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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-4 in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “further comprising a carbon dioxide processing unit” which is the same as “a carbon dioxide processing unit” of Claim 1. Claim 3 should recite “further comprising a second carbon dioxide processing unit”.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai Shigeru (JP-2021133318 A) in view of Chang et al. (CN-110931762 A) and CHAI et al. (CN-113998908A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ochiai Shigeru reference discloses a carbon dioxide-containing gas processing system comprising:
a carbon dioxide processing unit configured to generate a metal carbonate by causing a carbon dioxide-containing gas and an aqueous dispersion containing a metal hydroxide and acetonitrile to react with each other (Paragraph [0007] – inherently has a carbon dioxide processing unit for contacting aqueous dispersion containing magnesium hydroxide and acetonitrile with a gas containing carbon dioxide to produce a product containing magnesium carbonate);
a separation unit configured to perform solid-liquid separation on a dispersion obtained after the carbon dioxide-containing gas is processed, thereby generating a precipitate containing the metal carbonate and a residual liquid containing acetonitrile (Paragraph [0027] – filtration for recovering the magnesium carbonate); and
heating and graphene generating unit for thermal treated the magnesium carbonate to form mixture of graphene and magnesium oxide and a filtering unit for separating the magnesium-containing liquid (magnesium oxide) from the graphene (Paragraph [0028])
wherein a content of acetonitrile in an aqueous dispersion that contains a metal hydroxide and acetonitrile and is supplied together with the residual liquid to the carbon dioxide processing unit is decided based on an amount of acetonitrile in the residual liquid (Paragraphs [0007], [0011]-0014]).
However, Ochiai Shigeru reference does not disclose a residual liquid supply unit configured to supply the residual liquid to the carbon dioxide processing unit; a heating unit configured to generate carbon dioxide and a metal oxide by thermally decomposing the precipitate; and a graphene generating unit configured to generate graphene by heating the generated carbon dioxide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to return the remained reactant back to the reactor since it was known in the art return/recycle and reuse the remained raw materials in the reactor. Chang et al. reference discloses a furnace for producing crude three-dimensional graphene product by filling the tube furnace with carbon dioxide and heating the tube furnace (Abstract and Description). CHAI et al. reference discloses a complete treatment system comprises a primary calcining device, a carbon dioxide capturing device, a digestion device, a carbonizing and separating device, a pyrolysis device and a secondary calcining device: the primary calcining device comprises a dolomite calcining furnace, a plurality of surrounding plates and an exhaust pipe, between the top part of the surrounding plate and the dolomite calcining furnace and the outer wall of the blanking chamber is surrounded to form an exhaust chamber; the exhaust chamber is connected with the carbon dioxide trapping device through an exhaust pipe; the carbonization separation device comprises a carbonization reaction tank, the air inlet of the carbonization reaction tank is connected with the air outlet of the carbon dioxide trapping device; the pyrolysis device comprises a pyrolysis kettle and a vacuum pump, the vacuum pump maintains the negative pressure state in the pyrolysis kettle (Figure 1, a primary calcining device 1; a digestion device 2; carbonizing separating device 3; a pyrolysis device 4; a secondary calcining device 5; a carbon dioxide capturing device 6; a first air outlet 7; a second air outlet 8; a recovery system 9; a first recycling pipeline 10; a second recycling pipeline 11; circulating water reflux pipeline 12; decomposing mother liquor return conduit 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the furnace for producing graphene product from carbon dioxide of Chang et al. and the pyrolysis device (4) and calcining device (5) for thermal treatment of metal bicarbonate into metal oxide and carbon dioxide of CHAI et al. in place of the heating and graphene generating unit of Ochiai Shigeru since it was known in the art to use two devices or integrated the two devices into one.
Regarding Claim 2, Ochiai Shigeru, Chang et al. and CHAI et al. references discloses the system according to claim 1, further comprising a metal hydroxide generating unit configured to generate a metal hydroxide by causing the metal oxide generated by the heating unit to react with water, wherein the metal hydroxide generating unit includes a metal hydroxide supply unit configured to supply the metal hydroxide to the carbon dioxide processing unit (Ochiai Shigeru – Paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ochiai Shigeru, Chang et al. and CHAI et al. references discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the carbon dioxide-containing gas derives from a natural gas (Ochiai Shigeru – Paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochiai Shigeru (JP-2021133318 A) in view of Chang et al. (CN-110931762 A), CHAI et al. (CN-113998908A) and WANG et al. (CN-218059706 U).
Regarding Claim 3, Ochiai Shigeru, Chang et al. and CHAI et al. references discloses the system according to claim 1 except for a second carbon dioxide processing unit configured to accept a processed gas from the carbon dioxide processing unit, and generate a metal carbonate by causing carbon dioxide remaining in the processed gas and an aqueous dispersion containing a metal hydroxide and acetonitrile to react with each other. WANG et al. reference discloses a carbonizing system comprises a plurality of carbonizing towers and carbon dioxide buffer groove, a plurality of carbonizing towers sequentially connected, the outlet end of the fine groove is connected with the slurry inlet of the first carbonizing tower; the slurry inlet is located on the carbonizing tower upper end the outlet end of the carbon dioxide buffer tank is respectively connected with the air inlet of the plurality of carbonizing towers, the air inlet is located at the lower end of the carbonizing tower; the outlet end of the last carbonization tower is connected with the inlet end of the finished product storage tank (Abstract and Figure 1, numeral 8, 8-5 – CO2 storage tank, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4 – carbonation towers). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more than one carbon dioxide processing unit to continuously react to produce a final product as taught by WANG et al., since WANG et al. states at Abstract that such a modification would provide a whole device in a small space wherein the cost is low and the operation is simple.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY-TRAM NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3167. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 7:00am - 3pm, EST.
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 X 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.
/HUY TRAM NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights