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
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/24/2026.
Claims 1-14 and 26-35 are presently pending and under examination; claims 15-25 are canceled; claims 1 and 5 are amended; claims 26-35 are new.
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
A new objection to claim 31 is present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-4 and 12 over KOHLER and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 6 and 13-14 over KOHLER in view of BALFE and claim 11 over KOHLER in view of BECH are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12 over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER is maintained.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Declaration Under 37 CFR § 1.130(a)
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed 06/24/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER as set forth in the last Office action because:
In order to disqualify KELEMEN as prior art, the Declaration must show that the disclosure of KELEMEN was made by the inventor or joint inventor of the present application or was made by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of the present application (not of the cited reference), accompanied by a reasonable explanation for the presence of the other joint inventors of KELEMEN. The Declaration submitted by Applicant establishes that the subject matter was invented by and thus directly obtained from Noah McQueen, Peter Kelemen, Jennifer Wilcox, Greg Dipple, and Phil Renforth. The Declaration does not establish that the subject matter was invented by or obtained from only the inventor or a joint inventor of the present application, as none of the listed joint inventors of KELEMEN other than Noah McQueen are joint inventors of the present application.
For the same reason as discussed above, the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed 06/24/2026 regarding U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0269605-A1 is also insufficient to disqualify this reference as prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31 appears to contain a typo; “missing” should read “misting” (see claim 31 at line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “plots” as recited in claims 7 and 34 (see claims 7 and 34 each at line 2) is interpreted as meaning measured pieces of land, as this is the dictionary definition which appears most in keeping with Applicant’s intent given the context in which “plots” is used in claims 7 and 34 and in the specification.
For purposes of claim interpretation, “particle size” as recited in claims 8 and 35 (see claims 8 and 35 each at line 2) is interpreted as meaning particle diameter or equivalent diameter, as this would be the typical definition as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
For purposes of claim interpretation, “about” as recited in claims 8, 12-14, 33 and 35 (see claim 12 at line 1 and claims 8, 13-14, 33 and 35 each at line 2) is interpreted as meaning the value +/- 10%, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification at paragraph [0066].
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-10, 12, 26-30 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelemen, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0347650-A1) (hereinafter, “KELEMEN”) in view of Kohler, et al. (EP-3865801-A1) (hereinafter, “KOHLER”).
Regarding claim 1, KELEMEN teaches a method (see KELEMEN generally at Title), comprising:
transferring a calciner input stream to a calciner (see KELEMEN at Abstract and paragraph [0027]),
the calciner input stream including calcium carbonate (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0014], [0027], [0031] and Fig. 1, teaching providing a source of feedstock including calcite (CaCO3) to a calciner for preprocessing, and teaching carbonating a feedstock comprising CaO (which forms calcium carbonate) then transferring the carbonated product to a calciner);
applying heat to the calciner to decompose the calciner input stream into a calciner product stream and a CO2 stream, the calciner product stream including calcium oxide (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0023], [0027] and [0031] and Fig. 1, teaching calcining feedstock to generate a calcined composition comprising CaO and a CO2 stream);
sequestering the CO2 stream (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0033] and Fig. 1, teaching collecting the CO2 product streams from the calciners for subsequent utilization and/or storage);
transferring the calciner product stream to a carbonation station (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0009] and Fig. 1, teaching distributing the calcined composition into a plurality of carbonation plots);
and contacting the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream with ambient air in the carbonation station to form the calciner input stream (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009] and [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching contacting the calcined composition with ambient air then recycling the carbonated composition from the carbonation plots as feed to the calciner).
KELEMEN fails to explicitly teach dividing the calciner product stream into a first calciner product stream and a second calciner product stream and transferring the second calciner product stream to a kiln to produce a clinker.
