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 – 13, in the reply filed on October 3, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2022-0039284 (hereinafter referred to as KR ‘284) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0275959 to Saito et al. (hereinafter referred to as Saito).
In regard to claim 1, as shown in figures 1 and 2, KR ‘284 discloses a system with a regeneration tower (11) that performs a method of desorbing CO2 from a CO-2-containing liquid solvent. A line (5) provides a liquid solution comprising CO2 at a first temperature and first pressure. As discussed in paragraphs [0003], [0018], [0028], KR ‘284 uses a liquid solution comprising amines as the absorbent. KR ‘284 does not specifically disclose the liquid solution having at least 10 mass% of one or more amines. Saito discloses a similar acid gas removal apparatus that uses an amine solution as the absorbent for the acid gas, such as CO2, as discussed in paragraphs [0031] – [0033]. As discussed in paragraphs [0045] – [0046], the amine concentration is preferred to be high and can be not less than 5% by mass. Further, in paragraph [0105], Saito includes an example where the amine is 33 mass% of the absorbent solution. Therefore, a liquid solution having at least 10 mass% of one or more amines would reasonably be expected to function as the absorbent for CO2.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘284 to use a liquid solution having at least 10 mass% of one or more amines as the absorbent as suggested by Saito as this represents a known range where the amine solution can function to absorb CO-2.
As discussed in paragraphs [0028] – [0030], during the regeneration, the liquid solution is contacted to a porous anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium surface while increasing the temperature using the heat exchanger (10) and reboiler (12). Simultaneously or subsequently, desorbed CO-2 is separated form the liquid solution to perform the regeneration.
In regard to claim 2, KR ‘284 does not specifically disclose the type f amine used. As discussed in paragraph [0033] of Saito, secondary and tertiary amines are known to be used in a solution for absorbing CO-2. Thus, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘284 to use a liquid solution having secondary or tertiary amines as suggested by Saito as both are known to be useful in solutions for absorbing CO2.
In regard to claim 3, KR ‘284 uses the same materials (i.e. porous anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium) and therefore inherently will have the same water contact angle of 12° or less.
In regard to claim 4, as discussed in paragraph [0015] of KR ‘284, the porous anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium surface can have pores with a pore size of 90 nm to 110 nm, which meets the limitation such that at least 80 vol% of the pores are between 20 to 150 nm.
In regard to claim 5, the anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium surface inherently includes cracks or microscale pathways.
In regard to claim 6, as discussed in paragraph [0014] of KR ‘284, the porous anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium surface has a thickness of about 1 to 100 microns, which includes thicknesses of at least about 10 microns.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, the step of contacting in KR ‘284 occurs with the porous anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium surface disposed on a structure packing. A structured packing material can be considered to include a plurality of plates, as broadly recited in the claim.
In regard to claim 9, given the temperature of the contacting step (see paragraph [0028] in KR ‘284) and the temperature of the absorption step (see paragraph [0035] of KR ‘284), the step of contacting the liquid to a porous anodized aluminum or porous anodized titanium surface occurs while increasing the temperature by at least 10°C.
In regard to claim 10, the step of contacting can be considered to occur at an angle in the range of 30 to 60 degrees, as the claim does not specify what the angle is between.
In regard to claim 11, as discussed in paragraphs [0052] – [0055] of KR ‘284, 90% of the CO-2 in the liquid solvent can be removed, which is at least 30%.
In regard to claim 12, KR ‘284 is used as the primary references disclosing the regeneration tower where the contacting step occurs. KR ‘284 does not disclose the speed or flow rate of the liquid during the contacting step. There is no evidence the velocity of the liquid in the contacting step is critical. Predictably, a higher velocity increases the flow rate of the liquid through the regeneration tower, but limit the amount of time it is in the tower in contact with the packing material. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘284 and Saito to choose or optimize the velocity of the liquid in the contacting step to be at least 10 m/s given this provides for both a sufficient flow through the regeneration tower with a long enough residence time for the CO2 to be desorbed.
In regard to claim 13, in paragraphs [0038] and [0040], KR ‘284 discloses performing the contacting step at a higher temperature than 90 C. As discussed in the examples in paragraphs [0052] – [0055], this results in 90% of the CO2 being desorbed. As noted in the comparative example without the porous anodized aluminum surface, the reboiler requires more energy to achieve the same result of 90% of the CO-2 being desorbed. There is no evidence 90% of the CO2 needs to be desorbed for all applications. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a lower temperature in the regeneration would result in less of the CO2 but would require less energy to achieve. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KR ‘284 and Saito to conduct the contacting step at a temperature of 60 to 90 C given a lower amount of CO2 being desorbed is acceptable. Operating in this manner inherently results in at least 30% of the CO2 being desorbed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773