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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/02/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-34 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/15/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13, 15-18 in the reply filed on 10/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-13, 15-18 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 “a first entraining gas” in line 6, “said entraining gas” in line 7, “a first entraining gas” in line 10, “a second entraining gas” in line 12, and “the entraining gases” in line 18. It is not clear which entraining gas is being referred to by “said entraining gas” in line 7.
Claim 4 recites “separating the particles of carbonated materials (6) from a second entraining gas (14) flow”, and is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 1 does not include a step which introduces the particles of carbonated materials (6) into a second entraining gas (14) flow, which makes claim 4 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 3 which recites “the second entraining gas (14) is used to heat the particles of carbonated materials (6) using a solid-gas heat exchange”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first entraining dry gas composition" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the externally-fired calciner" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the particles (16) of decarbonated materials" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “separating the particles (16) of decarbonated materials from a first entraining gas (4) flow”, and is dependent on claim 1. However, claim 1 does not include a step which introduces the particles of decarbonated materials (16) into a first entraining gas (4) flow, which makes claim 13 indefinite. [0004] of the instant specification states that extended residence time of decarbonated particles in a CO2-rich atmosphere… causes recarbonation of the product. Since the first entraining gas comprises carbon dioxide (claim 1), it is unclear why particles of decarbonated material would be in contact with the first entraining gas, and the instant specification gives no explanation. Due to the indefiniteness of the claim, the examiner the examiner cannot further treat this claim on the merits.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the particles (16) of decarbonated materials (16)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 15-17 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 Jenkins ("Facts at your Fingertips: Cyclone Separators" https://www.chemengonline.com/cyclone-separators/).
Regarding claim 1, Grohmann discloses the production of lime takes advantage of the fact that limestone and the related dolomite stone change their chemical composition when heated ([0002]). At temperatures between 900 and 1300 C, i.e. a temperature range in which carbon dioxide of the carbonated materials is released, the limestone is decomposed into gaseous carbon dioxide and calcium oxide, i.e. decarbonated particles comprising CaO ([0002] meeting limitation “A process for the decarbonation of limestone, dolomite or other carbonated materials, said process comprising the following steps: - heating particles of carbonated materials (6) … 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 feed material, for example ground limestone or dolomite, is fed to the upper area of the furnace chamber 2 via a feed line 5 ([0021]). In a lower area of the furnace chamber 2, the calcination zone 6, two supply lines 7, 8 … open into the furnace chamber 2 at a burner nozzle 9 ([0021]). The combustion gases, i.e. first entraining gas, produced during combustion rise in the furnace chamber 2 and thus pass through the furnace chamber 2 in countercurrent to the feed material ([0021] meeting limitation “conveying particles of carbonated materials (6) by a first entraining gas (4) in the first circuit (2)”). The thermal interaction between combustion gases and feed material results in the feed material gradually heating up on its downward path to the calcination zone ([0021] meeting limitation “for preheating said carbonated materials (6)”). A combustion gas is produced which consists predominantly of carbon dioxide and possibly water ([0021] meeting limitation “said entraining gas (4) comprising said carbon dioxide, said gas composition being substantially free of nitrogen”).
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]). The cooling medium is preferably air or an inert gas such as nitrogen or a noble gas such as argon ([0025] meeting limitation “comprising a second entraining gas (14) in which the conveyed decarbonated particles (16) release a portion of their thermal energy” and “wherein said second entraining 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 a second entraining gas (14) flow”).
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 the passage of solids while substantially preventing the passage of the entraining gases (4, 14)”).
Grohmann does not disclose “inertially separating the carbonated particles (6) from a first entraining gas (4) flow”.
Jenkins discloses a cyclone works on the principle of inertial separation (Par. 2 line 1). Due to their greater mass, solid particles contained in the gas stream are pushed outward due to the centrifugal force that results from the rotating airflow (Par. 3 line 1-2). Since they have too much inertia to follow the path of the gas stream, particles are pushed against the interior wall of the cyclone cylinder and fall downward toward a collection device fitted at the bottom of the cyclone (Par. 3 lines 2-4). The solid particles often exit the bottom through a spring-loaded flap valve or a rotary valve (Par. 3 lines 4-5). Meanwhile, the solids-free gas rotates upward toward the gas outlet at the top of the chamber (Par. 3 lines 5-6). Among the reasons that the use of cyclones is so widespread are that they have no moving parts, can withstand high-temperature gases and harsh operating conditions, and are relatively inexpensive in terms of capital costs (Par. 5 lines 1-2).
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 inertially separate the carbonated particles (6) from a first entraining gas (4) flow in the method of Grohmann since cyclones have no moving parts, can withstand high-temperature gases and harsh operating conditions, and are relatively inexpensive in terms of capital costs as taught by Jenkins.
Regarding claim 2, Grohmann in view of Jenkins discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Grohmann discloses the combustion gases, i.e. first entraining gas, produced during combustion rise in the furnace chamber 2 and thus pass through the furnace chamber 2 in countercurrent to the feed material ([0021]). The thermal interaction between combustion gases and feed material results in the feed material gradually heating up on its downward path to the calcination zone ([0021] meeting limitation “further comprising a step of introducing the particles of carbonated materials (6) in a pre-heating section (42) of the first circuit (2) 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 Jenkins discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and 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 entraining gas ([0025]). 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, 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 entraining 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 entraining gas to heat the particles of a carbonated materials using a solid-gas heat exchange, the heated particles being subsequently transferred to the reactor.
Regarding claim 4, Grohmann in view of Jenkins 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 entraining gas (14) flow”, 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 Jenkins 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 a step of 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 Jenkins discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Grohmann further discloses due to the combustion of the fuel, which consists predominantly of carbon or hydrocarbons, with a gas consisting predominantly of oxygen, a combustion gas is produced which consists predominantly of carbon dioxide and possibly water ([0021]). While Grohmann does not explicitly disclose at least 50% by volume carbon dioxide, the disclosure of a combustion gas is produced which consists predominantly of carbon dioxide and possibly water meets the claimed limitation since “predominantly” has equivalent meaning to at least 50% by volume.
Regarding claim 8, Grohmann in view of Jenkins 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, which is thereby preheated before being fed to the furnace chamber 2, i.e. first entraining gas ([0025] meeting limitation “exchanging heat from the second entraining gas (14) to the first entraining gas (4) through a gas-gas heat exchanger (60) positioned between the first circuit (2) and the second circuit (12)”). During heat exchange in heat exchanger 23, the cooling medium cools down again. 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] meeting limitation “further comprising a step of recycling at least a portion of the heat of the second entraining gas (14), by exchanging heat”).
Regarding claim 9, Grohmann in view of Jenkins 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 the 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 second circuit (12)”).
Regarding claim 15-17, Grohmann in view of Jenkins discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Jenkins discloses a cyclone works on the principle of inertial separation (Par. 2 line 1). Due to their greater mass, solid particles contained in the gas stream are pushed outward due to the centrifugal force that results from the rotating airflow (Par. 3 line 1-2). Since they have too much inertia to follow the path of the gas stream, particles are pushed against the interior wall of the cyclone cylinder and fall downward toward a collection device fitted at the bottom of the cyclone (Par. 3 lines 2-4). The solid particles often exit the bottom through a spring-loaded flap valve or a rotary valve (Par. 3 lines 4-5). Meanwhile, the solids-free gas rotates upward toward the gas outlet at the top of the chamber (Par. 3 lines 5-6). Among the reasons that the use of cyclones is so widespread are that they have no moving parts, can withstand high-temperature gases and harsh operating conditions, and are relatively inexpensive in terms of capital costs (Par. 5 lines 1-2).
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 step of separating the decarbonated particles (16) from the second entraining gas (14) flow to comprise a step of inertially separating the decarbonated particles (16) from the second entraining gas (14) flow (claim 15), step of inertially separating the particles (6) of carbonated materials from the second entraining gas (14) flow (claim 16), and a step of inertially separating the particles (16) of decarbonated materials (16) from the first entraining gas (4) flow in the method of Grohmann since cyclones have no moving parts, can withstand high-temperature gases and harsh operating conditions, and are relatively inexpensive in terms of capital costs as taught by Jenkins.
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 Jenkins (https://www.chemengonline.com/cyclone-separators/) and in further view of Miyamoto et al. (US 20190270046 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Grohmann in view of Jenkins discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “a step of 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 Jenkins in order to use the condensate water as in-system supply water or out-of-system supply water as taught by Miyamoto.
Claims 10, 18 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 Jenkins (https://www.chemengonline.com/cyclone-separators/), and in further view of Sceats (WO 2016077863 A1, cited in IDS 03/02/2023).
Regarding claim 10, Grohmann in view of Jenkins 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), said process further comprising: extending decarbonation degree, adjusting the product reactivity, and extending the 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 the 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 decarbonation degree”) and sintering of the product (abstract meeting limitation “adjusting the 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 use 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), said process further comprising: extending decarbonation degree, adjusting the product reactivity, and extending the retention time of the decarbonated particles (16) in a second reactor (86) in the method of Grohmann in view of Jenkins 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.
Regarding claim 18, Grohmann in view of Jenkins discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose “wherein the particles of the carbonated (6) minerals have a d90 less than 10 mm”.
Sceats discloses a process for producing a highly calcined and uniformly calcined product from a feedstock (abstract). A process for producing dolime from dolomite including the steps of: crushing and grinding the dolomite to a powder ([0019]). The powder may include an average diameter of equal to or less than 100 microns ([0033]), which is within the claimed range of less than 10 mm. Preferably, an inert gas, a reducing gas, or any specific gas is used to entrain the solids in the reactors without mixing with the flue gas ([0033]).
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 particles of the carbonated (6) minerals have a d90 less than 10 mm in the method of Grohmann in view of Jenkins in order for the gas to effectively entrain the solids in the reactor 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 Jenkins (https://www.chemengonline.com/cyclone-separators/), 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 Jenkins 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 Jenkins does not disclose “further comprising a step of burning at least a portion of the second entraining gas (14) in a burner outside the reactor (8), said reactor (8) comprising an externally-fired calciner (84)” (claim 11) or “further comprising a step of using the 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 a step of burning at least a portion of the second entraining gas (14) in a burner outside the reactor (8), said reactor (8) comprising an externally-fired calciner (84) and to further comprising a step of using the 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 Jenkins as taught by Yan in order to increase process heat efficiency.
Conclusion
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
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738