However, it is known in the art that carbon capture and clinker manufacture processes can be integrated by splitting the calciner product stream and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker. For example, KOHLER teaches a method of carbon capture and cement production wherein the CaO containing calciner product is divided into two streams, one of which is recycled to the carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln to produce cement clinker (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of KELEMEN by including a step of dividing the calciner product stream into two streams and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker as taught by KOHLER (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a valuable cement product while simultaneously capturing carbon.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the calciner input stream is a recycled stream transferred from the carbonation station (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching that the input stream to calciner 106 is recycled from carbonation plots 102), the method further comprising: transferring a makeup stream to the calciner, the makeup stream including calcium carbonate (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0014], [0030]-[0031], [0042]-[0043] and [0049] and Fig. 1, teaching that feedstock (which comprises e.g. calcite, CaCO3) 104A, which is a makeup stream, is transferred to preprocessing calciner 110).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 2, further comprising: transferring the calciner input stream through a first gate coupled to the calciner (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching transferring the input stream recycled from the carbonation plots to a calciner 106 through a first inlet); and transferring the makeup stream through a second gate coupled to the calciner (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0042]-[0043] and [0049] and Fig. 1, teaching transferring makeup stream 104A to a calciner 110 through a second inlet).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 2 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the makeup stream includes naturally occurring limestone (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0005], [0014] and [0034], teaching that the feedstock is a mineral feedstock (i.e., natural), e.g., calcite, which is what limestone is made of).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising: hydrating at least a portion the first calciner product stream to produce calcium hydroxide (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010] and [0037]-[0038], teaching the hydration of MgO which forms Mg(OH)2; KELEMEN also teaches that the composition including one or more metal oxides can include CaO instead of or in addition to MgO, i.e., instead of just MgO, CaO, or a mixture of both CaO and MgO, can be hydrated, which would form Ca(OH)2); and contacting the calcium hydroxide with ambient air at the carbonation station to form water and a quantity of calcium carbonate (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0006], [0009]-[0010] and [0037]-[0038], teaching that the hydroxides formed in the carbonation plots are carbonated via ambient air, which is a reaction that forms carbonates (e.g., magnesium hydroxide forms magnesium carbonate, calcium hydroxide forms calcium carbonate) and water), wherein the quantity of calcium carbonate is included in the calciner input stream (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009] and [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching the carbonates formed in the carbonation plots are recycled as feed to the calciner).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the carbonation station includes an array of carbonation plots configured to expose the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream to ambient air (see KELEMEN at Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the calcium oxide is a powder and has an average particle size of no more than about 500 μm (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0008] and [0041], teaching that the composition comprising the metal oxides has an average particle size of 20 μm).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein heat applied to the calciner is from a renewable energy source (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0021] and [0026], teaching a solar calciner).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the heat applied to the calciner is via electric resistance heating, and the electricity for the electric resistance heating is provided from a renewable energy source (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0021] and [0026], teaching that the energy provided to the calciner is solar electricity, and that the calciner is a combination of an electric-fired calciner and a solar calciner).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the sequestered CO2 stream includes at least about 80 vol% CO2 (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0036], teaching that the calciner produces a nearly pure stream of CO2, i.e., near 100 vol% CO2).
Regarding claim 26, KELEMEN teaches a method (see KELEMEN generally at Title), comprising:
transferring a calciner input stream to a calciner (see KELEMEN at Abstract and paragraph [0027]),
the calciner input stream including calcium carbonate (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0014], [0027], [0031] and Fig. 1, teaching providing a source of feedstock including calcite (CaCO3) to a calciner for preprocessing, and teaching carbonating a feedstock comprising CaO (which forms calcium carbonate) then transferring the carbonated product to a calciner);
applying heat to the calciner to decompose the calciner input stream into a calciner product stream and a CO2 stream, the calciner product stream including calcium oxide (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0023], [0027] and [0031] and Fig. 1, teaching calcining feedstock to generate a calcined composition comprising CaO and a CO2 stream);
sequestering the CO2 stream (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0033] and Fig. 1, teaching collecting the CO2 product streams from the calciners for subsequent utilization and/or storage);
transferring the calciner product stream to a carbonation station (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0009] and Fig. 1, teaching distributing the calcined composition into a plurality of carbonation plots);
and exposing the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream to ambient weathering in the carbonation station to form the calciner input stream (see KELEMEN at Abstract and paragraphs [0009] and [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching exposing the calcined composition to ambient weathering then recycling the carbonated composition from the carbonation plots as feed to the calciner).
KELEMEN fails to explicitly teach dividing the calciner product stream into a first calciner product stream and a second calciner product stream and transferring the second calciner product stream to a kiln to produce a clinker.
However, it is known in the art that carbon capture and clinker manufacture processes can be integrated by splitting the calciner product stream and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker. For example, KOHLER teaches a method of carbon capture and cement production wherein the CaO containing calciner product is divided into two streams, one of which is recycled to the carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln to produce cement clinker (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of KELEMEN by including a step of dividing the calciner product stream into two streams and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker as taught by KOHLER (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a valuable cement product while simultaneously capturing carbon.
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim 26 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 26, wherein the calciner input stream is a recycled stream transferred from the carbonation station (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching that the input stream to calciner 106 is recycled from carbonation plots 102), the method further comprising: transferring a makeup stream to the calciner, the makeup stream including calcium carbonate (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0014], [0030]-[0031], [0042]-[0043] and [0049] and Fig. 1, teaching that feedstock (which comprises e.g. calcite, CaCO3) 104A, which is a makeup stream, is transferred to preprocessing calciner 110).
