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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, lines 18-20 of Remarks, filed March 16th, 2026, with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the objection of claim 16 in the Office Action dated February 12th, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, line 1 - Page 11, line 6 of Remarks, filed March 16th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 9-20 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Due to claim amendments, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the prior art directed to new limitations in the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, claim 12 recites the limitation “producing the CO2 at (i) a same site at which (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and/or (v) are performed”. This is interpreted to mean “producing the CO2 at (i) at a same site at which (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and/or (v) are performed”, despite the fact that the claim includes an option for performing step (i) at a same site as step (i).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 23 and 24 each recite limitations directed to “the non-valent metal particulates”. While there is not explicit antecedent basis in the claims for “the non-valent metal particulates”, there is antecedent basis for “the zero-valent metal particulates” (emphasis added), and it is clear that “the non-valent metal particulates” refers to “the zero-valent metal particulates”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 recites the limitation “wherein (vii) separating the carbonate of the metal from the recovered zero-valent metal particulates comprises attracting the carbonate of the metal from the recovered non-valent metal particulates via one or more magnets” (emphasis added). The instant Specification states, “In embodiments, separating of the carbonate of the metal 33 from the recovered zero-valent metal particulates 27 comprises attracting and separating the zero-valent metal particulate 25/27 from the carbonate of the metal 33 via one or more magnets M” (Specification, [0064], emphasis added). The Specification thus provides written description support for attraction the zero-valent metal particulate via one or more magnets, but does not provide written description support for attracting the carbonate of the metal via one or more magnets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 9-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyrides (WO 2022/259022 A1) in view of House (U.S. 2011/0135551 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Vyrides teaches a method (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 8, line 14 - Page 11, line 11) comprising:
producing an aqueous bicarbonate solution by contacting captured carbon dioxide (CO2) with an aqueous alkaline solution (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 8, lines 14-16);
producing hydrogen gas and a mixture comprising metal carbonate agglomerates by contacting the aqueous bicarbonate solution with zero-valent metal particulates (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 8, line 22 - Vyrides, Page 9, line 1), wherein the zero-valent metal particulates comprise a zero-valent metal (Vyrides, Page 9, line 24, commercial powder Fe), and wherein the metal carbonate agglomerates comprise a carbonate of the metal on a surface of the zero-valent metal particulates (Vyrides, Page 11, lines 1-2, siderite (FeCO3) on the outer surface of Fe0);
separating the hydrogen gas from the mixture (Vyrides, Page 9, lines 17-18, “Final gas composition comprises a Hydrogen (H2) concentration > 98% after a reaction time ranging from 1 to 96 hours.”); and
separating the metal carbonate agglomerates from the mixture to provide a recovered aqueous alkaline solution (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 10, line 21 - Page 11, line 2).
Vyrides does not explicitly teach a step (i) of producing a flue gas, an exhaust gas, a
produced gas, or a combination thereof during an oil or gas operation, or that in step (ii), at least a portion of the captured carbon dioxide is captured from the flue gas, the exhaust gas, the produced gas, or the combination thereof produced during the oil or gas operation. However, House teaches a similar method of capturing carbon dioxide by first contacting carbon dioxide with an aqueous alkaline solution to produce an aqueous bicarbonate solution comprising a step of producing a produced gas during an oil operation (House, [0029]-[0030], where a carbon dioxide point source is an oil field).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, in the method of Vyrides, produced a produced gas during an oil operation and to have produced the aqueous bicarbonate solution by contacting the produced gas with the aqueous alkaline solution, as House teaches that this would be an appropriate venue and method for capturing carbon dioxide, particularly using a sodium hydroxide solution in a manner similar to Vyrides (Vyrides, Fig. 1; House, [0029]-[0030]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to incorporate the method of Vyrides in an oil operation based on both Vyrides’ and House’s teachings that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change and that technologies directed to capturing carbon dioxide from industrial gases may mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide on climate change (Vyrides, Page 1, lines 15-24; House, [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising (vi) contacting at least a portion of the metal carbonate agglomerates with a weak acid to remove the carbonate of the metal from the metal carbonate agglomerates and thus provide recovered zero-valent metal particulates (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 11, lines 3-5, “The solid metal carbonate (115b) can be removed, by a further a [sic] step (103), by which weak acid (116), comprising citric acid or oxalic acid, is used…”); and (vii) separating the carbonate of the metal from the recovered zero-valent metal particulates (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 11, lines 5-7, “…so that the remaining zero valent metal (117) can by recycled in the reaction step (102) and the reaction according to the formula (2) can be initiated again.”).
Regarding claim 11, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 11 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising recycling the recovered zero-valent metal particulates to (iii) for re-use in the producing of the hydrogen gas (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 11, lines 5-7, “…so that the remaining zero valent metal (117) can by recycled in the reaction step (102) and the reaction according to the formula (2) can be initiated again.”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising producing the CO2 in step (i) at a same site at which (i) is performed, as CO2 is produced when producing the flue gas (see rejection of claim 1 above and House, [0030], carbon dioxide point source) as well as the same site at which (ii) is performed (House, [0030], sodium hydroxide is brought to the carbon dioxide point source and reacted with the carbon dioxide of the waste stream). Incorporating House’s teaching of producing a produced gas during an oil operation into Vyrides’ method, as rendered obvious and discussed in claim 1, would necessarily entail producing and capturing CO2 at the same site.
Regarding claim 13, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising recycling the recovered aqueous alkaline solution to (ii) (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 10, lines 21-24, “According to an embodiment of the present method the metal carbonate (115b) obtained in the reaction step (102) is separated obtaining an aqueous alkaline solution, comprising for example NaOH (115a), wherein said aqueous alkaline solution is recycled in the reaction step (101).”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising producing electricity from at least a portion of the hydrogen gas produced at (iii) (Vyrides, Page 10, lines 18-20, “According to a first aspect of the present invention, the hydrogen gas, H2 (114) generated according to the reaction formula (2) can be directly utilized for energy purpose.”; Direct utilization of H2 for energy purposes implies electricity production.).
Regarding claim 17, Vyrides teaches a method (Vyrides, Figs. 1, 7, Page 8, line 14 - Page 11, line 11) comprising:
producing hydrogen gas and a mixture comprising metal carbonate agglomerates by contacting an aqueous bicarbonate solution with zero-valent metal particulates (Vyrides, Fig. 1, Page 8, line 22 - Vyrides, Page 9, line 1), wherein the zero-valent metal particulates comprise a zero-valent metal (Vyrides, Page 9, line 24, commercial powder Fe; Page 7, lines 21-22, Mg(0)), wherein the metal carbonate agglomerates comprise a carbonate of the metal on a surface of the zero-valent metal particulates (Vyrides, Page 11, lines 1-2, siderite (FeCO3) on the outer surface of Fe0; Page 11, line 7, carbonate on the surface of Fe or Mg), wherein the aqueous bicarbonate solution comprises water and a bicarbonate (Vyrides, Page 9, line 1), and wherein the bicarbonate comprises carbon from captured carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from air (Vyrides, Page 7, lines 21-22, solution exposed to air), which differs from “the flue gas, the exhaust gas, the produced gas, or the combination thereof produced during the oil or gas operation”.
Vyrides does not explicitly teach a step of producing a flue gas, an exhaust gas, a
produced gas, or a combination thereof during an oil or gas operation, or that the bicarbonate comprises carbon from captured carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from the flue gas, the exhaust gas, the produced gas, or the combination thereof produced during the oil or gas operation. However, House teaches a similar method of capturing carbon dioxide by first contacting carbon dioxide with an aqueous alkaline solution to produce an aqueous bicarbonate solution comprising a step of producing a produced gas during an oil operation (House, [0029]-[0030], where a carbon dioxide point source is an oil field).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, in the method of Vyrides, produced a produced gas during an oil operation and for the bicarbonate to have comprised carbon from captured carbon dioxide captured from the produced gas, as House teaches that this would be an appropriate venue and method for capturing carbon dioxide, particularly using a sodium hydroxide solution in a manner similar to Vyrides (Vyrides, Fig. 1; House, [0029]-[0030]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to incorporate the method of Vyrides in an oil operation based on both Vyrides’ and House’s teachings that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change and that technologies directed to capturing carbon dioxide from industrial gases may mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide on climate change (Vyrides, Page 1, lines 15-24; House, [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 17 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising utilizing at least a portion of the hydrogen gas to produce electricity (Vyrides, Page 10, lines 18-20, “According to a first aspect of the present invention, the hydrogen gas, H2 (114) generated according to the reaction formula (2) can be directly utilized for energy purpose.”; Direct utilization of H2 for energy purposes implies electricity production.).
Regarding claim 21, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 17 obvious, as discussed above. In the rejection of claim 17 above, the air used by Vyrides (Vyrides, Page 7, lines 21-22) is substituted with the produced gas produced by House (House, [0029]-[0030]). However, the instant claim limitation “wherein the bicarbonate further comprises carbon from captured carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from a landfills gas, air, or a combination thereof” is an embedded product-by-process limitation, as it merely recites overall processes by which the carbon in the captured carbon dioxide has been manipulated, without supplying any positive steps regarding the manipulation process thereof. To the extent that the above-quoted recitation may be considered an embedded product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113, citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), which stated that “If the product in [a] product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In other words, the source of a product cannot patentably distinguish the product from the same product obtained from a different source. See In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969) (stating that "the patentability of a claim to a product does not rest merely on a difference in the method by which that product is made. Rather, it is the product itself which must be new and unobvious.") (emphasis in original). As there is no structural difference between carbon captured from a produced gas and carbon captured from a landfills gas or air, and the claim provides no positive steps regarding said capturing processes, “carbon from captured carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from a landfills gas, air, or a combination thereof” is not interpreted to further limit the claimed method.
Regarding claims 27-28, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above. By the same logic as presented for claim 21 above, the claims do not recite method steps directed to the provenance of the water itself, so the recited limitations “water obtained during the or another oil or gas operation” (claim 27), “produced water produced at the oil or gas operation” (claim 28), and “formation water recovered from a formation during the oil or gas operation” (claim 28) are not interpreted to further limit the claims. The limitation “high total dissolved solids (TDS) water produced during the oil or gas operation” and “a combination thereof” in claim 28 recite a structural feature other than water and are interpreted to further limit the claim, but as the claim contains a list of alternative “waters”, modified Vyrides nonetheless reads on the other recited alternatives whose waters are not structurally differentiated from the water used by Vyrides (Vyrides, Fig. 1).
Claims 14-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyrides (WO 2022/259022 A1) in view of House (U.S. 2011/0135551 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Biogradlija (“Hydrogen to power O&G drilling rigs”, 2022).
Regarding claim 14, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above. In the alternative where directly utilizing H2 for energy purposes (Vyrides, Page 10, lines 18-20) does not mean producing electricity from at least a portion of the hydrogen gas produced at (iii), Biogradlija teaches using hydrogen to power components of an oil operation (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Vyrides by producing electricity from at least a portion of the hydrogen gas produced at (iii), as Biogradlija teaches that generating electricity from hydrogen rather than by diesel generators would eliminate 10,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 3) and would reduce downtime, noise, and vibration at an oil rig site (Biogradlija, Page 3, Paragraph 2). As Vyrides in view of House already renders obvious the application of Vyrides’ method at an oil operation (see rejection of claim 9 above), and an oil rig is a typical oil operation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would view Biogradlija’s oil rig as an appropriate venue for applying Vyrides’ method.
Regarding claim 15, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 14 obvious, as discussed above, further comprising powering one or more pieces of equipment at least in part by the electricity (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 4, running a complete drilling rig). Powering a complete drilling rig with the electricity would realize the advantages of reduced CO2 production, reduced vibration, and reduced noise taught by Biogradlija (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 3; Page 3, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 14 obvious, as discussed above, wherein (ii) is performed at an oil rig (see rejection of claims 9 and 14 above), and wherein electricity is produced from the at least the portion of the hydrogen gas produced at (iii) is performed at an oil rig (see rejection of claim 14 above). Having the oil rig of electricity production be the same oil rig of step (ii), corresponding to carbon dioxide capture, would yield the predictable effect of realizing the advantages of both Vyrides’ carbon capture and Biogradlija’s electricity production without an intermediate transport of hydrogen from one oil rig to another oil rig. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143.B.).
Furthermore, applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143.D.). In the instant case, selecting the same oil rig for both carbon capture and electricity production would predictably decrease the carbon footprint of the oil rig by both directly capturing carbon dioxide produced at the oil rig (Vyrides, Page 1, lines 15-24; House, [0004], [0029-[0030]) and by decreasing the use of diesel generators therein (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 22, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 14 obvious, as discussed above, wherein producing the electricity further comprises producing electricity via one or more fuel cells (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 3). The obviousness of applying Biogradlija’s fuel cells to Vyrides’ method is discussed above in the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyrides (WO 2022/259022 A1) in view of House (U.S. 2011/0135551 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Biogradlija (“Hydrogen to power O&G drilling rigs”, 2022).
Regarding claim 18, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 17 obvious, as discussed above. In the alternative where directly utilizing H2 for energy purposes (Vyrides, Page 10, lines 18-20) does not mean producing electricity from at least a portion of the hydrogen gas, Biogradlija teaches using hydrogen to power components of an oil operation (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraphs 3-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified Vyrides by producing electricity from at least a portion of the hydrogen gas, as Biogradlija teaches that generating electricity from hydrogen rather than by diesel generators would eliminate 10,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 3) and would reduce downtime, noise, and vibration at an oil rig site (Biogradlija, Page 3, Paragraph 2). As Vyrides in view of House already renders obvious the application of Vyrides’ method at an oil operation (see rejection of claim 17 above), and an oil rig is a typical oil operation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would view Biogradlija’s oil rig as an appropriate venue for applying Vyrides’ method.
Regarding claim 19 modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 18 obvious, as discussed above, wherein the captured CO2 is produced at an oil rig (see rejection of claims 17 and 18 above), and wherein the electricity produced from the at least the portion of the hydrogen gas is produced at an oil rig (see rejection of claims 17 and 18 above). Having the oil rig of electricity production be the same oil rig as that corresponding to carbon dioxide capture would yield the predictable effect of realizing the advantages of both Vyrides’ carbon capture and Biogradlija’s electricity production without an intermediate transport of hydrogen from one oil rig to another oil rig. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143.B.). Furthermore, applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143.D.). In the instant case, selecting the same oil rig for both carbon capture and electricity production would predictably decrease the carbon footprint of the oil rig by both directly capturing carbon dioxide produced at the oil rig (Vyrides, Page 1, lines 15-24; House, [0004], [0029-[0030]) and by decreasing the use of diesel generators therein (Biogradlija, Page 2, Paragraph 3).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vyrides (WO 2022/259022 A1) in view of House (U.S. 2011/0135551 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Plaskitt (WO 2006/129262 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 10 obvious, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach that step (vii) of separating the carbonate of the metal from the recovered zero-valent metal particulates comprises
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 23, and 25-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 24 recites potentially allowable subject if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Vyrides (WO 2022/259022 A1), House (U.S. 2011/0135551 A1), Kumar (U.S. 2015/0152784 A1), Lydick (U.S. 2019/0211808 A1), Biogradlija (“Hydrogen to power O&G drilling rigs”, 2022), and Plaskitt (WO 2006/129262 A1) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 23, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 22 obvious, but none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest using a primarily nitrogen-containing stream from the fuel cell as an anaerobic environment for the contacting of the aqueous carbonate solution with the non-valent metal particles.
Regarding claim 24, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 10 obvious, as discussed above, but does not teach or suggest that step (vii) of separating the carbonate of the metal from the recovered zero-valent metal particulates comprises attracting and separating the zero-valent metal particulates from the carbonate of the metal via one or more magnets. While the claim recites “attracting the carbonate of the metal from the recovered non-valent particulates via one or more magnets”, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a)/1st Paragraph, the Specification provides support for attracting and separating the zero-valent metal particulates from the carbonate of the metal via one or more magnets in Paragraph [0064]). Vyrides removes carbonate from the metal surface via a weak acid solution (Vyrides, Page 11, 3-11). While it is known that a magnet can effectively separate iron from a slurry (e.g., Plaskitt, Page 4, lines 16-25), there is no apparent reason why such a step would be necessary or useful in Vyrides’ method.
Regarding claim 25 and its dependent claim 26, modified Vyrides renders the method of claim 9 obvious, as discussed above, but none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest that a certain purity of CO2 is required for Vyrides’ method to function. It would therefore not have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a CO2 purification apparatus to remove one or more impurities from the flue gas, the exhaust gas, the produced gas, or the combination thereof produced at (i).
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 ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736