DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13, 15-33, 35-37 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each/most objection and each/most 112(b)/102/103 rejections previously set forth in the office action mailed ***. Outstanding and new issues brought about by the amendment are addressed in the Claim Objection and 112(b) sections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pg. 14 to pg. 15 that Grohmann fails to teach entrained particles.
However, Grohmann is no longer relied upon to meet the amended claim limitations of entraining gas.
Applicant argues on pg. 15 that Grohmann fails to teach cyclone assembly.
However, Grohmann is not relied upon to meet the cyclone assembly claim limitation.
Applicant argues on pg. 16 that there is no motivation to combine Grohmann and Jenkins.
However, Grohmann in view of Jenkins are no longer used in the rejection of amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant states on pg. 11 that support for new claim 37 is found in paragraph [0131]. The examiner is unable to consider paragraph [0131] since the instant specification only includes up to paragraph [0039]. Further, there is no embodiment described in the instant specification describing introducing second particles of carbonated materials in a heating section of the second circuit.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13, 15-18, 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohmann et al (EP 2230223, cited in IDS 03/02/2023) in view of Prokesch (US 20160272539 A1) and Baudequin et al (US 4707350).
Regarding claim 1, Grohmann discloses a process for burning limestone or other carbonates, in which the carbonate is subjected to a high temperature ([0001]). The production of lime takes advantage of the fact that limestone and the related dolomite stone change their chemical composition when heated ([0002] meeting limitation “A process for decarbonating limestone, dolomite, or other carbonated materials”). At temperatures between 900 and 1,300 ºC, the limestone is decomposed into gaseous carbon dioxide and calcium oxide ([0002] meeting limitation “heating the particles of carbonated materials … up to a temperature range in which carbon dioxide of the carbonated materials is released to obtain decarbonated particles (16) comprising CaO and/or MgO”). The carbonate is fed to a first furnace chamber, i.e. reactor, containing a calcination zone ([0007] meeting limitation “in a reactor (8) of the first circuit (2)”).
Grohmann further discloses the product produced during calcination in the calcination zone 6 is then fed to the second furnace chamber 3 for cooling ([0024] meeting limitation "transferring the decarbonated particles (16) to a cooling section (22) of a second circuit (12)"). On its way from the mouth of the product line 16 into the furnace chamber 3 to the product outlet 18, the product is brought into thermal contact with a cooling medium ([0025)]. The furnace chamber 3 thus functions as a cooling zone 19 over almost its entire length ([0025] meeting limitation “transferring the decarbonated particles (16) to a cooling section (22) of a second circuit (12)”). The cooling medium is preferably air or an inert gas such as nitrogen or a noble gas such as argon ([0025] meeting limitation meeting limitation “comprising a second gas (14) in which the decarbonated particles (16) release a portion of their thermal energy” and “wherein the second gas (14) is substantially free of carbon dioxide”). The cooling medium is introduced at a cooling medium inlet 21 in a lower region of the furnace chamber 3, guided through the furnace chamber 3 in countercurrent to the product and withdrawn from the furnace chamber 3 at a cooling medium outlet 22 in an upper section of the furnace chamber 3 ([0025] meeting limitation "separating the decarbonated particles (16) from the second gas (14)").
Grohmann further discloses a lock arrangement 17 is provided in the product line 16, which ensures that on the one hand the product can pass through the product line 16, but on the other hand the atmospheres present in the furnace chambers 2, 3 are not mixed ([0024] meeting limitation "wherein the first (2) and second circuits (12) are separated by selective separation means (20, 21) allowing passage of solids while substantially preventing the passage of the first entraining gases (4) and the second gas (14)").
Grohmann does not disclose “conveying particles of carbonated materials (6) entrained in a flow of a first entraining gas (4) in a first circuit (2) wherein the first entraining gas (4) comprises carbon dioxide and is substantially free of nitrogen; -heating the particles of carbonated materials (6) using the first entraining gas(4) and inertially separating the particles of carbonated materials (6) from the flow of the first entraining gas (4)in a cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2)”.
Prokesch discloses a method of continuously calcining a limestone particle mix comprising a fine fraction of limestone particles and a coarser fraction of limestone particles (abstract). Limestone fines are entrained in a heated process gas which passes upward through a vertically situated flash calciner ([0002] meeting limitation “conveying particles of carbonated materials (6) entrained in a flow of a first entraining gas (4) in a first circuit (2)” and “heating the particles of carbonated materials (6) using the first entraining gas(4)”). The material is passed from flash calciner 3 to gas-solid separation cyclone 5 ([0012] meeting limitation “and inertially separating the particles of carbonated materials (6) from the flow of the first entraining gas (4) in a cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2)”).
Prokesch further discloses due to excellent gas/solids contact this decomposition can be achieved for particles ranging up to a nominal diameter of 0.5-1 mm using acceptable operating temperatures ([0002]). The particles exit the gas separation process step having a temperature close to the calciner temperature ([0013]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to convey particles of carbonated materials (6) entrained in a flow of a first entraining gas (4) in a first circuit (2) and heat the particles of carbonated materials (6) using the first entraining gas (4) and inertially separating the particles of carbonated materials (6) from the flow of the first entraining gas (4) in a cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2) in the method of Grohmann in order to achieve decarbonation of limestone fines ranging from 0.5-1 mm and for the particles to maintain temperature during separation as taught by Prokesch.
Baudequin discloses a process for the decarbonation of minerals, in a powdered form, in a fluidized bed (abstract). The process comprises recycling a portion at least of the carbon dioxide produced to be used as sole fluidizing gas (abstract). The chief advantages of the process… are: … ready usefulness of the CO2 provided by the decarbonation, due to its high purity (it is practically the sole gas present in the process) (Col. 2 lines 50-58); the electric heating of the reactor provides a highly pure decarbonated product, free from any traces of inert materials or of undesirable bodies… (nitrogen) (Col. 2 lines 62-65).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first entraining gas (4) to comprise carbon dioxide and be substantially free of nitrogen in the method of Grohmann since carbon dioxide is provided by the decarbonation process and nitrogen is an undesirable body as taught by Baudequin.
Regarding claim 2, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Prokesch discloses limestone fines are entrained in a heated process gas which passes upward through a vertically situated flash calciner ([0002] meeting limitation “introducing the particles of carbonated materials (6) in a pre-heating section (42) of the cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2)”). The material is passed from flash calciner 3 to gas-solid separation cyclone 5 ([0012] meeting limitation “so that said particles are pre-heated by the first entraining gas (4) using a solid-gas heat exchange (44)”).
Regarding claim 3, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses on its way from the mouth of the product line 16 into the furnace chamber 3 to the product outlet 18, the product, i.e. the decarbonated particles, is brought into thermal contact with a cooling medium, i.e. the second gas ([0025]). The heated cooling medium, i.e. second gas, is fed to a heat exchanger 23 and there brought into thermal contact with the gas in the recycling line 13, which is thereby preheated before being fed to the furnace chamber 2 ([0025] meeting limitation “the released heat from the decarbonated particles (16) to the second gas (14) is used to heat…”). In heat exchanger 23, only heat transfer takes place, but no mass transfer between the media ([0025]). While Grohmann does not explicitly disclose “heat the particles of carbonated materials (6) using a solid-gas heat exchange”, Grohmann does disclose transferring the heat from the heated cooling medium to the recycle gas line in order to preheat the recycle gas before entering the furnace chamber, which ultimately heats the feed material, i.e. particles of carbonated material. Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use the heat from the second gas to heat the particles of a carbonated materials using a solid-gas heat exchange, the heated particles being subsequently transferred to the reactor or to a location upstream of a preheating section (42) of the cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2).
Regarding claim 4, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and while Grohmann does not explicitly disclose “a step of separating the particles of carbonated materials (6) from a second gas (14)”, Grohman does disclose during heat exchange in heat exchanger 23, the cooling medium cools down again ([0025]). The cooling medium can then be fed either wholly or partially by means of a fan 24 via a return line 25 to the cooling medium supply line 21 and thus again to the furnace chamber 3 ([0025]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to separate particles from the cooling medium gas in order to reuse the cooling medium multiple times.
Regarding claim 5, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses limestone converted into quicklime (CaO) ([0022]). This in turn produces carbon dioxide, which is discharged together with the combustion gas as exhaust gas via the exhaust pipe 11 ([0022]). However, part of the exhaust gas is taken from the exhaust gas line 11 and returned to the furnace chamber 2 via a recycling line 13 as so-called moderation gas ([0023] meeting limitation “further comprising: recirculating at least a portion of the carbon dioxide released in the reactor (8) in the first circuit (2) by recirculating said carbon dioxide to the reactor (8)”).
Regarding claim 7, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Baudequin further discloses comprising a fluidized bed decarbonation reactor… with means for recycling the carbon dioxide produced as sole fluidizing gas (Col. 1 lines 35-40 meeting limitation “wherein at least a portion of the first entraining gas (4) is configured to exit the reactor, and the carbon dioxide represents at least 50% by volume on a dry basis of the first entraining gas exiting the reactor (8)” since sole fluidizing gas implies 100%, which is within the claimed range of at least 50%).
Regarding claim 9, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses a lock arrangement 17 is provided in the product line 16, which ensures that on the one hand the product can pass through the product line 16, but on the other hand the atmospheres present in the furnace chambers 2, 3 are not mixed ([0024]). The lock arrangement 17, for example, is a "seal leg" (pressure separation pipe) in which the pneumatic separation of the furnace chamber atmospheres is achieved by the product transported through the lock arrangement 17 ([0024] meeting limitation “so that an absolute pressure difference across the selective separation means (20) remains within a predefined pressure range”). Alternatively or additionally, a rotary valve or a gas curtain can be used (not shown here) ([0024] meeting limitation “a step of controlling a louver or a damper in either the first circuit (2) or the second circuit (12)”).
Regarding claim 13, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Prokesch further discloses the configuration of the flash calciner 3, i.e. reactor, is of a conventional design, i.e. it is vertically situated with the fines to be treated entering in a lower area 20, traveling upward through the calciner entrained in heated process gas, and exiting the calciner at an upper area 21 of the calciner ([0010]). The material, i.e. decarbonated particles, is passed from flash calciner 3 to gas-solid separation cyclone 5 ([0012] meeting limitation “separating the decarbonated particles (16) from the first entraining gas (4) flow”).
Regarding claim 15, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Prokesch discloses a gas-solid separation cyclone 5 ([0012]). Baudequin discloses at the outlet of the grinder/dryer, the mineral is separated from the air… in a gas-powder separator, typically a cyclone (Col. 2 lines 26-29).
While Grohman in view of Prokesch and Baudequin do not specifically disclose wherein separating the decarbonated particles (16) from the second gas (14) comprises inertial separation, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to us a cyclone separator which operates by inertial separation to separate gas and solid particles as taught by Prokesch and Baudequin.
Regarding claim 16, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Prokesch discloses a gas-solid separation cyclone 5 ([0012]). Baudequin discloses at the outlet of the grinder/dryer, the mineral is separated from the air… in a gas-powder separator, typically a cyclone (Col. 2 lines 26-29).
While Grohman in view of Prokesch and Baudequin do not specifically disclose wherein separating the particles of carbonated materials (6) from the second gas (14) comprises inertial separation, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to us a cyclone separator which operates by inertial separation to separate gas and solid particles as taught by Prokesch and Baudequin.
Regarding claim 17, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Prokesch further discloses the material, i.e. decarbonated particles, is passed from flash calciner 3 to gas-solid separation cyclone 5 ([0012]). A separation cyclone operates by inertial separation.
Regarding claim 18, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Baudequin further discloses due to excellent gas/solids contact this decomposition can be achieved for particles ranging up to a nominal diameter of 0.5-1 mm ([0002]). 0.5-1 mm is within the claimed range of a d90 less than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 36, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Prokesch discloses a method to calcine limestone fines into lime is via a continuous gas suspension flash calciner process ([0002]). The flash calciner is sized and the process gas velocity is selected so that the residence time of the limestone particles within the calciner will typically be limited to from about 1 to 3 seconds.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for heating the particles of carbonated materials (6) in the reactor (8) to comprise flash calcination in the method of Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin in order to limit residence time to 1 to 3 seconds as taught by Prokesch.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohmann et al (EP 2230223, cited in IDS 03/02/2023) in view of Prokesch (US 20160272539 A1) and Baudequin et al (US 4707350) and in further view of Miyamoto et al. (US 20190270046 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “separating water from at least one portion of the first entraining gas (4) exiting the reactor (8)”.
Miyamoto discloses a method of circulating and reusing with a CO2 absorber a CO2 absorbent for which CO2 is removed by an absorbent regenerator ([0007]). The CO2 absorber is configured to bring flue gas containing CO2 into contact with a CO2 absorbent to remove CO2 from the flue gas. The absorbent regenerator is configured to separate CO2 from a rich solution that is a CO2 absorbent having absorbed CO2 to regenerate the CO2 absorbent as a lean solution ([0007]). The method includes the steps of separating water in a CO2 entrained gas discharged from a top of the absorbent regenerator as reflux water, compressing a CO2 gas separated by a reflux water drum, separating water in the compressed CO2 gas as compressor condensate water ([0007]). The compressor condensate water is used as in-system supply water or out-of-system supply water ([0007]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate water from at least one portion of the first entraining gas (4) exiting the reactor (8) in the method of Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin in order to use the condensate water as in-system supply water or out-of-system supply water as taught by Miyamoto.
Claims 8 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohmann et al (EP 2230223, cited in IDS 03/02/2023) in view of Prokesch (US 20160272539 A1) and Baudequin et al (US 4707350) and in further view of Morar et al (“Review: Important contributions in development and improvement of the heat integration techniques”).
Regarding claim 8, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses the heated cooling medium, i.e. second entraining gas, is fed to a heat exchanger 23 and there brought into thermal contact with the gas in the recycling line 13 ([0025] meeting limitation “recycling at least a portion of the heat of the second gas (14), by exchanging heat from the second gas (14) … through a gas-gas heat exchanger (60)”). During heat exchange in heat exchanger 23, the cooling medium cools down again.
Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin does not specifically disclose heat exchange from the second gas to the first entraining gas.
The reuse of excess process heat, however, is a routine convention in the field of chemical engineering, also known as process heat integration. As detailed in the introduction of Morar, the design of a heat exchanger network for a chemical process is a routine step in the design of a chemical process that results from analysis of the energy balance of the process, or in other words, determining where energy enters and leaves the process, and ensuring that the amount leaving the process is equal to the amount that enters to maximize energy usage within the process- by this analysis, it is readily apparent where in the process excess energy may be directed in order to ensure maximum process efficiency and reduce the heating and cooling duty of the process, thereby reducing process operation costs. Morar even discloses that "...it is possible to save an important part from the necessary energy required by a plant through specific actions and therefore resulting saving related to capital and operational costs up to 15-45%". Such an energy balance analysis considers where process units require heat, and by the use of heat exchangers, byproduct heat from one process gas stream may be used to provide heat to another, effectively 'recycling' heat from one process step to another.
Accordingly, given that Grohmann discloses the heated cooling medium, i.e. second entraining gas, is fed to a heat exchanger 23 and there brought into thermal contact with the gas in the recycling line 13 ([0025]), prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to design a heat exchange network that would effectuate heat transfer between the second gas and the first entraining gas, as such heat integration would reduce the heating duty of Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin, thereby improving the energy efficiency of the process and reducing the cost of the process associated with temperature control as suggested by Morar.
Regarding claim 37, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses the heated cooling medium is fed to a heat exchanger 23 and there brought into thermal contact with the gas in the recycling line 13, which is thereby preheated before being fed to the furnace chamber 2 ([0025]). While Grohmann does not disclose introducing second particles of carbonated materials (6) in a heating section (32) of the second circuit (12), the heating section (32) being positioned downstream of the cooling section (22), such that the released heat from the decarbonated particles (16) to the second gas (14) is used to heat the second particles of carbonated materials (6) using a solid-gas heat exchange (34); and subsequently transferring the heated second particles of carbonated materials (6) to the reactor (8) or to a location upstream of a pre-heating section (42) of the cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2), Grohmann discloses reuse of process heat by heat exchange between the cooling medium, i.e. second gas, and recycling line which is preheated before entering the furnace chamber 2.
Prokesch discloses limestone fines … are metered onto conveying means 23 from which they pass to feed conduit 1 and then into one or more cyclone preheaters 2, in which they are preheated by system off gases from gas-solid separator ([0011]).
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to use released heat from the decarbonated particles to the second gas to preheat material as taught by Grohmann, and for the preheated material to be carbonated materials using solid-gas heat exchange as taught by Prokesch and subsequently transferring the heated material to the reactor as taught by Grohmann.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce second particles of carbonated materials (6) in a heating section (32) of the second circuit (12), the heating section (32) being positioned downstream of the cooling section (22), such that the released heat from the decarbonated particles (16) to the second gas (14) is used to heat the second particles of carbonated materials (6) using a solid-gas heat exchange (34); and subsequently transferring the heated second particles of carbonated materials (6) to the reactor (8) or to a location upstream of a pre-heating section (42) of the cyclone assembly of the first circuit (2) to ensure maximum process efficiency and reduce the heating and cooling duty of the process, thereby reducing process operation costs as taught by Morar.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohmann et al (EP 2230223, cited in IDS 03/02/2023) in view of Prokesch (US 20160272539 A1) and Baudequin et al (US 4707350) and in further view of Sceats (WO 2016077863 A1, cited in IDS 03/02/2023).
Regarding claim 10, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the reactor (8) is a first reactor (8, 82, 84), the process further comprising: extending a decarbonation degree, adjusting a product reactivity, and extending a retention time of the decarbonated particles (16) in a second reactor (86)”.
Sceats discloses a method… for the production of dolime for magnesium metal production ([0017]). The process comprising the steps of; grinding the feedstock to a powder; preheating the powder; calcining the powder in a reactor plant that comprises a number of reactor segments in which a flash calciner is used in each progressive reactor segment to incrementally react the powder by raising the temperature in each segment (abstract). The last segment may be a high temperature reactor that has a controlled residence time (abstract meeting limitation “extending a retention time of the decarbonated particles (16) in a second reactor”) and temperature that may allow the controlled finishing of the calcination process to achieve the desired degree of calcination (abstract meeting limitation “extending a decarbonation degree”) and sintering of the product (abstract meeting limitation “adjusting a product reactivity”); and cooling the product (abstract).
Sceats further discloses there is a benefit to processing in separate stages at different temperatures associated with the control of the process, and the cost and performance of the materials that can be used in the construction of the stages ([0026]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reactor (8) to be a first reactor (8, 82, 84), the process further comprising: extending a decarbonation degree, adjusting a product reactivity, and extending a retention time of the decarbonated particles (16) in a second reactor (86) in the method of Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin in order to increase control of the process and improve the cost and performance of the materials that can be used in the construction of the stages as taught by Sceats.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohmann et al (EP 2230223, cited in IDS 03/02/2023) in view of Prokesch (US 20160272539 A1) and Baudequin et al (US 4707350) and in further view of Yan et al (“Process simulations of clue hydrogen production by upgraded sorption enhanced steam methane reforming (SE-SMR) processes”).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses if an inexpensive cooling medium, i.e. second entraining gas, such as air or a process gas that is abundant due to other processes is used, the installation of return line 24 is unnecessary ([0025]). In this case, the cooling medium supplied via the cooling medium supply line 21 is completely discharged via the discharge line 26 ([0025]). The cooling medium discharged via the discharge line 26 is released into the ambient atmosphere or used for further purposes ([0025]). While Grohmann discloses the cooling medium, i.e. second entraining gas, can be discharged and used for further purposes, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin does not disclose “further comprising: burning at least a portion of the second gas (14) in a burner outside the reactor (8), said reactor (8) comprising an externally-fired calciner (84)” (claim 11) or “further comprising: using thermal energy in flue gas from the externally-fired calciner to preheat at least a part of the carbonated material”.
Yan discloses a new process integration of a H2-fired calciner, i.e. externally-fired calciner, with SE-SMR is proposed to avoid the energy penalty and capital cost of the ASU (Pg. 4 bottom of left col.- top of right col. where H2 is interpreted as a process gas). The heat from the burning of H2 and PSAOG is transferred through the metallic walls or heat pipes or the hot solids circulating between the combustor and the calciner (Pg. 4 top of right col.). The extracted heat from the flue gas of the H2 combustor is used to preheat the steam to the reformer and the air to the combustor (Pg. 4 top of right col.).
Yan further discloses Fig. 1 (f) which illustrates a combustor, i.e. burner, which transfers heat to the calciner, i.e. reactor. This is interpreted as an externally-fired calciner. Yan discloses the flue gas of the H2 combustor is used to preheat the steam to the reformer and the air to the combustor, and does not explicitly disclose preheating carbonated material. However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the flue gas is capable of preheating any material.
Although Yan is directed to enhanced steam methane reforming process, both Yan and the instant disclosure relate to carbon dioxide capture or sequestration.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise burning at least a portion of the second gas (14) in a burner outside the reactor (8), said reactor (8) comprising an externally-fired calciner (84) and further comprising using thermal energy in flue gas from the externally-fired calciner to preheat at least a part of the carbonated material in the method of Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin in order to increase process heat efficiency as taught by Yan.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grohmann et al (EP 2230223, cited in IDS 03/02/2023) in view of Prokesch (US 20160272539 A1) and Baudequin et al (US 4707350) and in further view of Han et al (“Performance of an Entrained-Particle Heat Exchanger”).
Regarding claim 35, Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the decarbonated particles (16) are entrained in a flow of the second gas (14).
Han discloses upward flow of gas with solid particulates has been studied for many years because of extensive use for heat recovery equipment in the petrochemical industry (Pg. 64 left col. par. 1). Figure 1 illustrates modes of heat transfer in CFBC and their interactions (Pg. 65), including heat transferring from particles to gas. Han further discloses extremely high rates of gas-particle and particle-particle heat transfer per unit volume (Pg. 64 right col. par. 1). A skilled artisan would be motivated to entrain the decarbonated particles in the flow of the second gas in order to increase thermal energy transfer and cooling efficiency since Han teaches extremely high rates of gas-particle heat transfer per unit volume.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the decarbonated particles (16) to be entrained in a flow of the second gas (14) in the method of Grohmann in view of Prokesch and Baudequin due to extremely high rates of gas-particle heat transfer per unit volume as taught by Han.
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 NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights