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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin (US20130244312A1) in view of Blais (US6524843B1) in view of Nagayasu (US20110135550).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Blais in view of Nagayasu in view of Goetheer (US20210047743).
Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Blais in view of Nagayasu in view of Goetheer in view of Stern (US20130058857A1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larkin in view of Blais in view of Nagayasu in view of Goetheer in view of Stern in view of Wohlert (US20110120157A1).
Rejection in view of Larkin
Claim 1: Larkin teaches a carbon capture system (abstract teaches system for CO2 absorption), comprising: an absorber having an organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section, an inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section (Figure 2 and [0024] teaches a scrubbing process with multiple absorption zones. The first portion uses an amine and the second portion uses a high activity advanced solvent. [0036] teaches that the advanced solvent can also absorb CO2 remaining in the gas and that it can be an ionic liquid. [0043] teaches that the advanced solvent can be IL containing organic cation and anions.), a flue gas inlet at the organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section and a treated flue gas outlet at the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section (Inlet 7 going into the first absorption zone 15 with liquid amine solvent 25.); a stripper, in communication with the organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section, adapted to receive carbon dioxide-rich organic solvent from the absorber column and return carbon dioxide-lean organic solvent to the absorber column (First regeneration zone 60 takes in the amine solvent 45 and returns it via 40.); a polishing circuit, in communication with the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section, adapted to release captured carbon dioxide, regenerate the inorganic solvent and return the inorganic solvent to the absorber column (Figure 2 shows the polishing circuit with second regeneration zone 120. [0037] teaches that the CO2 is liberated via line 140. The solvent is seen to return to the column via lines 165 and 170.); wherein (a) the organic solvent and the inorganic solvent are both adapted to capture carbon dioxide from a flue gas and (b) flue gas passing from the flue gas inlet to the flue gas outlet is sequentially subjected to organic solvent carbon dioxide capture, and inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture ([0024] teaches that both sections remove CO2 and figure 2 shows it goes sequentially through the amine solvent then the advanced solvent.).
If Larkin does not explicitly teach the inorganic solvent for CO2 capture, it teaches in [0036] that the advanced solvent can be a solvent comprising carbonic anhydrase. Blais teaches a process and apparatus for treating CO2 with carbonic anhydrase (abstract). Blais teaches in column 3 lines 6-13 that water is typically used with carbonic anhydrase to remove CO2 from a gas. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use an inorganic solvent for CO2 capture, such as water with carbonic anhydrase, as Blais teaches water is known to be used with carbonic anhydrase and Larkin teaches that any solvent comprising carbonic anhydrase can be used.
Larkin does not explicitly teach a water wash section between the organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section and the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section, a water washing circuit, in communication with the water wash section, adapted to remove organic solvent entrainment and aerosols and return of wash water to the absorber column, and (b) flue gas passing from the flue gas inlet to the flue gas outlet is sequentially subjected to (i) organic solvent carbon dioxide capture, (ii) water washing and (iii) inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture. Larkin teaches the two separate absorption zones with different solvents as seen in figure 2.
Nagayasu teaches a CO2 recovery system and method using amine absorbent and a water wash section right after (abstract and figure 1). Nagayasu teaches in [0068] that the water washing section is used to reduce any basic amine compounds that are entrained in the flue gas with the wash water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a water wash section as taught by Nagayasu in the device of Larkin as Nagayasu teaches that the water wash section would be able to remove the amine compounds which can be entrained in the flue gas to prevent it from further going into the system.
Rejection in view of Goetheer
Claim 2: The prior arts do not explicitly state the polishing circuit includes an electrochemical cell. Larkin teaches a secondary regenerating zone for the advanced solvent. Goetheer teaches an electrochemical cell in the abstract. Goetheer teaches that electrochemical cells are known to be able to remove CO2 in [0005]-[0018] and that the electrochemical cell is able to remove CO2 from a stream as shown in figure 1. Goetheer teaches in [0030] that it offers an advantage in being more cost efficient and can also produce valuable chemical compounds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a polishing section such as one taught by Goetheer in the device of Larkin, Blais, and Nagayasu as Goetheer teaches that they are also able to remove CO2 to form other products ([0030]) and therefore this would further allow for the gas/absorbent to be purified of CO2.
Rejection in view of Stern
Claim 3: The prior arts do not explicitly state the polishing circuit further includes a flash vessel downstream from the electrochemical cell. Stern teaches in figure 6 an electrochemical cell connected to a column for moving CO2. It contains a flash tank downstream of the cell. [0052] teaches that the flash tank is able to return some of the solution removed from the CO2 to the system and also cause pure CO2 to be released. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a flash tank downstream of the cell as taught by Stern as Stern teaches the flash tank is able to further purify the CO2 and be able to recycle some of the solution back to the cell.
Claim 4: Goetheer teaches the electrochemical cell includes an anode, a cathode and a cation exchange membrane ([0031]-[0032] teaches an anode, cathode, and cation exchange membrane.).
Claim 5: Goetheer teaches the cation exchange membrane is made from a sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene based fluoropolymer copolymer and is adapted for the passage of potassium ions ([0048] teaches that this can be the material. The limitation “for passage of potassium ions” is considered to be intended usage.).
Claim 6: Goetheer teaches the inorganic solvent is potassium hydroxide ([0052]-[0054] teaches that the CO2 absorbent can be organic or inorganic acid and can be potassium hydroxide.).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred advanced solvent, such as KOH, in order to remove CO2.
Claim 7: Larkin teaches the organic solvent is an amine solvent ([0039] teaches amine solvent in first absorption zone).
Claim 8: The prior arts do not explicitly teach the amine solvent is about 45 vol% primary amine and about 55 vol% water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal vol % of the amine solvent in order to properly remove CO2 from the source gas.
Claim 9: Larkin teaches including structured packing in the organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section and a carbon dioxide-lean inorganic solvent inlet on a side of the structured packing opposite the flue gas inlet so as to provide countercurrent flow of flue gas and organic solvent across the structured packing ([0042] teaches that contact between the solvent and gas can be through packing. Figure 2 shows that flue gas inlet 5 is opposite that of a CO2 lean inorganic solvent inlet 170.).
Claim 10: Larkin teaches the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section further includes a plurality of nozzles adapted for generating a fog of inorganic solvent in the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section ([0042] teaches that contact between flue gas and solvent in each absorption zone can be spray columns.).
Rejection in view of Wohlert
Claim 11: The prior arts do not explicitly teach the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section further includes a cooling circuit for cooling the flue gas and inorganic solvent in the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a cooling circuit for the flue gas and inorganic solvent as proper temperature control is required for the inorganic solvent to be able to capture CO2.
If the prior arts do not teach this, Wohlert teaches an absorber with a cooling circuit in figure 3. [0071]-[0072] teaches a absorber heat transfer loop to recover heat that is rejected from the absorber and reused elsewhere or sent back to the absorber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a cooling circuit for the flue gas and inorganic solvent as Wohlert teaches the benefits of being able to capture and recover heat from the system to be used elsewhere or back into the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 06/23/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights