DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brock USPA 2011/0070137 A1.
Regarding claim 27, Brock discloses a method comprising: capturing the CO2 at a first location with a capture liquid to produce a bicarbonate rich aqueous solution (paragraph 76); and transporting the bicarbonate rich aqueous solution to a second location by pumping the bicarbonate rich aqueous solution through a pipeline (paragraph 76).
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 29 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock USPA 2011/0070137 A1.
Brock is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 29, Brock does not disclose that the distance between the first location and second location ranges from 0.01 km to 200 km. Nevertheless, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the distance that the liquid is transported is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, Brock does not disclose that the bicarbonate rich aqueous solution is at a pressure ranging from 14psia to 100 psig in the pipeline, or at a temperature ranging from 10 to 50°C in the pipeline. Nevertheless, there would necessarily be a certain pressure and temperature. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the temperature and pressure are considered to be general conditions that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal flow. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 44, Brock does not disclose that the bicarbonate rich aqueous solution has a concentration of bicarbonate ion of 5,000 ppm or more. However, Brock discloses that the bicarbonate solution can be disposed of via a well into a saline aquifer, as a less diluted calcium bicarbonate solution (paragraph 76), and that less dilution is required for transport via a pipeline (paragraph 73). Since Brock discloses that the solution can be less diluted, absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the exact concentration of bicarbonate in the solution 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 safe transport and disposal of the solution (see paragraph 5). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 28 and 31-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock USPA 2011/0070137 A1 in view of Constantz ’314 USPA 2015/0246314 A1.
Brock is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 28, Brock does not disclose that the second location comprises a mineralization system. Constantz ‘314 discloses that such a biocarbonate solution can ultimately be used in a mineralization process (paragraph 101). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock so that the second location is a mineralization system, since Constantz ‘314 discloses that mineralization is a suitable use of such a bicarbonate.
Regarding claim 31, Brock does not disclose that the method further comprises transporting solution produced by the mineralization system from the second location to the first location. Constantz ’314 discloses a similar method where the solution produced by the mineralization system is ultimately sent back to the original location to capture additional CO2- (see figures 14 and 16; paragraph 178: resultant permeate…may then be employed in the process as illustrated in FIG. 14; paragraph 183 also discloses returning the solution to the first location). Furthermore, paragraphs 173-190 of Constantz ’314 disclose various embodiments of recycling fluids to be continuously used. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock to include transporting solution produced by the mineralization system from the second location to the first location, as disclosed by Constantz ’314, for the purpose of reusing/recycling the solution to prevent waste.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Constantz ’314 discloses increasing the alkalinity of the solution produced by the mineralization system with an alkalinity enrichment system (paragraphs 183). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock so that the alkalinity of the solution produced by the mineralization system is increased with an alkalinity enrichment system, as disclosed by Constantz ’314, in order to allow for additional CO2 capture.
Regarding claim 34, Constantz ’314 does not disclose that the alkalinity enrichment system is co- located with the mineralization system. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to co-locate the alkalinity enrichment system with the mineralization system, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that these systems could be co-located in order to avoid additional transferring of the fluid, as is generally well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E).
Regarding claims 35 and 36, Brock does not disclose that the first location is a plurality of locations, such as 2-20. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to send CO2 from multiple locations, such as from 2-20, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B). It would have been obvious to have multiple first locations for the purpose of additional CO2 capture and sequestration.
Regarding claim 37, in the case where Brock is modified to include a plurality of first locations, it would have been obvious to transport a carbon depleted aqueous solution produced by the mineralization system from the second location to each first location of the plurality, since Constantz ’314 discloses that this is desirable.
Regarding claim 38, Constantz ‘314 does not explicitly disclose pumping the carbon depleted aqueous solution from the second location to each first location of the plurality through pipelines. Nevertheless, since Brock discloses that the bicarbonate solution can be transported via pipelines (paragraph 76), in the case where Brock is modified by Constantz ‘314, it would have been obvious to also utilize pumping via pipelines to transfer the carbon depleted aqueous solution from the second location to each first location of the plurality.
Regarding claims 39-41, Brock discloses that the source is a power plant or a cement plant (paragraph 33). It would therefore have been obvious to capture CO2 from multiple power plants or cement plants, in order to reduce CO2 from multiple such plants, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the sections 102 and 103 rejections. The 112 2nd paragraph rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant argues that Brock does not disclose that the bicarbonate aqueous solution is “bicarbonate rich”. However, since “bicarbonate rich” is not defined, it is deemed to be a relative term and is therefore anticipated by Brock since the bicarbonate solution of Brock can be considered rich when compared to some other hypothetical bicarbonate solution. The Examiner notes that the part of the Specification cited by Applicant merely describes what the concentration ion “may, in some instances, be”. The Examiner notes that while Brock discloses that the bicarbonate solution is dilute, paragraphs 73 and 76 disclose an embodiment where the solution is “less diluted”. Paragraph 73 in particular discloses that less dilution is required for transport via pipeline.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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