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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayasu (US20110135550) in view of Thompson (US20200001231) in view of Goetheer (US20210047743).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagayasu in view of Thompson in view of Goetheer in view of Wohlert (US20110120157A1).
Rejection in view of Nagayasu
Claim 1: Nagayasu teaches a carbon capture system (Abstract teaches a CO2 recovery system), comprising: an absorber having an organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section, an inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section, a water wash section between the organic solvent carbon dioxide capture section and the inorganic solvent carbon dioxide capture section (Figure 1 shows CO2 absorbing section, water washing section, and absorbent treating section. The water section is between the other two. There is no further limitation regarding organic capture section and inorganic capture section, therefore the prior art just has to show different sections. In this case [0063] teaches the bottom uses a basic amine compound which is organic, and the top uses acidic water in [0073] which is inorganic. It is suggested to include a limitation regarding an organic and inorganic solvent in each section.), 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 (Figure 1 shows inlet 101 in the bottom section and outlet 23m at the top section.); 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 (Regenerator 3 takes in rich organic solvent 103b and returns lean organic solvent 103a.); 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 (Figure 1 shows the water washing section with line 104B that returns the water to the absorber. The limitation of “to remove organic solvent entrainment and aerosols” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. In this case the prior art is also teaching the same structure and step of a water washing.).
Nagayasu does not explicitly teach 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. Nagayasu teaches an additional cleaning section for the gas/absorbent in the absorbent treating section in [0073].
Thompson teaches in [0035] a CO2 removal device with a solvent. Thompson teaches the use of an electrochemical cell in figure 1 at the top of the absorber. 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 Thompson and Goetheer in the device of Nagayasu as Thompson teaches that electrochemical cells can be attached to the top of absorbers and 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.
Claim 2: Thompson and Goetheer teaches the polishing circuit includes an electrochemical cell (Both prior arts teach electrochemical cells.).
Claim 3: Thompson teaches the polishing circuit further includes a flash vessel downstream from the electrochemical cell (Figure 1 shows there is a flash vessel downstream from the cell 42.).
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.).
Claim 7: Nagayasu teaches the organic solvent is an amine solvent ([0063] teaches the bottom uses a basic amine compound).
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: Nagayasu 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 (Figure 1 shows the packings in the absorber. The lean absorbent 103a enters opposite the flue gas 101.).
Claim 10: Nagayasu 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 (Figure 1 shows spray nozzles 23a. It also teaches a demister 23K. This would read upon the limitations.).
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
The 112b rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument #1:
Applicant argues in pages 5-6 that the prior arts do not teach the invention of claim 1. Applicant states that Nagayasu does not teach a polishing circuit and that the references of Thompson and Goetheer do not teach a polishing circuit to release captured CO2, regenerate the inorganic solvent, and return the solvent to the absorber. Applicant also argues that the prior arts do not teach the polishing circuit and a system with two absorption loops.
Examiner response #1:
Examiner argues that the rejection of claim 1 is a 103 rejection in which Nagayasu is stated to not teach the polishing circuit. Nagayasu is shown to teach an inorganic and organic solvent being used (In this case [0063] teaches the bottom uses a basic amine compound which is organic, and the top uses acidic water in [0073] which is inorganic.). The polishing circuit in this case would be attached to the inorganic or top wash. This is not taught by Nagayasu. Thompson and Goetheer both are used to each this aspect as this allows for more CO2 to be removed and processed (Thompson teaches in [0035] a CO2 removal device with a solvent. Thompson teaches the use of an electrochemical cell in figure 1 at the top of the absorber. 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. Goetheer also shows that the solvent is being sent back to the absorber which meets the regeneration limitation.). Applicant appears to be arguing for two absorption loops which is taught by the prior art as Nagayasu teaches one of the loops while the other part is an inorganic solvent treatment and Thompson and Goetheer teach the second loop.
Applicant argument #2:
Applicant also argues in page 6 that the prior arts do not relate to CO2 absorption.
Examiner response #2:
Examiner argues that each of the prior arts deal with removing CO2. The title of Nagayasu is CO2 recovery system and CO2 recovery method, and the abstract teaches a CO2 recovery system. Thompson also teaches in the title capturing CO2 from flue gas and the abstract further states this is an apparatus for capturing CO2 from flue gas with an absorber. Goetheer also teaches in the title reducing CO2 and the abstract teaches the regeneration of CO2 absorbent in an electrochemical cell after an absorber unit. Therefore it is unclear how the prior arts do not relate to CO2 removal.
Applicant argument #3:
Applicant also argues in pages 6-7 that the prior arts do not teach invention 1 and therefore the other claims are allowable.
Examiner response #3:
Examiner has responded to the arguments and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 03/16/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776