Regarding claim 28, as applied to claim 27 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 27, further comprising: transferring the calciner input stream through a first gate coupled to the calciner (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching transferring the input stream recycled from the carbonation plots to a calciner 106 through a first inlet); and transferring the makeup stream through a second gate coupled to the calciner (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0042]-[0043] and [0049] and Fig. 1, teaching transferring makeup stream 104A to a calciner 110 through a second inlet).
Regarding claim 29, as applied to claim 27 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 27, wherein the makeup stream includes naturally occurring limestone (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0005], [0014] and [0034], teaching that the feedstock is a mineral feedstock (i.e., natural), e.g., calcite, which is what limestone is made of).
Regarding claim 30, KELEMEN teaches a method (see KELEMEN generally at Title), comprising:
transferring a calciner input stream to a calciner (see KELEMEN at Abstract and paragraph [0027]),
the calciner input stream including calcium carbonate (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0014], [0027], [0031] and Fig. 1, teaching providing a source of feedstock including calcite (CaCO3) to a calciner for preprocessing, and teaching carbonating a feedstock comprising CaO (which forms calcium carbonate) then transferring the carbonated product to a calciner);
applying heat to the calciner to decompose the calciner input stream into a calciner product stream and a CO2 stream, the calciner product stream including calcium oxide (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0023], [0027] and [0031] and Fig. 1, teaching calcining feedstock to generate a calcined composition comprising CaO and a CO2 stream);
sequestering the CO2 stream (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0033] and Fig. 1, teaching collecting the CO2 product streams from the calciners for subsequent utilization and/or storage);
contacting the first calciner product stream with moisture to improve CO2 uptake of the first calciner product stream (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0006], [0009]-[0010] and [0037]-[0038], teaching the hydration of the metal oxides (MgO, CaO) to form hydroxides);
transferring the calciner product stream to a carbonation station (see KELEMEN at paragraph [0009] and Fig. 1, teaching distributing the calcined composition into a plurality of carbonation plots);
and contacting the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream with ambient air in the carbonation station to form the calciner input stream (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0009] and [0032] and Fig. 1, teaching contacting the calcined composition with ambient air then recycling the carbonated composition from the carbonation plots as feed to the calciner).
KELEMEN fails to explicitly teach dividing the calciner product stream into a first calciner product stream and a second calciner product stream and transferring the second calciner product stream to a kiln to produce a clinker.
However, it is known in the art that carbon capture and clinker manufacture processes can be integrated by splitting the calciner product stream and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker. For example, KOHLER teaches a method of carbon capture and cement production wherein the CaO containing calciner product is divided into two streams, one of which is recycled to the carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln to produce cement clinker (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of KELEMEN by including a step of dividing the calciner product stream into two streams and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker as taught by KOHLER (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a valuable cement product while simultaneously capturing carbon.
Regarding claim 34, as applied to claim 30 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 30, wherein the carbonation station includes an array of carbonation plots configured to expose the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream to ambient air (see KELEMEN at Abstract).
Regarding claim 35, as applied to claim 34 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 34, wherein the calcium oxide is a powder and has an average particle size of no more than about 500 μm (see KELEMEN at paragraphs [0008] and [0041], teaching that the composition comprising the metal oxides has an average particle size of 20 μm).
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balfe, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0343373-A1) (hereinafter, “BALFE”).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1.
KELEMEN in view of KOHLER fails to explicitly teach adding at least one of clay or iron ore to the second calciner product stream prior to transferring the second calciner product stream to the kiln.
BALFE teaches a process for carbon capture coupled with cement production wherein the product stream containing CaO from the calciner is split into a first and second product stream, one of which is transferred to a carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln for cement production (see BALFE at Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0002], [0023], [0033]-[0034] and [0036]), and teaches that the raw material for clinkering that is fed to the kiln typically includes clay (see BALFE at paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of KELEMEN in view of KOHLER by adding clay to the stream that is fed to the kiln for clinkering (i.e., the second calciner product stream), as BALFE that it is typical for feed material for clinkering in the kiln to include clay (see BALFE at paragraphs [0003]-[0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have added clay to the kiln feed material with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a typical feed material for clinkering which will produce cement clinker. Further, BALFE teaches that raw material including clay is a known feed material for cement clinker production in a kiln, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claims 13-14, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1.
KELEMEN in view of KOHLER fails to explicitly teach that the second calciner product stream has a mass flow rate of less than about 2.0 times a mass flow rate of the first calciner product stream, as recited by claim 13, or that the first calciner product stream has a mass flow rate of less than about 1.5 times as much as a mass flow rate of the second calciner product stream, as recited by claim 14.
BALFE teaches a process for carbon capture coupled with cement production wherein the product stream containing CaO from the calciner is split into a first and second product stream, one of which is transferred to a carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln for cement production (see BALFE at Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0002], [0023], [0033]-[0034] and [0036]), wherein the mass flow rate of the second and first product streams fall into the ranges of claims 13 and 14, respectively; e.g., when 50% of the material is recirculated to the carbonator and the remaining 50% is transferred to the kiln, the mass flow rates are the same, i.e., one stream has 1 times as much mass flow rate as the other stream (see BALFE at paragraph [0025] and Fig. 5). BALFE also teaches that the amount of CaO product recirculated vs. transferred to the kiln affects the composition/activity of the lean and rich sorbent (i.e., CaO streams and CaCO3 streams) and the efficiency of carbon dioxide capture in the carbonator (see BALFE at paragraphs [0014], [0018]-[0019] and [0025]-[0039] and Figs. 3 and 5-6). BALFE therefore explicitly teaches that the respective mass flow rates of the first and second calciner product stream is a result-effective variable which can be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have varied, through routine experimentation and optimization, the flow rates of the first and second calciner product streams in the method of KELEMEN in view of KOHLER, including flow rates within the ranges of claims 13-14 (e.g., a 50/50 split as taught by BALFE) in order to achieve desired composition and activity of the CaO and CaCO3 in the various streams and the desired carbon dioxide capture efficiency in the carbonator (see BALFE at paragraphs [0014], [0018]-[0019] and [0025]-[0039] and Figs. 3 and 5-6), and in order to produce the desired amount of cement in the kiln.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bech, et al. (EP-3738939-A1) (hereinafter, “BECH”).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1.
However, KELEMEN in view of KOHLER fails to explicitly teach that the heat is applied to the calciner via at least one of induction or microwave heating.
BECH teaches a method of calcining raw meal containing limestone (CaCO3) for manufacturing of cement clinker which includes carbon capture, wherein microwave energy is used for calcination (see BECH at Abstract and paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of KELEMEN in view of KOHLER by simply substituting the calciner heat source with microwave heating as taught by BECH (see BECH at Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing heat to the calciner.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12 and 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGillis, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0269605-A1) (hereinafter, “McGILLIS”) in view of KOHLER.
Regarding claim 1, McGILLIS teaches a method (see McGILLIS generally at Title), comprising:
transferring a calciner input stream to a calciner (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraph [0004]),
the calciner input stream including calcium carbonate (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0057]);
applying heat to the calciner to decompose the calciner input stream into a calciner product stream and a CO2 stream, the calciner product stream including calcium oxide (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]);
sequestering the CO2 stream (see McGILLIS at paragraph Abstract and paragraph [0038]);
transferring the calciner product stream to a carbonation station (see McGILLIS at Abstract);
and contacting the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream with ambient air at ambient conditions in the carbonation station to form the calciner input stream (see McGILLIS at Abstract).
McGILLIS fails to explicitly teach dividing the calciner product stream into a first calciner product stream and a second calciner product stream and transferring the second calciner product stream to a kiln to produce a clinker.
However, it is known in the art that carbon capture and clinker manufacture processes can be integrated by splitting the calciner product stream and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker. For example, KOHLER teaches a method of carbon capture and cement production wherein the CaO containing calciner product is divided into two streams, one of which is recycled to the carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln to produce cement clinker (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of McGILLIS by including a step of dividing the calciner product stream into two streams and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker as taught by KOHLER (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a valuable cement product while simultaneously capturing carbon.
Regarding claim 26, McGILLIS teaches a method (see McGILLIS generally at Title), comprising:
transferring a calciner input stream to a calciner (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraph [0004]),
the calciner input stream including calcium carbonate (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0057]);
applying heat to the calciner to decompose the calciner input stream into a calciner product stream and a CO2 stream, the calciner product stream including calcium oxide (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]);
sequestering the CO2 stream (see McGILLIS at paragraph Abstract and paragraph [0038]);
transferring the calciner product stream to a carbonation station (see McGILLIS at Abstract);
and exposing the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream to ambient weathering in the carbonation station to form the calciner input stream (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraph [0017]).
McGILLIS fails to explicitly teach dividing the calciner product stream into a first calciner product stream and a second calciner product stream and transferring the second calciner product stream to a kiln to produce a clinker.
However, it is known in the art that carbon capture and clinker manufacture processes can be integrated by splitting the calciner product stream and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker. For example, KOHLER teaches a method of carbon capture and cement production wherein the CaO containing calciner product is divided into two streams, one of which is recycled to the carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln to produce cement clinker (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of McGILLIS by including a step of dividing the calciner product stream into two streams and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker as taught by KOHLER (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a valuable cement product while simultaneously capturing carbon.
Regarding claims 2 and 27, as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claims 1 and 26, wherein the calciner input stream is a recycled stream transferred from the carbonation station (see McGILLIS at Abstract), the method further comprising: transferring a makeup stream to the calciner, the makeup stream including calcium carbonate (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0017], [0029]-[0030] and [0080] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 28, as applied to claims 2 and 27 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claims 1 and 26, further comprising: transferring the calciner input stream through a first gate coupled to the calciner; and transferring the makeup stream through a second gate coupled to the calciner (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0072], [0080] and Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 29, as applied to claims 2 and 27 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claims 1 and 26, wherein the makeup stream includes naturally occurring limestone (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising: hydrating at least a portion the first calciner product stream to produce calcium hydroxide (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0038], [0056], [0067]-[0068]); and contacting the calcium hydroxide with ambient air at the carbonation station to form water and a quantity of calcium carbonate (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0017], [0028]-[0031] and [0068]), wherein the quantity of calcium carbonate is included in the calciner input stream (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein heat applied to the calciner is from a renewable energy source (see McGILLIS at paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the heat applied to the calciner is via electric resistance heating, and the electricity for the electric resistance heating is provided from a renewable energy source (see McGILLIS at paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the sequestered CO2 stream includes at least about 80 vol% CO2 (see McGILLIS at paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 30, McGILLIS teaches a method (see McGILLIS generally at Title), comprising:
transferring a calciner input stream to a calciner (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraph [0004]),
the calciner input stream including calcium carbonate (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and [0057]);
applying heat to the calciner to decompose the calciner input stream into a calciner product stream and a CO2 stream, the calciner product stream including calcium oxide (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraphs [0028]-[0031]);
sequestering the CO2 stream (see McGILLIS at paragraph Abstract and paragraph [0038]);
contacting the first calciner product stream with moisture to improve CO2 uptake of the first calciner product stream (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraph [0046]);
transferring the calciner product stream to a carbonation station (see McGILLIS at Abstract);
and contacting the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream with ambient air in the carbonation station to form the calciner input stream (see McGILLIS at Abstract).
McGILLIS fails to explicitly teach dividing the calciner product stream into a first calciner product stream and a second calciner product stream and transferring the second calciner product stream to a kiln to produce a clinker.
However, it is known in the art that carbon capture and clinker manufacture processes can be integrated by splitting the calciner product stream and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker. For example, KOHLER teaches a method of carbon capture and cement production wherein the CaO containing calciner product is divided into two streams, one of which is recycled to the carbonator and the other of which is transferred to a kiln to produce cement clinker (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of McGILLIS by including a step of dividing the calciner product stream into two streams and transferring one stream to a kiln to produce a clinker as taught by KOHLER (see KOHLER at Abstract, paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and Fig. 1A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of producing a valuable cement product while simultaneously capturing carbon.
Regarding claim 31, as applied to claim 30 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 30, wherein contacting the first calciner product stream with moisture includes misting water onto the first calciner product stream (see McGILLIS at Abstract and paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 32, as applied to claim 30 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 30, wherein contacting the first calciner product stream with moisture includes passing the first calciner product stream through a humid enclosure (see McGILLIS at paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 33, as applied to claim 30 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claim 30, wherein the humid enclosure has a relative humidity of at least about 50% (see McGILLIS at paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claims 7 and 34, as applied to claims 1 and 30 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claims 1 and 30, wherein the carbonation station includes an array of carbonation plots configured to expose the calcium oxide in the first calciner product stream to ambient air (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0017], [0032] and [0070]).
Regarding claims 8 and 35, as applied to claims 7 and 34 above, McGILLIS in view of KOHLER teaches a method according to claims 7 and 34, wherein the calcium oxide is a powder and has an average particle size of no more than about 500 μm (see McGILLIS at paragraphs [0039]-[0040], teaching that the composition comprising the metal oxides has an average particle size of no more than about 500 μm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/24/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 26-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 26-30 and 34-35 over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER, for claims 6 and 13-14 over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER and BALFE, for claim 11 over KELEMEN in view of KOHLER and BECH, and for claims 26-35 over McGILLIS in view of KOHLER as set forth above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights