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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/132,523 filed on 10 April 2023. Claims 1-42 are currently pending in this application.
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 1-42 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 is indefinite because the limitation claiming, “the remaining toxic gas” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 2-21 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 is considered indefinite because the limitation claiming “comprises metallic or oxides of Co, Fe, Co/Fe, Ni, Co/Mo, Pt, W” is unclear. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted to say ““comprises metallic oxides of Co, Fe, Co/Fe, Ni, Co/Mo, Pt, or W”. Further, the limitation claiming, “supported over MgO, CaCO3, CaO, graphitic nanostructures, SiO2” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the support is one of these compositions, or a combination of all of these compositions. For the purpose of examination, this is interpreted to read, “supported over MgO, CaCO3, CaO, graphitic nanostructures, or SiO2”. Lastly, the limitation claiming, “with various compositions and ratios, wherein the ratios range from 0.001 to 99 wt.%” is indefinite because it is unclear how a single catalyst can have various compositions and ratios. Further, it is unclear which components the ratio is referencing. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is being interpreted to read, “wherein the ratio of the active component to the support ranges from 0.001 to 99 wt.%”.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the term “the derivatives” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is indefinite by virtue of its dependence on claim 9. Additionally, the limitation claiming “… amine groups pyridinic, imidazole, and/or with…” is unclear, as pyridinic and imidazole are not amine groups. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted to read, “…primary and secondary amine groups and/or pyridinic, imidazole, and/or with zinc oxide (ZnO), aluminum oxide (A1203) nanostructures, CaO, CaCO3, MgO, Ti2 and derivatives, SiO2, or zeolites.”
Claims 11-13 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 9.
Claim 18 is indefinite because the term “high surface area” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high surface area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 22 is indefinite because the limitation claiming, “the remaining toxic gas” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 23-42 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 22.
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 1-2, 8, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Mahecha discloses an apparatus for converting a toxic gas to benign substances (a process for cleaning process gas… to produce a tail gas substantially free of these pollutants; see Abstract), comprising: a housing (housing; see Col. 23 Line 20) characterized with multi-stages (stages b-h; see Col. 9 Line 60 – Col. 10 Line 14) including a first stage, a second stage, a third stage and a fourth stage coupled to one another in sequence (stages b-h; see Col. 9 Line 60 – Col. 10 Line 14), wherein the first stage comprises a catalytic system (sulfur oxides oxidation catalyst; see Col. 9 Line 66) configured to convert the toxic gas into byproducts (oxidizing sulfur oxides in the process gas using a SOx oxidation catalyst; see Col. 4 Lines 4-5); the second stage comprises a filter adapted to capture the remaining toxic gas (“particulate matter” includes a wide range of industrial particulate matter as well of the combustible carbonaceous fractions… which stay in the gas phase; see Col. 12 Lines 34-40) and the byproducts (“particulate matter removal stage”; see Col. 10 Line 1; and “PM removal stage comprises one or more particulate filters”; see Col. 7 Lines 46-47) the third stage comprises at least one oxidizer to oxidize the remaining toxic gas to benign substances (nitrogen oxides oxidation catalyst downstream of the PM removal stage; see Col. 10 Lines 3-5); and the fourth stage comprises a scrubber configured to remove products generated as part of the first and third stages (an absorber/condenser downstream for removing oxidation products as sulfuric acid and nitric acid; see Col. 10 Lines 6-9).
The limitations claiming that the benign substances produced include CO2 and water, and that volatile organic compounds or water molecules are generated in the first and third stages, are consequential limitations, or intended results of operation, that occur depending on the content of the fluid being processed. These limitations do not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely set forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Mahecha does not explicitly teach the filter being carbon fiber. However, Jinming discloses the use of a carbonaceous fibrous material adapted to filter a gas (the primary filtration unit is made of activated carbon fiber cotton; see [0010]).
Mahecha and Jinming are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahecha by incorporating the teachings of Jinming and including a carbon fiber filter. Doing so would have enabled removal of large pollutant particles and most harmful elements from the gas (see Jinming [0026]).
Regarding Claim 2, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the catalytic system comprises metal catalysts, metal oxide catalysts, supported on metal oxides, zeolites, graphitic materials, Lewis acidic catalysts, bases such as amines, halides, acetates, oxides, nitrites, ammonium, and/or phosphonium (catalyst comprises a V2O5 based catalyst; see Col. 4 Lines 7-8).
