Notice of AllowabilityNotice 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0009 of the instant specification, “colling” should read “cooling”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, line 4, “colling” should read “cooling”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims require the determination of parameters including a cooling step among a plurality of cooling steps, temperature, vapor pressure of water, partial pressure of water, and a location where the vapor pressure of the water becomes equal to the partial pressure of the water. These limitations are abstract ideas (mathematical calculations and/or mental processes). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the determining steps are not integrated into an active process step. Further, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978), see MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the process as claimed are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the prior art. For instance, multiple cooling or condensing steps of an input gas flow are common in the art. See US 9005337 B2, US 8430947 B2, US 4799941 A and paragraph 0005 (Figure 1) of the instant specification. See MPEP 2106.04, 2106.04(a)(2).
The Examiner suggests the following to overcome this rejection:
In Claim 3, add the following after “from the gas flow” in line 4: ", and, after determining the cooling step, adjusting the location of the supply of the neutralizing agent based on the determination of the cooling step in which liquid condensate occurs from the gas flow” or the like.
In Claim 4, line 2, replace “from the gas flow comprises” with –from the gas flow further comprises—or the like.
In Claim 4, add the following after “partial pressure of the water” in line 11: “, and adjusting the location of the supply of the neutralizing agent based on the determined location where the vapor pressure of the water becomes equal to the partial pressure of the water” or the like.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 5-11 are allowed.
Claims 3 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: Grill (US 9005337 B2), Latimer et al. (US 8430947 B2), Westermark (US 4799941 A) and Konkol et al. (“Biogas Pollution and Mineral Deposits Formed on the Elements of Landfill Gas Engines”) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
None of the prior art teach or suggest a method of neutralizing condensate from a gas flow subject to a combustion oxygen removal process passing through a number of cooling steps post combustion, the method comprising providing a supply of water to the gas flow prior to a particular cooling step of the number of cooling steps; collecting an aqueous condensate solution from the gas flow prior to the particular cooling step; and providing a supply of a neutralizing agent to the aqueous condensate solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights