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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29-32, 34, 35, 37, 39-43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53-57, 59-61 and 63-65 in the reply filed on 07/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 67 and 74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/11/2025.
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 9, 11-13, 17, 19-23, 27, 60, 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the “sorbent-regeneration subsystem” is being claimed as part of the system. The limitation “is provided to a sorbent-regeneration subsystem” is a method limitation; therefore, it is unclear whether this limits the structure being claimed, or whether it is merely intended use.
Claims 11-13, 17, 19-23 and 27 are rejected for depending on an indefinite claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear whether “spheronization is further performed” limits the structure of the system being claimed, or whether it is merely intended use.
Regarding claims 60 and 64, “the second reactor” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 63, “the sorbent-regeneration subsystem” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27, 35, 37, 39-42, 50, 51, 53-56 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen USPA 2020/0016537 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a system for capturing CO.sub.2 gas (Abstract), the system comprising: a gaseous feed stream having an initial concentration of the CO.sub.2 gas (Abstract); wherein the gaseous feed stream is directly or indirectly provided to a first reactor as a gaseous reaction stream; the first reactor comprising a sorbent composition and the gaseous reaction stream flowing therein, the gaseous reaction stream being in contact with the sorbent composition; and a first gaseous output stream that exits the first reactor, the first gaseous output stream having a concentration of CO.sub.2 being less than the initial concentration of CO.sub.2 in the gaseous feed stream (claims 1-7; figures 5-7) the sorbent composition comprises at least one metal carbonate material that reacts with the CO.sub.2 gas of the gaseous reaction stream thereby reducing CO.sub.2 gas concentration in the gaseous reaction stream (paragraph 145).
Regarding “wherein: the gaseous reaction stream comprises the CO.sub.2 gas and is characterized by a relative humidity of at least 5%;; and wherein: (a) the first reactor comprises 35 wt. % or less of liquid water by weight of the sorbent composition and liquid water; and/or (b) the gaseous reaction stream has 35 wt. % or less of condensed water by weight of the gaseous reaction stream immediately prior to entering the first reactor or immediately prior to initial contact with the sorbent composition upon entering the first reactor”, limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 2 and 35, regarding “wherein the first reactor comprises 5 wt. % (or 15) or less of liquid water by weight of the sorbent composition and the liquid water”, limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Furthermore, since liquid water is not mentioned, it is implied that it is not present and is therefore 0 wt. %.
Regarding claims 3 and 37, regarding “wherein the gaseous reaction stream has 5 (or 15) wt. % or less of condensed water by weight of the gaseous reaction stream immediately prior to entering the first reactor or immediately prior to initial contact with the sorbent composition upon entering the first reactor”, limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Chen a sorbent-regeneration subsystem; wherein spent-sorbent composition from the first reactor is provided to a sorbent-regeneration subsystem; the spent-sorbent composition comprises a metal bicarbonate material formed in the first reactor as a result of the reaction of the at least one metal carbonate material with the CO.sub.2 gas; the sorbent-regeneration subsystem converts the provided spent-sorbent composition to a regenerated-sorbent composition; and the regenerated-sorbent composition is recycled back to the first reactor (figure 5: 527; claims 1-5); wherein the sorbent-regeneration subsystem decomposes the metal bicarbonate material to reform the at least one metal carbonate material and wherein the sorbent-regeneration subsystem further generates a product gaseous stream having CO.sub.2 gas (paragraph 126).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses that the sorbent-regeneration subsystem comprises a second reactor in which the metal bicarbonate is decomposed at an absolute pressure selected from the range of greater than 0 bar absolute (bara) to less than or equal to 20 bar absolute (bara) and/or the sorbent-regeneration subsystem comprises a second reactor in which the metal bicarbonate is decomposed at a temperature selected from the range of 20° C. to 200° C. and/or the sorbent-regeneration subsystem comprises a second reactor in which the metal bicarbonate material is decomposed at a pressure that is less than the pressure at which the at least one metal carbonate material reacts in the first reactor (figures: calcinatory 12; paragraph 126). The apparatus of Chen is structurally capable of the claimed pressure and/or temperature. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses a spent-sorbent collection subsystem configured to collect the spent-sorbent composition from the first reactor and transfer the collected spent-sorbent composition to the sorbent-regeneration subsystem; wherein the metal bicarbonate collection subsystem separates metal bicarbonate from the gaseous reaction stream or from the first gaseous output stream via gravity, one or more cyclones, one or more filters, one or more electrostatic separators, or any combination of these (figure 1, spent sorbent is separated from gas stream via gravity at 5).
Regarding claims 19, Chen appears to disclose that the sorbent-regeneration subsystem decomposes the metal bicarbonate, regenerates one or more of the at least one metal carbonate material, and generates CO.sub.2 gas according to formula FX3: M.sub.x(HCO.sub.3).sub.2(s).fwdarw.M.sub.xCO.sub.3(s)+CO.sub.2(g)+H.sub.2O(g) (FX3); wherein: x is 1 or 2 (paragraph 126). Regardless, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 20, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. The generated CO2 is capable of being stored.
Regarding claim 22, regarding “wherein the regenerated-sorbent composition comprises one or more of the at least one metal carbonate material and is characterized by an average particulate size being within 20% of the average particulate size of the sorbent composition prior to regeneration”, limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “wherein the sorbent-regeneration subsystem comprises adding fresh metal carbonate material and/or fresh additive to make the regenerated-sorbent composition” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. In article claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 39-41, Chen discloses that each of the at least one metal carbonate material is CaCO.sub.3 (paragraph 244).
Regarding claim 42, Chen does not disclose a support, which implies that the sorbent composition is free of a support material for the metal carbonate.
Regarding claim 50, Chen discloses that the at least one metal carbonate material reacts with the CO.sub.2 gas in the first reactor according to formula FX2: M.sub.xCO.sub.3(s)+CO.sub.2(g)+H.sub.2O(g).Math.M.sub.x(HCO.sub.3).sub.2(s) (FX2); wherein: M is a metal element; and x is 1 or 2 (paragraph 244). Regardless, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 51 and 53-56, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 65, Chen discloses that the gaseous feed stream is air, a flue gas, or other industrial output gas (paragraph 1).
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.
Claims 23, 29-34, 43, 45, 48, 57, 59-61, 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen USPA 2020/0016537 A1.
Chen is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 23 and 45, Chen discloses that the sorbent particles can be spherical balls or pellets (paragraph 145), but does not disclose that the regenerated-sorbent composition has an average particulate size selected from the range of 30 μm (or nm) to 1 cm. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the particulate size of the sorbent is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal sorption and regeneration, as is well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 29-34, Chen does not disclose a pre-treatment subsystem for humidity control. However, the use of a pre-treatment subsystem with humidity removal or addition would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, in order to optimize adsorption, as is well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Regarding claims 43 and 48, Chen does not disclose a support material such one or more zeolite materials, an activated carbon material, a ceramic material, or a combination thereof, or a binder. Nevertheless, the use of such a support or binder is generally well-known in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Regarding claims 57, 59-61, 63 and 64, Chen does not disclose that the first reactor is a fixed or fluidized bed reactor; however, fixed and fluidized bed reactors are well-known in the art for CO2- capture and the use of them would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, making the second reactor the same or different from the first reactor is deemed to be an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B). Furthermore, regarding “wherein the spent-absorbent composition exits the first reactor in an aqueous slurry and wherein the aqueous slurry is provided to the sorbent-regeneration subsystem with or without prior separating the spent-sorbent composition from liquid water”, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Furthermore, the use of a cyclone to separate particles from gas is well-known in the art and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Claims 11, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen USPA 2020/0016537 A1 in view of Zheng USPA 2010/0116134 A1.
Chen is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 21, Chen does not disclose a mixer, an extruder, granulator, spheronizer and/or a dryer for making the regenerated-sorbent composition. However, Chen does disclose that the particles may be in the form of spherical balls (paragraph 145). Zheng discloses the use of a spheronizer to form sorbent spheres (paragraphs 116-117). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to include a spheronizer, as disclosed by Zheng, for the purpose of forming the sorbent into spheres. Structurally, such a spheronizer could be used on the regenerated-sorbent composition. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776