Regarding Claim 8, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 2. The limitation claiming, “wherein the first stage further comprises carbon dioxide (CO2) being introduced into the first stage at a temperature ranging from room temperature to over 100 °C” is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operation. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Regarding Claim 18, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Mahecha further discloses wherein the scrubber comprises high surface area activated charcoal or graphitic structures, carbon nanostructures of various shapes and sizes (graphene, fibers, nanotubes, plates), porous structures decorated with such materials, graphite, cellulose, Chitosan, starch, Xanthan, alginate, polyvinyl alcohol, and/or polyurethanes (absorber made of one or more of the following: graphite, silicon carbide, silicon iron, boron silicate glass, glass, glass lined steel, tantalum-lined steel, PTFE lined steel, glass fibers, PFA, fluoro-polymer lining, and acid resistant bricks; see Col. 6 Lines 26-30).
Regarding Claim 21, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the toxic gas comprises NOx or SOx (removing sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from process gas (see Col. 3 Lines 65-67). Additionally, this limitation is a functional limitation that does not further limit the structure of the apparatus, but merely sets forth a manner of operating the apparatus. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A) and Wang (CN-101143321-B).
Regarding Claim 3, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 2.
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach the specifically claimed catalyst composition. However, Wang discloses a catalytic system comprising metallic oxides of Co, Fe, Co/Fe, Ni, Co/Mo, Pt, W, (The active component of the metal oxide catalyst is one of cobalt, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, tin, and cerium; see [0016]) supported over MgO, CaCO3, CaO, graphitic nanostructures, SiO2 (The carrier can be… alumina, silicon dioxide, molecular sieves, honeycomb ceramics, wire mesh, cobalt oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, copper oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, cerium oxide, etc.; see [0015]), wherein the ratio of the active component to the support ranges from 0.001 to 99 wt.% (the loading of the active component is 5-80% of the weight conversion value of the metal element; see [0009]).
Mahecha and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas purification via oxidation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose a metal oxide catalyst on one of the claimed supports because it does not require the use of precious metals and is low in cost (see Wang [0020]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 2. Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach powder catalysts. However, Wang discloses wherein the catalytic system is in the form of powders (The carrier can be various commercially available or self-made powdered…; see [0015]). The limitation claiming “with an average size ranging from nanometers to centimeters” is a result-effective variable affecting catalytic performance and flow characteristics. The claimed range of nanometers to centimeters encompasses essentially all conventional powder sizes and does not reflect criticality. Therefore, this would have been an obvious choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Further, using a catalyst in the form of a powder also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it contributes to a low activation temperature and good catalytic activity (see Wang [0022]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), and Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”.
Regarding Claim 5, Mahecha, Jinming, and Wang together disclose the apparatus of claim 4. Wang further discloses wherein the catalytic system comprises an active porous (porosity is inevitable in a fixed bed of catalytic powder) catalytic bed (The catalyst was evaluated for its performance in a fixed-bed reactor; see [0018]) formed of a metal oxide (The active component of the metal oxide catalyst is one of cobalt, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, tin, and cerium; see [0016]). These modifications would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow for catalytic oxidation (see Wang [0018]) and is low cost (see Wang [0020]).
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach MgO support. However, Rashidi discloses a nanoscale catalyst supported on magnesia (MgO) (catalysts comprise a nanoporous MgO support; see [0002]). Mahecha and Rashidi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of catalytic gas purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MgO as a support, especially because doing so has the advantage of being easily removable from the product (see Rashidi [0007]). Using nanoporous support also makes it possible to increase the product yield (see Rashidi [0015]). Iizuka, also analogous due to being in the field of gas purification, discloses use of a nanocluster for catalysts (see Col. 4 Line 57). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because formation of a nanocluster results in the expression of specific catalytic activity (see Iizuka, Col. 7 Lines 57-58).
Regarding Claim 6, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 5. Wang further discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises cobalt tetraoxide (Co3O4) (“metal oxide catalyst is one of cobalt”; see [0016] and “The precipitant used is Na2Co3”; see [0017]). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that obtaining a metal oxide catalyst by using Na-2Co3 results in CoO, but more commonly Co3O4. Using this composition as the metal oxide catalyst would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it is low in cost (see Wang [0020]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mahecha, Jinming, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the apparatus of claim 6. Wang further discloses wherein a ratio of Co304 to MgO is in a range from 0.01 wt% to 99.99 wt% (loading of the active component is 5-80% of the weight conversion value of the metal element; see [0009]). When mathematically converting the ratio discloses by Wang to describe a ratio of Co304 to MgO, the resulting ratio encompasses a majority of the claimed ratio. MPEP 2144.05.I states that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The disclosed ratio also has the added benefit of contributing to a low activation temperature and good catalytic activity.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), and Gebald et al. (US-20120076711-A1), hereinafter “Gebald”.
Regarding Claim 9, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach amine functionalization. However, Gebald discloses carbonaceous fibrous material decorated with amine functionalization (The amine modification of the fiber filaments can be achieved… carbon fibers can be air oxidized…; see [0055]) configured to trap toxic gas through surface bonding (CO2 transport to the amine functionalized surface, hence, the more CO2 can be captured; see [0046]).
Mahecha and Gebald are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to decorate the carbonaceous fibrous material with amine functionalization. Doing so would allow a design for more compact energy efficient systems (see Gebald [0046]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mahecha, Jinming, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 9. Gebald further discloses wherein the carbonaceous fibrous material is decorated with amine NH2 functional chemical groups including primary and secondary amine groups (composed of primary, secondary, and tertiary amines; see [0137]) and/or pyridinic or imidazole, and/or with zinc oxide (ZnO) aluminum oxide (A1203) nanostructures, CaO, CaCO3, MgO, Ti2 and derivatives, SiO2, or zeolites. Including primary and secondary amine groups would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so increases amine efficiency (see Gebald [0138]).
Regarding Claim 11, Mahecha, Jinming, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 10. Gebald further discloses wherein the carbonaceous fibrous material comprises carbon nanofibers (the fibres are nanofibrillated; see [0024]) having a surface area in a range of 1-200 m2/g, preferably in a range of 40-100 m2/g (featuring a high surface area in the range of 1-100 m2/g; see [0036]). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow for efficient CO2 adsorption on the surface of the fibers (see Gebald [0036).
Regarding Claim 12, Mahecha, Jinming, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 11. Mahecha further discloses wherein the second stage further comprises catalysts (one or more particulate filters comprise a catalytic filter; see Col. 7 Lines 50-51) including alumina or zinc salts, metal catalysts (catalytic filter with PGM loading; see Col. 7 Line 51), metal oxide catalysts, supported on metal oxides, zeolites, graphitic materials, Lewis acids catalysts, bases such as amines, halides, acetates, oxides, nitrites, ammonium, and/or phosphonium.
Regarding Claim 13, Mahecha, Jinming, and Gebald together disclose the apparatus of claim 11. Mahecha further discloses wherein the second stage further comprises inorganic porous systems that can be functionalized with chemical group functionalities (PM removal is performed by one or more particulate filters, for example, monolith-type diesel particulate filters; see Col. 13 Lines 52-54).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), and Hoag et al. (US-6474908-B1), hereinafter “Hoag”.
Regarding Claim 14, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach the use of persulfate or perborate. However, Hoag discloses a solid oxidizer including persulphate (oxidized by ammonium persulfate; see Col. 3 Line 11).
Mahecha and Hoag are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of oxidative purification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mahecha by incorporating the teachings of Hoag and using a solid oxidizer including persulphate. Doing so would enable oxidation of VOCs (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 38-39)
Regarding Claim 15, Mahecha, Jinming, and Hoag together disclose the apparatus of claim 14. Hoag further discloses oxidative metal salts (ferrous sulfate may be injected to add iron cations; see Col. 11 Lines 25-26) adapted to induce Fenton type chemistry along with the solid oxidizer (The metal cations catalytically decompose the persulfate to form sulfate free radicals; see Col. 4 Lines 37-39). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because adding metal salts enables decomposition of the persulfate (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 37-39).
Regarding Claim 16, Mahecha, Jinming, and Hoag together disclose the apparatus of claim 15. Hoag further discloses wherein the metal salts includes cobalt oxide or iron oxide or iron sulfate particles (ferrous sulfate may be injected to add iron cations; see Col. 11 Lines 25-26). Using iron sulfate would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it decomposes into iron cations (see Hoag, Col. 11 Lines 26-27).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Hoag et al. (US-6474908-B1), hereinafter “Hoag”, and Wang (CN-101143321-B).
Regarding Claim 17, Mahecha, Jinming, and Hoag together disclose the apparatus of claim 15. Modified Mahecha does not explicitly teach a porous bed. However, Wang discloses the use of a porous particulate bed in an oxidation process (the catalyst prepared in this invention was evaluated for its performance in a fixed-bed reactor for the catalytic oxidation of CO; see [0018]), and as explained in the rejections of claims 14-15, Hoag discloses the use an oxidizer and metal salt in an oxidation process. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the porous particulate bed of Wang because it would allow for evaluation of performance in an oxidation reaction (see Wang [0018]), and to incorporate the oxidizer and metal salt of Hoag because it would enable oxidation of VOCs (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 38-39) and enable decomposition of the persulfate (see Hoag, Col. 4 Lines 37-39), respectively. When modifying Mahecha with the teachings of Wang and Hoag, it would naturally follow that the solid oxidizer and metal salt of Hoag would be incorporated into the bed of Wang as the oxidation stage in Mahecha’s disclosure because all of these teachings relate to an oxidation process.
Claims 19-20, 22-23, 29, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A) and Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”.
Regarding Claim 19, Mahecha and Jinming together disclose the apparatus of claim 18. Mahecha does not explicitly teach adsorbing media. However, Zoican discloses a scrubber (activated carbon scrubbers with the novel sorbent of this invention; see Col. 3 Lines 43-44) comprising adsorbing media that capture the remaining toxic gas and the derivatives (sorbent bed where in adsorption mode a flow of gaseous feed stream containing at least one VOC in an initial concentration is contacted with the sorbent for a time during which an effluent stream exiting the sorbent bed contains an acceptably reduced concentration of the VOC; see Col. 10 Lines 50-55) and can be functionalized with various functional chemical groups (nitrogen and oxygen-functionalized graphene; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65).
Mahecha and Zoican are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas treatment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the scrubber of Mahecha, an absorber, with the scrubber of Zoican, an adsorber containing an adsorbing media that can be functionalized. Doing so would enable an excellent degree of regenerability of the sorbent and would save energy by minimizing a need for thermal regeneration (see Zoican, Col. 3 Lines 47-54).
Regarding Claim 20, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose claim 19. Zoican further discloses wherein the adsorbing media comprises graphitic materials (nitrogen and oxygen-functionalized graphene; see Col. 4 Lines 64-65). Doing so would enable an excellent degree of regenerability of the sorbent and would save energy by minimizing a need for thermal regeneration (see Zoican, Col. 3 Lines 47-54).
Regarding Claim 22, Mahecha discloses a method for converting a toxic gas into benign substances (a process for cleaning process gas… to produce a tail gas substantially free of these pollutants; see Abstract), comprising: catalytically converting the toxic gas into byproducts in a first stage (oxidizing sulfur oxides in the process gas using a SOx oxidation catalyst; see Col. 4 Lines 4-5); capturing the remaining toxic gas (“particulate matter” includes a wide range of industrial particulate matter as well of the combustible carbonaceous fractions… which stay in the gas phase; see Col. 12 Lines 34-40) and the byproducts in a second stage (“particulate matter removal stage”; see Col. 10 Line 1; and “PM removal stage comprises one or more particulate filters”; see Col. 7 Lines 46-47); oxidizing the remaining toxic gas (nitrogen oxides oxidation catalyst downstream of the PM removal stage; see Col. 10 Lines 3-5) in a third stage; and removing, from a fourth stage, all of volatile organic compounds or water molecules generated as part of the first and third stages (“an absorber/condenser downstream for removing oxidation products as sulfuric acid and nitric acid”; see Col. 10 Lines 6-9).
Mahecha does not explicitly teach the fourth stage as removing VOCs. However, Zoican discloses a scrubbing stage, analogous to Mahecha’s scrubbing stage which includes the absorber/condenser previously mentioned, in which volatile organic compounds are removed from a gaseous stream (see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fourth stage, or the scrubbing stage, of Mahecha to include the scrubbing method taught by Zoican in which VOCs are removed. Doing so would reduce pollutants, and contaminants that are hazardous or otherwise harmful to humans (see Zoican, Col. 6 Lines 27-30).
Mahecha does not explicitly teach the benign substances from the third stage including CO2 and water. However, Jinming discloses oxidation of waste gas, which includes benzene, toluene, xylene, formaldehyde, ethyl acetate, ethane, acetone, urethane, etc. (see [0026]), which transform into benign substances that include CO2 and water (see [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the process of Mahecha by incorporating the use of waste gas as a feed stream, as taught by Jinming because it is inevitably emitted during industrial production and contains a large number of various harmful gases (see Jinming [0005]).
Regarding Claim 23, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1 and 2. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1-2 as the rejection of claim 23 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 29, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. Mahecha further discloses introducing carbon dioxide (CO2) into the first stage (GTP as described herin can be applied to mobile as well as stationary applications, such as industrial process gas and exhaust gas produced from diesel engines; see Col. 13 Lines 29-32) at a temperature ranging from room temperature to over 100 °C (process gas temperature is above the minimum operating temperature of the catalyst… minimum operating temperature is approximately 370o C; see Col. 15 Lines 20-28).
Regarding Claim 39, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 18. Please refer to the rejection of claim 18 as the rejection of claim 39 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 40, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 39. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 19. Please refer to the rejection of claim 19 as the rejection of claim 40 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 41, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 40. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 20. Please refer to the rejection of claim 20 as the rejection of claim 41 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 42, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 21. Please refer to the rejection of claim 21 as the rejection of claim 42 follows the same rationale.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”, and Wang (CN-101143321-B).
Regarding Claim 24, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 23. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as the rejection of claim 24 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 25, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, and Wang together disclose the method of claim 24. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 4. Please refer to the rejection of claim 4 as the rejection of claim 25 follows the same rationale.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Wang (CN-101143321-B), Rashidi (EP-1782884-A1), Iizuka et al. (US-8252257-B2), hereinafter “Iizuka”, and Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”.
Regarding Claim 26, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, and Wang together disclose the method of claim 25. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 5. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as the rejection of claim 26 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 27, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the method of claim 26. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 6. Please refer to the rejection of claim 6 as the rejection of claim 26 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 28, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, Wang, Rashidi, and Iizuka together disclose the method of claim 27. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 7. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 as the rejection of claim 26 follows the same rationale.
Claims 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”, and Gebald et al. (US-20120076711-A1), hereinafter “Gebald”.
Regarding Claim 30, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 9. Please refer to the rejection of claim 9 as the rejection of claim 30 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 31, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 30. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 10. Please refer to the rejection of claim 10 as the rejection of claim 31 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 32, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 31. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 11. Please refer to the rejection of claim 11 as the rejection of claim 32 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 33, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 32. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 12. Please refer to the rejection of claim 12 as the rejection of claim 33 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 34, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican and Gebald together disclose the method of claim 32. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 13. Please refer to the rejection of claim 13 as the rejection of claim 34 follows the same rationale.
Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”, and Hoag et al. (US-6474908-B1), hereinafter “Hoag”.
Regarding Claim 35, Mahecha, Jinming, and Zoican together disclose the method of claim 22. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 14. Please refer to the rejection of claim 14 as the rejection of claim 35 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 36, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, and Hoag together disclose the method of claim 35. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 15. Please refer to the rejection of claim 15 as the rejection of claim 36 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 37, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, and Hoag together disclose the method of claim 36. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 16. Please refer to the rejection of claim 16 as the rejection of claim 37 follows the same rationale.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahecha-Botero et al. (US-10350543-B2), hereinafter “Mahecha”, in view of Jinming (CN-110882624-A), Zoican-Loebick (US-10464044-B1), hereinafter “Zoican”, Hoag et al. (US-6474908-B1), hereinafter “Hoag”, and Wang (CN-101143321-B).
Regarding Claim 38, Mahecha, Jinming, Zoican, and Hoag together disclose the method of claim 36. The remaining limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 17. Please refer to the rejection of claim 17 as the rejection of claim 38 follows the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights