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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/182025.
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 1-9 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, line 2 recites that the sample holder is “configured” to hold an amine solution. This intended use language does recite the amine solution as an element of the system. Therefore, the recitation of “the amine solution” in claims 1 and 3 lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
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.
1. Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. (“Kinetics of Carbon Dioxide Absorption into Aqueous MDEA Solutions,” Environmental Chemistry and Engineering, 2010) in view of International Patent Application Publication No. WO2013/059750 to Neilson et al. and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0233296 to Novek.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches a system in Fig. I that, as shown, includes a sample holder configured to hold an amine solution, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a heating device, a gas inlet tube and a pressure regulator.
In use, an amine solution in the sample holder was heated to a desired temperature and then gas containing carbon dioxide was added to the sample holder and absorbed into amine solution.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches a thermostating liquid bath in which the sample is placed. (page 3, last line), but does not teach a heat spreader.
Neilson et al. teaches that the use of heat spreaders having copper-containing alloys in conjunction with heating and cooling elements are known to be used to control temperature and provide for thermocycling. [0172]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. to have a heat spreader together with heating and cooling elements as taught by Neilson et al. to control the temperature of the amine solution, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143(I)).
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches stirring to aid in absorption of carbon dioxide into the amine solution. (page 2, third full paragraph), but does not teach bubbling carbon dioxide containing gas beneath the surface of the amine solution.
Novek teaches different ways to contact gases with solutions that absorb gas components, including a bubble column. [0061]
It would have been obvious to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. to contact the carbon dioxide containing gas with the amine solution by bubbling the gas beneath the surface of the amine solution as taught by Novek based on using a known gas/liquid contact method.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches determining absorption rate by pressure differences and testing a batch absorption run (page 6, third paragraph) and that the testing is applicable to separating carbon dioxide from flue gases from industrial sources (page 1 after Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek to apply the combined teaches to monitor carbon dioxide in industrial flue gases and include a separate gas inlet and outlet to the sample holder for control and to prevent cross contamination and to include a carbon dioxide sensor on the outlet of the sample holder for purposes of determining the amount of carbon dioxide after absorption.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the gas flow valve controls a flow rate of a gas flowing through the gas inlet tube.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control a flow rate of gas through the gas inlet tube for purposes of controlling the process.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the heat spreader is configured to dissipate heat from the amine solution.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the heat spreader to dissipate heat from the amine solution as necessary to purposes of controlling the temperature.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 3 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites a second C02 sensor connected to the gas inlet tube.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include carbon dioxide sensors in both the gas inlet and outlet for purposes of determining the amount of carbon dioxide removed.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 4 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites a pressure regulator connected to the gas inlet tube; a filter connected to the gas inlet tube; a mass flow controller connected to the gas inlet tube; a flow meter connected to the gas inlet tube; a pressure meter connected to the gas inlet tube; and a temperature meter connected to the gas inlet tube.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a filter since flue gases are known to contain particulates.
It would have been further obvious to include a conventional pressure regulator connected to the gas inlet tube; a mass flow controller connected to the gas inlet tube; a flow meter connected to the gas inlet tube; a pressure meter connected to the gas inlet tube; and a temperature meter connected to the gas inlet tube for purposes of controlling the overall process.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 5 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites a humidity sensor connected to the gas outlet tube; and a temperature sensor connected to the gas outlet tube.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a humidity and a temperature sensor in the gas outlet for purposes of monitoring process variables/parameters.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 6 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites a gas supply heat exchange duct to heat the heat spreader.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek does not teach a gas supply heat exchange duct to heat the heat spreader.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a gas supply heat exchange duct to capture heat from flue gas and use the captured heat to heat the heat spreader for purposes of conserving heat.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 8 obvious.
IX.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites one or more heat sinks to remove heat from the system.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek does not teach one or more heat sinks to remove heat from the system.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include conventional heat sinks for purposes of removing excess heat from the system.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 9 obvious.
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Narumanchi et al. (“Thermal Interface Materials for Power Electronics Applications,” Conference Paper NEL/CP-540-42972
July 2008).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites a thermal interface grease between the sample holder and the heat spreader.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek does not teach a thermal interface grease between the sample holder and heat spreader.
Narumanchi et al. teaches that thermal grease is well known for use in transferring heat between components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Novek to include a thermal interface grease between the sample holder and heat spreader to transfer and control heat as taught by Narumanchi et al.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al., Novek and Narumanchi et al. renders claim 7 obvious.
3. Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
As noted above, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches a system in Fig. I that, as shown, includes a sample holder configured to hold an amine solution, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a heating device, a gas inlet tube and a pressure regulator.
In use, an amine solution is placed in the sample holder and heated to a desired temperature and then gas containing carbon dioxide was added to the sample holder and absorbed into amine solution.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches a thermostating liquid bath in which the sample is placed. (page 3, last line), but does not teach a heat spreader.
Neilson et al. teaches that the use of heat spreaders having copper-containing alloys in conjunction with heating and cooling elements are known to be used to control temperature and provide for thermocycling. [0172]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. to have a heat spreader as taught by Neilson et al. in which the sample holder is placed to control the temperature of the amine solution, as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. (MPEP 2143(I)).
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches stirring to aid in absorption of carbon dioxide into the amine solution. (page 2, third full paragraph), but does not teach bubbling carbon dioxide containing gas beneath the surface of the amine solution.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches determining absorption rate by pressure differences and testing a batch absorption run (page 6, third paragraph) and that the testing is applicable to separating carbon dioxide from flue gases from industrial sources (page 1 after Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. to apply the combined teaches to monitor carbon dioxide in industrial flue gases and include separate gas inlets and outlets to the sample holder for control and to prevent cross contamination and to include a carbon dioxide sensor on an outlet of the sample holder for purposes of determining the amount of carbon dioxide after absorption.
Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. does not teach thermal cycling the amine solution by alternately heating and cooling the amine solution for fixed periods and a number of times.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art as found on in paragraph [0004] teaches that “One method of carbon capture involves the use of aqueous amine solutions to absorb CO2 from flue gas streams at low temperature and concentration. The solution is then heated, and the absorbed CO2 is released at high concentration suitable for subsequent liquefaction or downstream use.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. to thermally cycle the amine solution by alternately heating and cooling the amine solution for fixed periods and a number of times, in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art to collect data to study repeated absorption and desorption of carbon dioxide into and from the amine solution at different temperature and over time to determine how many times the amine solution can be reused.
I. Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art teaches all the element of claim 10.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 10 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites monitoring a CO2 exhaust temperature, pressure, and relative humidity; and presoaking the amine solution to saturate the amine with CO2.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art it would have been obvious to monitor a CO2 exhaust temperature, pressure, and relative humidity for purposes of monitoring process variables/parameters. Presoaking the amine solution before use would have been obvious at least for purposes of dispersing and priming the amine solution for use.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 11 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 11 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that the thermal cycling is partially actuated by a thermo-electric module.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art it would have been obvious to control the thermal cycling by any convenient means, including a thermos-electric module.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 12 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites selecting an amine for a manufacturing cycle using the calculated parameters.
In Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art it would have been obvious to use an amine that is suitable to use with the industrial flue gases that Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. teaches.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 13 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, as noted above, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites that the amine solution absorbs CO2 during a cooling phase of the thermal cycling, and wherein the amine solution releases CO2 during a heating phase of the thermal cycling.
As noted above Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art teaches that the amine solution absorbs CO2 during a cooling phase of the thermal cycling, and wherein the amine solution releases CO2 during a heating phase of the thermal cycling.
Therefore, Kierzkowska-Pawlak et al. in view of Neilson et al. and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art renders claim 14 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798