide capture system 100 for ships, and the control unit 161 is adjusted based on the values indicated by the monitoring unit 160. The valves 114, 133, 134, and 135 may be adjusted as a percentage with respect to a value input from the control unit 161.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “…and the flue gas having fine droplets through a bubbler installed at a bottom…” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. At a bottom of what? At a bottom of absorption tower? It appears that this limitation is incomplete.
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret Claim 1 as reciting:“…and the flue gas having fine droplets through a bubbler installed at a bottom of the absorption tower…”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…and discharging the captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant, and residual flue gas.” There is no mention of captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant and residual flue gas previously in claim 1. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites: “…a separator for collecting a reactant containing carbon dioxide captured in the absorption tower and separating a carbon dioxide reactant and a waste solution from the reactant; and a discharge unit for sending the carbon dioxide reactant from the separator to the absorption tower to capture sulfur oxides in the flue gas, and discharging the captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant, and residual flue gas.” This limitation is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what applicant refers to. How does the discharge unit send the carbon dioxide reactant from the separator to the absorption tower to capture sulfur oxides in the flue gas while discharging the captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant, and residual flue gas simultaneously?
Applicant discloses on paragraph [59] of instant specification that: “[T]he carbon dioxide reactant separated in the separator 140 is sent to the absorption tower 110 to capture sulfur oxides in the remaining flue gas after carbon dioxide is captured.” Further paragraph [64] of instant specification that: “After the absorption of sulfur oxides in the absorption tower 110 is finished, the solution containing the captured sulfur oxides present in the absorption tower 110, the carbon dioxide reactant, and the residual flue gas from which carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides are removed may be discharged to the outside through the discharge unit 150. Specifically, the material discharged to the discharge unit 150 may discharge residual flue gas (N2,O2, etc.) from which carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides have been removed, and sodium sulfate (Na2SO4) formed by removing sulfur oxide by reacting carbon dioxide reactant with a sulfur oxide.”
For purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 1 as reciting: “…a separator for collecting a reactant containing carbon dioxide captured in the absorption tower and separating a carbon dioxide reactant and a waste solution from the reactant; wherein the carbon dioxide reactant separated in the separator is sent to the absorption tower to capture sulfur oxides in the remaining flue gas, wherein a solution containing captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant and residual gas from which carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides are removed is generated, and a discharge unit for discharging the captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant, and residual flue gas.”
Claim 4 recites: “…wherein the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed in a ratio of 1:1 to 1:5.” The claim is written as a process claim although it depends from an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 5 recites: “…wherein the average pH of the basic alkaline mixture is 12 or more.” The claim is written as a process claim although it depends from an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claims 2-3 and 6-10 are rejected because they depend on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjemtrup et al. (KR10-2015112824A, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kjemtrup) in view of Kim et al. (KR10-1379856B1, relied on machine translation, hereinafter Kim).
In regards to Claim 1, Kjemtrup discloses a system for capturing carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide for ships, comprising:
a mixer (A1 buffer tank) for supplying a basic alkaline mixture (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025] and [0067]);
an absorption tower (A2 wash unit) for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas (G1n) by reacting the basic alkaline mixture supplied from the mixer (A1) and the flue gas (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0026-[0027] and[0072]-[0074]);
a separator (A3) for collecting a reactant (L3) containing carbon dioxide captured in the absorption tower (A2) and separating a carbon dioxide reactant (L1) and a waste solution (L4) from the reactant (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and [0081]-[0082]);
wherein the carbon dioxide reactant (L1) separated in the separator (A3) is sent to the absorption tower (A2) to capture sulfur oxides in the remaining flue gas (G1n), wherein a solution containing captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant and residual gas from which carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides are removed is generated (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and [0081]-[0082]), and
a discharge unit for discharging the captured sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide reactant, and residual flue gas (see paragraphs [0078]-[0080]; Kjemtrup discloses wherein the residual solution in the washing unit is collected and directed to a purification unit, purified and fractions are discarded. This is considered equivalent to a discharge unit, as claimed by the applicant.).
Kjemtrup fails to disclose wherein the flue gas having fine droplets is carried to the absorption tower through a bubbler installed at a bottom.
However, Kim teaches a carbon dioxide capture device (#100) for a ship using seawater and an alkaline suspension. The carbon dioxide capture device (#100) comprises a mixer (#170) for supplying a basic alkali suspension, an absorption tower (#120) for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas by reacting the basic alkaline suspension supplied from the mixer (#170) and the flue gas having fine droplets through a bubbler (#123) installed at a bottom of the absorption tower (#120) to facilitate contact between carbon dioxide and the alkaline suspension (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system for capturing carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide as disclosed by Kjemtrup by further having the flue gas having fine droplets to be carried to the absorption tower through a bubbler installed at a bottom, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kim teaches a carbon dioxide capture device for a ship using seawater and an alkaline suspension, wherein the carbon dioxide capture device comprises a mixer for supplying a basic alkali suspension, an absorption tower for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas by reacting the basic alkaline suspension supplied from the mixer and the flue gas having fine droplets through a bubbler installed at a bottom of the absorption tower to facilitate and improve contact between carbon dioxide and the alkaline suspension, thereby improving purification efficiency (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
In regards to Claim 2, Kjemtrup, in view of Kim, discloses the system as recited in claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the bubbler (#123) forms flue gas microbubbles using the flue gas (see figure 1 and paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system for capturing carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide as disclosed by Kjemtrup by further having the bubbler to form flue gas microbubbles using the flue gas, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Kim teaches a carbon dioxide capture device for a ship using seawater and an alkaline suspension, wherein the carbon dioxide capture device comprises a mixer for supplying a basic alkali suspension, an absorption tower for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas by reacting the basic alkaline suspension supplied from the mixer and the flue gas having fine droplets through a bubbler installed at a bottom of the absorption tower to form microbubbles to facilitate and improve contact between carbon dioxide and the alkaline suspension, thereby improving purification efficiency (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
In regards to Claim 3, Kjemtrup discloses wherein the mixer (A1) mixes a basic alkaline solution supplied from a basic alkaline solution storage tank (A0) and water supplied from a water supply source (freshwater source) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0029], [0043] and [0067]).
In regards to Claim 4, Kjemtrup, in view of Kim, discloses the system as recited in claim 3. Although Kjemtrup, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed in a ratio of 1:1 to 1:5, Kjemtrup discloses the importance of adding the base to the fresh water to maintain a continued pH in a range of 9-12 to maintain the carbonate/bicarbonate equilibrium, such that the equilibrium is biased towards the carbonate (see paragraph [0067]). In view of this, it is considered reasonably obvious, absent evidence to the contrary, to mix the basic alkaline solution and water to an optimum ratio of 1:1 to 1:5, as claimed by the applicant, in order to maintain a continued pH to maintain the carbonate/bicarbonate equilibrium, as it has been held that optimizing a result-effective variable is within one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to Claim 5, Kjemtrup discloses wherein the average pH of the basic alkaline mixture is 12 or more (see paragraph [0067]; Kjemtrup discloses wherein the pH of the basic alkaline mixture is in the range of 9-12, which overlaps the claimed value of 12 or more, as claimed by the applicant, thereby making the claimed value prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.).
In regards to Claim 7, Kjemtrup discloses wherein the absorption tower (A2) supplies the basic alkaline mixture from the mixer (A1) through a plurality of nozzles (one or more spray devices) installed on the top thereof (see figure 1 and paragraph [0071]).
In regards to Claim 8, Kjemtrup discloses wherein the absorption tower (A2) is configured in series, parallel or a series and parallel complex arrangement (see paragraph [0075]).
In regards to Claim 9, Kjemtrup discloses further comprising:
a monitoring unit for monitoring a filling level and pH of the basic alkaline mixture in the absorption tower (A2) (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0054] and [0087]); and
a control unit for controlling the supply amount of the basic alkaline mixture by the monitoring unit (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0054] and [0087]).
Examiner notes that although Kjemtrup does not explicitly discloses wherein the monitoring unit also monitors a filling level, having an additional monitoring unit for measuring a fill level is a mere engineering design choice in order to obtain a desired end-result, such as for monitoring overflowing of the tower, and is considered prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the criticality or new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
In regards to Claim 10, Kjemtrup discloses wherein the carbon dioxide reactant comprises sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) or sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3) (see paragraphs [0033] and [0083]-[0085]; Kjemtrup discloses if sodium hydroxide is used, the salts formed during washing, i.e. carbon dioxide reactant, is Na2CO3.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjemtrup, in view of Kim, and further in view of Naito et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0038807, hereinafter Naito).
In regards to Claim 6, Kjemtrup, in view of Kim, discloses the system as recited in claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein the basic alkaline solution comprises quicklime (CaO) and sodium hydroxide (see paragraphs [0051]-[0052]). Kjemtrup, in view of Kim, fails to disclose at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Li, Cr, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Ga, Sr, Cd, and Pb.
However, Naito teaches an apparatus fixing carbon dioxide and a flue gas desulfurization facility. The apparatus for fixing carbon dioxide comprises a mixer (#80 hopper) for supplying a basic alkaline mixture, an absorption tower (#60 reaction tank) for capturing carbon dioxide from a gas by reacting the basic alkaline mixture from the mixer (#80) and the gas having fine droplets through a bubbler (#94 aeration nozzle) installed at a bottom. The absorption tower (#60 reaction tank) is adapted to generate a stable compound such as a mineral by adding an alkaline earth metal or an alkali metal to the seawater. The hopper (#80), i.e. mixer, is fed with a supplementary element selected from the group consisting of alkali earth metal and alkali metal from a feed source (see figure 1 and paragraphs [0033]-[0036]). The alkali metal stored in the hopper (#80), i.e. mixer, may comprise lithium (Li), sodium (Na) and/or potassium (K) (see figure 1 and paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the system as disclosed by Kjemtrup, in view of Kim, by further having at least one metal, such as lithium (Li) in the basic alkaline mixture, as claimed by the applicant, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Naito teaches an apparatus fixing carbon dioxide and a flue gas desulfurization facility, wherein the apparatus for fixing carbon dioxide comprises a hopper, i.e. mixer, for supplying a basic alkaline mixture, an absorption tower for capturing carbon dioxide from a gas by reacting the basic alkaline mixture from the mixer and the gas having fine droplets through a bubbler installed at a bottom, wherein the absorption tower is adapted to generate a stable compound such as a mineral by adding an alkaline earth metal or an alkali metal to the seawater, whereby the hopper is fed with a supplementary alkali element such as lithium (Li), thereby aiding in producing a compound which is stable like minerals (see paragraphs [0033]-[0036] and [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JELITZA M PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/JELITZA M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights