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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed March 13, 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the Corrected Version and Clean Version of the specification are on the same sheet (instead of separate sheets). See 37 CFR 1.121(h) (each section of an amendment document must be on a separate sheet).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1–7 are 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.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A hybrid aqueous compression system supplying compressed gases to an aqueous CO2 capturing device to obtain a net-zero-carbon or net-negative-carbon reducing atmospheric CO2 when suitably stored comprising…
a desorber line connected to and leading from each of the plurality of spaced apart gas desorption modules through which collected desorber gases, including increasingly greater volumes of CO2 gas, are removed from the downhole structure and moved to another separation system. Emphasis added.
The Applicant has not pointed out where the new limitation of “increasingly greater volumes of CO2 gas” are removed is supported, nor does there appear to be written description of this claim limitation in the application as filed. See MPEP 2163.04, subsection I.
Claims 2–7 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A hybrid aqueous compression system supplying compressed gases to an aqueous CO2 capturing device to obtain a net-zero-carbon or net-negative-carbon reducing atmospheric CO2 when suitably stored comprising…
a desorber line connected to and leading from each of the plurality of spaced apart gas desorption modules through which collected desorber gases, including increasingly greater volumes of CO2 gas, are removed from the downhole structure and moved to another separation system. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “suitably” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the “another separation system” is intended to be a positively recited structural element of the claimed system. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the “another separation system” is not a positively recited structural element of the claimed system.
Claims 2–7 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 6 recites:
6. The hybrid compression system as in claim 1 wherein the downhole structure is positioned in a deep-water location. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because “deep” is relative terminology that the specification fails to provide a definition of and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
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 1–5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blount et al., US 2010/0170674 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Blount teaches an apparatus for capturing carbon dioxide gases in subsurface hydrostatic conditions, which reads on the claimed “hybrid aqueous compression system supplying compressed gases to an aqueous CO2 capturing device to obtain a net-zero-carbon or net-negative-carbon reducing atmospheric CO2 when suitably stored.” See Blount Fig. 1, [0003]. Note that the preamble limitations describing the intended use of the “system” fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II (the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction where the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention and the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention).
The apparatus comprises a “downhole structure” which is the structure of the apparatus seen in Fig. 1. See Blount Fig. 1, [0021]–[0022]. The structure includes a well having an “outer shell,” as seen in Fig. 1. The outer shell houses process modules 46 that receive water and compressed gas. Id. at Fig. 1, [0022]. The process modules 46 collectively read on the “depending gas compression structure.” Water is supplied to the process modules by water line (containing recirculation pump), as seen in Fig. 1. The water line reads on the “source of in-flowing water directed into the depending gas compression structure.”
The apparatus also comprises a gas compression subsystem 30 for feeding gas into the process modules 46. See Blount Fig. 1, [0022]. The gas compression subsystem 30 reads on the “gas introduction system to feed a desired gas into the in-flowing water and into the depending gas compression structure to compress entrained gas into the flowing water.”
The apparatus further comprises water above bottom seal 50 with the water receiving water and CO2 gas from the process modules 46. See Blount Fig. 1, [0022]. The water above the seal 50 reads on the “bubble disengagement module positioned adjacent a bottom of the downhole structure and being operatively connected to the depending gas compression structure and being configured to receive the water and compressed gas.”
The apparatus also comprises a return line 52 for transporting non-soluble gases (i.e., not CO2) from the well. See Blount Fig. 1, [0026]. The return line 52 reads on the “compressed gas discharge line in fluid connection with the bubble disengagement module to export non-acidic gases as a compressed gas.” Note that the return line 52 is in “fluid connection” with the water above the seal 50 (the “bubble disengagement module”) because they are fluidly coupled by the process modules 46. Note also that the limitations that the compressed gas discharge line is “to export non-acidic gases as a compressed gas” fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art because they describe the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
The apparatus further comprises a return line 54 operatively connected to the water above seal 50 through which water is discharged. See Blount Fig. 1, [0023]. The return line 54 reads on the “water out-flow line.” The return line 54 further includes three gas separators 70, 72, 74 arranged in at spaced apart location and connected series (i.e., “stacked”), and being configured to sequentially separate CO2 from remaining gases as water flows through the gas separators 70, 72, 74. Id. at Fig. 1, [0023]. The gas separators 70, 72, 74 read on the “stacked desorption modules.”
The apparatus further comprises a CO2 collection outlet 62 connected to and leading from each of the gas separators 70, 72, 74 through which collected gasses are removed from the apparatus. See Blount Fig. 1, [0023]. The CO2 collection outlet 62 reads on the “desorber gas line.” Note that the limitations indicating that the desorber gas line is used such that “collected desorber gases, including increasingly greater volumes of CO2 gas, are removed from the downhole structure and moved to another separation system” fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
1155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Blount teaches that the gas compression subsystem 30 (the “gas introduction system”) is configured to introduce gas at desired pressure conditions, as claimed, which are the conditions that the gas compression subsystem 30 supplies gas. See Blount Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 3, Blount teaches that the gas compression subsystem 30 is configured to introduce gas that has been at least partially compressed, as claimed. See Blount Fig. 1, [0026].
Regarding claim 4, Blount teaches an aquifer for providing water flow. See Blount [0007]. The aquifer reads on the “hydro power storing system” because the aquifer stores water, which could be used to generate power.
Regarding claim 5, Blount teaches that the well of the structure of the apparatus (“downhole structure”) is positioned in the ground, because the well is a geological environment, which is interpreted as the “ground.” See Blount [0007].
Regarding claim 7, Blount teaches that the structure of the apparatus (the “downhole structure”) includes a casing of the well (seen in Fig. 1) which is filled with water (below water line 42) that surrounds the process modules 46 (the “depending gas compression structure”). See Blount Fig. 1, [0022]. This reads on “the downhole structure further includes a water filled casing surrounding the depending gas compression structure.”
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blount et al., US 2010/0170674 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2015/0191385 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Blount teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Blount differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the “downhole structure” being positioned in a deep-water location.
But Blount teaches that the well of the “downhole structure” can be within an aquifer. See Blount [0007]. Also, Lee teaches that an aquifer usable for storing carbon dioxide can be in deep ocean. See Lee [0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the aquifer to be in deep ocean because this is a suitable location for an aquifer used to store carbon dioxide.
Response to Arguments
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings filed December 30, 2025 are accepted.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed March 13, 2026 are not accepted for the reasons stated above.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws all of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the Non-Final Rejection dated July 02, 2025, except that the claims continue to recite “suitably stored” (with “suitably” rendering the claims indefinite for being relative terminology).
35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thomas et al., US 2003/0047309 A1 (method for disposing acid gases, including carbon dioxide, in subterranean areas); Hancock, US 6,638,024 B1 (hydraulic air compressor system); Vrana et al., US 7,377,492 B2 (hydraulic liquid pumping system).
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights