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 .
This action is a response to the amendments and remarks filed on 30 September 2025.
Response to Amendment
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending.
In response to the amendments to the claims, the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn, and the interpretations of claim 9 for invoking 35 USC 112(f) are no longer applied. It is noted that the interpretations applying 35 USC 112(f) did not constitute a claim rejection (Remarks, p. 5, line 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 30 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art cited in the rejection of claim 1 did not teach or otherwise suggest the additional text of the amended claim: “wherein when a filling level of the basic alkaline mixture solution in the absorption tower is lowered to less than 90%, the basic alkaline mixture solution is supplied from the mixer until the filling level of the solution reaches 100%; and the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed until the pH of the basic alkaline mixed solution becomes 12 to 12.5.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument is directed toward new claim limitations not addressed in the previous action. After an updated search, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Imbabi et al. (US 2019/0232216 A1) in view of Maayan et al. (US 2020/0171431 A1), Lee et al. (KR101474540B1), and Hauptkorn (DE102017109930A1).
Because of Applicant’s amendments, after further consideration and search and in view of the teachings of the above prior art, said new grounds of rejection are presented herein as a final rejection. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9: The claims are objected to because they are not presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies by use of optical character recognition, an example of which is shown in the following screen capture:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
1106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is respectfully advised that papers which will become part of the record must use permanent dark ink or its equivalent. See MPEP 714.07 and 37 CFR 1.52 (a)(1)(iv,v). Applicant is respectfully advised that such issues may be caused by submitting documents depicting tracked changes that are illustrated in a different color (e.g., red) or contrast. Changing the "track changes" settings such that the color and contrast of all claim text is the same may yield acceptable clarity and contrast.
Claim 1: In view of the antecedent of “a basic alkaline mixture” (line 3), the last five lines appear to include the following typographical errors: “when a filling level of the basic alkaline mixturethe mixer until the filling level of the basic alkaline mixture reaches 100%; and the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed until the pH of the basic alkaline mixture
Claim 4: Line 1 appears to include the following typographical error: “wherein the mixer is configured.”
Claim 9: Line 2 appears to include the following typographical errors: “[[a ]]the filling level and the pH.”
Appropriate correction is 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 1-4 and 6-10 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: The claim includes method steps (“when a filling level of the basic alkaline mixture solution in the absorption tower is lowered to less than 90%, the basic alkaline mixture solution is supplied from the mixer until the filling level of the solution reaches 100%; and the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed until the pH of the basic alkaline mixed solution becomes 12 to 12.5”) in the context of a system claim (line 1). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
The limitations of “the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed until the pH of the basic alkaline mixed solution becomes 12 to 12.5” are indefinite because it is unclear if “are mixed” relates to the “mixer” of line 3, and because “the basic alkaline solution” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 3: In line 2, “a basic alkaline solution supplied” does not acknowledge the apparent antecedent(s) of “basic alkaline mixture” (claim 1, line 3), “basic alkaline mixture solution” (claim 1, line 14), or “basic alkaline solution” (claim 1, line 17), so it is unclear if this is intended to be a new claim element.
Claim 4 is rejected because of its dependence from claim 3.
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 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 1-2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbabi et al. (US 2019/0232216 A1) in view of Maayan et al. (US 2020/0171431 A1), Lee et al. (KR101474540B1), and Hauptkorn (DE102017109930A1).
Regarding claim 1, Imbabi discloses a system for the capture and conversion of carbon dioxide to produce practically and commercially useful, non-hazardous solid materials (Fig. 3; [0001]) from the effluent gas (i.e., flue gas) from an industrial plant ([0017]) (i.e., a carbon dioxide capture and carbon resource recovery system for land use) comprising:
a junction (Fig. 3) where a wash water is mixed with an alkali feed 2 ([0061], [0112]) (i.e., a mixer for supplying a basic alkaline mixture);
an absorbing stage 7 where an alkaline aqueous solution obtained from the alkali feed ([0113]) dissolves carbon dioxide to form an alkaline aqueous solution containing carbonate anions ([0114]), wherein the carbon dioxide may be bubbled through the alkaline aqueous solution ([0024]) (i.e., an absorption tower for capturing carbon dioxide in flue gas by reacting the basic alkaline mixture supplied from the mixer and flue gas through a bubbler);
a precipitation stage 8 (i.e., a separator) that receives an alkaline aqueous solution feed 10 containing carbonate ions, the feed 10 extending between the absorbing stage 7 and the precipitation stage 8 (i.e., for collecting a reactant containing carbon dioxide captured in the absorption tower) ([0121]) for separating first and second products through lines 9a and 9b ([0138], [0144])) for producing products to be washed and dried ([0132]) from first and second supernatant liquids ([0124]) (i.e., separating a carbon dioxide reactant and a waste solution from the reactant); and
a gas exit atop the absorbing stage 7 (Fig. 3) (i.e., a discharger for discharging a residual flue gas from which the carbon dioxide captured in the absorption tower has been removed).
However, Imbabi does not explicitly disclose (i) a bubbler installed at a bottom; (ii) a carbon resource storage for storing the separated carbon dioxide reactant as a resource; (iii) a configuration wherein when a filling level of the basic alkaline mixture solution in the absorption tower is lowered to less than 90%, the basic alkaline mixture solution is supplied from the mixer until the filling level of the solution reaches 100%; or (iv) a configuration wherein the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed until the pH of the basic alkaline mixed solution becomes 12 to 12.5.
Regarding (i), Mayaan discloses an air treatment unit 100 for reacting one or more gaseous species with an alkaline solution (Fig. 1; [0036]). Mayaan teaches that the unit 100 includes a reaction reservoir 104 at the bottom of which is an air dispersing element 106 (i.e., a bubbler) for convert at least a portion of the flow of input air into a plurality of microbubbles 108 to reduce an amount of one or more target gas species contained within the plurality of microbubbles through reaction with the aqueous air treatment solution ([0022]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi by providing a bubbler installed at a bottom as taught by Mayaan because (1) Imbabi teaches that carbon dioxide is bubbled through an alkaline aqueous solution but does not describe a means for bubbling (Imbabi, [0024]); and (2) an air dispersing element can form microbubbles to promote the reaction of a species within a gas with a solution (Mayaan, [0022]).
Regarding (ii), Lee teaches a carbon dioxide abatement system with a first reaction chamber 150 in which a basic solution and the carbon dioxide microbubbles are subjected to a primary carbonation reaction (p. 1, bottom), wherein calcium carbonate is stored in a storage unit 190 (i.e., a carbon resource storage) after being screened by size (Abstract).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan by providing (ii) a carbon resource storage for storing the separated carbon dioxide reactant as a resource as taught by Lee because (1) Imbabi teaches the recovery of dried products but does not describe how they are stored for later use (Imbabi, [0132]); and (2) a storage unit can store a carbon product (Lee, Abstract).
Regarding (iii), Hauptkorn discloses an air purification chamber 2 (Fig. 1) (i.e., an absorption tower) with an air inlet 8 that includes a downward-pointing pipe section that ends below a water level SP, so that a supply air flow is guided through the water bath W ([0032]) (i.e., a bubbler). Hauptkorn teaches a water level sensor 3 that is can be used to control a water level so that the water level remains within a predetermined range ([0031]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan and Lee by providing (iii) a configuration wherein when a filling level of the basic alkaline mixture solution in the absorption tower is lowered to less than 90%, the basic alkaline mixture solution is supplied from the mixer until the filling level of the solution reaches 100% as taught by Hauptkorn because (i) Mayaan teaches a fluid level sensor 136 used by a controller 126 which may determine that a fluid level in the reaction reservoir has fallen below a target fluid level and initiate a transfer into the reaction reservoir of additional fluid ([0055]), but does not set an upper filling value; and (2) a fluid level sensor may be used to maintain a level within a predetermined range (Hauptkorn, [0031]).
Regarding the limitations of “lowered to less than 90%” and “reaches 100%,” (i.e., the specific claimed limits of the range, (i) “90%” and “100%” are claimed as arbitrarily assigned values (since, in the phrase “the filling level of the solution,” “of the solution” does not provide a frame of reference for the claimed percentages), rather than as percentages of a whole that is claimed or implicit in the claims (e.g., 90% of the capacity of the absorption tower), and the recitation of arbitrary values lacks patentable distinctiveness; (ii) the teaching by Mayaan of a “target fluid level” ([0055]) and Hauptkorn of a predetermined range ([0031]) indicates that the skilled practitioner would have been expected to set appropriate target fluid levels. It is noted that the illustration of a filling level that appears to be approximately 90% of a reaction reservoir capacity (Fig. 1) suggests that the skilled practitioner would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing refilling start and stop levels; and (iii) when the prior art teaches the general conditions of a claim, it is not inventive to find the optimum or workable ranges. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A).
Regarding (iv), Maayan teaches that the reaction reservoir has a target pH range of between 10 and 12.5 ([0054]; claim 34).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn by providing (iv) a configuration wherein the basic alkaline solution and water are mixed until the pH of the basic alkaline mixed solution becomes 12 to 12.5 as taught by Mayaan because (1) a target pH range of between 10 and 12.5 is desirable in a system for reducing a carbon dioxide concentration in a gas (Maayan, [0054], [0087]; claim 34); and (2) the teaching of a pH target pH range of between 10 and 12.5 indicates that pH is a result-effective variable which one skilled in the art would desire to optimize, and therefore cannot be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed pH range since Maayan teaches that a pH of 12 is within a known pH target range.
Regarding claim 2, Mayaan teaches that the air dispersing element 106 converts at least a portion of the flow of input air into a plurality of microbubbles 108 to reduce an amount of one or more target gas species contained within the plurality of microbubbles through reaction with the aqueous air treatment solution ([0022]), so the embodiment taught by Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn is interpreted to be capable of forming flue gas into microbubbles (i.e., a bubbler capable of forming flue gas microbubbles using the flue gas).
Regarding claim 6, Imbabi teaches that the alkali may be sodium hydroxide ([0027]) (i.e., a basic alkali mixture that comprises at least one liquid composition selected from sodium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 10, Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn does not explicitly disclose that the carbon dioxide reactant contains sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) or sodium hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3).
However, this text of claim 10 refers to “separating a carbon dioxide reactant . . . a carbon resource storage for storing the separated carbon dioxide reactant as a resource” as recited in claim 1, and absent evidence to the contrary, the precipitation stage/separator of Imbabi, and the storage unit/carbon resource storage of Lee are interpreted as being capable of separating and storing sodium carbonate and sodium hydrogen carbonate. It is noted that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. It is further noted that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh (WO 2014/205295 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Imbabi teaches the recycling of a wash water as a water source ([0061]) to be mixed with the alkaline aqueous solution ([0010]) (i.e., a mixer configured to mix a basic alkaline solution and water supplied from a water supply source), and Mayaan teaches a reservoir 122 for an alkali hydroxide agent (i.e., a basic alkaline solution) for supplying the reaction reservoir 104 ([0049]).
However, Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn does not explicitly disclose a basic alkaline solution storage tank for supplying a mixer.
Singh discloses an apparatus for removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream (Fig. 2; Abstract). Singh teaches a chemical feed tank 236 for holding an alkaline component 240 ([0034]) that is mixed with water in a reagent feed tank 228 (i.e., a basic alkaline solution storage tank) to form an alkaline reagent 230 ([0042]) fed to a reaction tank 216 ([0034]) of a packed bed absorber 202 ([0035]), wherein the alkaline component may have various concentrations (i.e., a basic alkaline solution) ([0043]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn by providing a basic alkaline solution storage tank for supplying a mixer as taught by Singh because a chemical feed tank can hold an alkaline component before it is mixed with water, so that different concentrations of reagent may be mixed (Singh, Fig. 2; [0034], [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, Hauptkorn, and Singh does not explicitly disclose that the mixer is configured to mix the basic alkaline solution and water in a ratio of 1:1 to 1:5.
However, Singh teaches that one of skill in the art will appreciate that the concentration of the alkaline component in the reagent may vary depending upon various factors ([0043]), and Imbabi teaches an alkaline aqueous solution with a pH controlled to be around 9.5 ([0024]), so it would have been obvious for the skilled practitioner of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, Hauptkorn, and Singh to configure the mixer to achieve the an appropriate ratio of the basic alkaline solution to water when mixing to obtain a pH as recited in claim 1, and the skilled practitioner would have had an expectation of success since Imbabi teaches that pH of the alkaline aqueous solution can be controlled to a desired pH ([0024]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salehpoor (US 11,471,816 B2).
Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn does not explicitly disclose that the absorption tower supplies the basic alkaline mixture from the mixer through a plurality of nozzles installed on the top thereof.
Salehpoor discloses a pollutant capturer (Fig. 1; Abstract) for capturing carbon dioxide from a body of polluted gaseous substance (col. 56, line 5). Salehpoor discloses spray nozzles 47 in order to capture or remove polluting substances within the container 17 (col. 24, lines 25-29).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn by providing an absorption tower that supplies the basic alkaline mixture from the mixer through a plurality of nozzles installed on the top thereof as taught by Salehpoor because spray nozzles are effective for removing or capturing polluting substances emerging from a bubbler (Sahlepoor, col. 24, lines 25-29).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubacz et al. (DE102008061258A1).
Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn does not explicitly disclose an absorption tower that is configured in series, parallel, or a series and parallel complex arrangement.
Kubacz discloses an absorption column for the absorption of CO2 in a CO2-containing flue gas using an absorbent liquid ([0037]). Kubacz teaches that due to the immense flue gas flow generated in conventional fossil-fired power plants, it is advantageous to use several absorbers or absorption columns connected in series and/or in parallel, which can then be designed differently in detail ([0026]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn by providing an absorption tower that is configured in series or in parallel as taught by Kubacz because where a flue gas flow is immense, it is advantageous to use several absorbers or absorption columns connected in series and/or in parallel, which can then be designed differently in detail (Kubacz, [0026]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2020/0114306 A1).
Mayaan teaches a controller 126 using a microprocessor that can sample the output of a fluid level sensor 136 and the output of a pH sensor 134 to determine a pH level of the solution in the reservoir 104 ([0054] (i.e., a processor configured to monitor a filling level and pH of the basic alkaline mixture in the absorption tower), and Hauptkorn teaches a water level sensor that is can be used to control a water level so that the water level remains within a predetermined range ([0031]), so it would have been obvious in the embodiment of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn to provide a processor configured to control the supply amount of the basic alkaline mixture.
However, Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn does not explicitly disclose a processor configured to monitor a filling level and pH of the basic alkaline mixture in the absorption tower; and a processor configured to control the supply amount of the basic alkaline mixture; i.e., Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn does not explicitly disclose separate processors for controlling these functions.
Miyamoto discloses an absorption tower configured to remove CO2 in an exhaust gas by contacting with a CO2 absorption liquid containing an absorption agent (Abstract) including control devices to maintain a liquid level in a predetermined range ([0121]-[0122]). Miyamoto teaches that control devices may be configured as separate control devices ([0112]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Imbabi in view of Mayaan, Lee, and Hauptkorn by providing a processor configured to monitor a filling level and pH of the basic alkaline mixture in the absorption tower; and a processor configured to control the supply amount of the basic alkaline mixture as taught by Miyamoto because, in a system that uses a pH meter and a liquid level sensor (Miyamoto, [0122], [0157]), it may be preferred to implement control functions through separate control devices (Miyamoto, [0112]).
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 GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772