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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two serial modules of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 and 14 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 recites “carbon dioxide” and then further recites “CO2”. The limitations are confusing because two different terms are used, where a single term should be used to identify the same feature. Further, the selected term should be used in the dependent claims when referring to the feature.
Claim 1 recites “creating insoluble carbonates”. The limitation is indefinite because it does not define the solvent.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the enzyme carbonic anhydrase". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 and 14 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “adding a promoter”, where the specification does not define what a promoter is. For examination purposed the promoter will be interpreted as NaOH according to the prior art WO2013136310 and Applicant’s ¶16.
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.
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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saunders et al. US 2011/0223650 (hereafter Saunders) and further in view of Constantz US 2018/0280869 (hereafter Constantz).
Regarding claim 1, Saunders teaches a process for separation of carbon dioxide (¶2) from a gaseous stream (¶19) comprising:
passing a continuous flow gaseous stream containing CO2 and CH4 through a contactor module (7 in Fig 1) containing membranes (¶55, ¶69);
adding the enzyme carbonic anhydrase to an absorber liquid to form an absorber liquid solution (¶34-35);
passing the absorber liquid solution through the contactor module by a loop recirculation system (loop comprising reservoir 4 and pump 5 in Figs 1 and 3; ¶58), wherein the absorber liquid solution and the gaseous stream operate in a countercurrent direction (¶81, ¶91, as shown in Figs 1 and 3); and
adjusting the pH of the absorber liquid solution with a NaOH solution, to maintain an environment alkaline when the pH of the absorber liquid solution is less than 9 (¶48 where the pH is between 9 and 9.5 and/or ¶61 where the pH is between 9.2 and 9.5 and/or 9 and 10, and the conditional of the pH less than 9 does not occur),
Saunders does not teach capturing CO2 in the absorber liquid solution and creating insoluble carbonates in the absorber liquid solution during capturing.
Constantz teaches a process for separation of carbon dioxide from a gaseous stream comprising a membrane contactor (¶31), adding the enzyme carbonic anhydrase (¶86), and capturing CO2 in the absorber liquid solution and creating insoluble carbonates in the absorber liquid solution during capturing in order to allow precipitation (¶99, such as magnesium carbonate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process (Fig 1) of Saunders by incorporating the insoluble carbonates (¶99) of Constantz in order to allow precipitation (¶99).
Regarding claim 2, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the gaseous stream is natural gas or biogas (¶19).
Regarding claim 3, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the gaseous stream comprises between 2% and 70% of carbon dioxide (¶19, between 3 and 10%).
Regarding claim 4, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the contactor module comprises two serial modules (7a, 7b in Figs 3; as shown in Figs 3 where gas 9a enters 7a and gas 9b enters 7b).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 14, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the absorber liquid is industrial water (¶63, where industrial water is natural).
Regarding claim 7, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches adding a promoter to the absorber liquid comprising amine, hydroxide, or inorganic carbonate (¶63).
Regarding claim 8, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the absorber liquid solution in step (c) passes in continuous mode (¶32, ¶58).
Regarding claim 9, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the pH is adjusted to between 9 and 10 (¶61).
Saunders does not teach wherein adjusting the pH of the liquid absorber solution comprises adjusting the pH of the liquid absorber solution to the range 9.5 to 12.
MPEP §2144.05 I states that where the prior and claimed ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists to choose the overlapping portion of the ranges.
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 the pH of Saunders (¶61) to be 9.5 to 10 as a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 10, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the membranes of the contactor are chosen from ptfe, pvdf, pdms, pfa, pp or ceramic (¶32).
Regarding claim 11, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches directing the liquid stream containing absorbed CO2 is directed to a second unit (8), for recovery of CO2 in gaseous form (19).
Regarding claim 12, Saunders in view of Constantz further teaches wherein the CO2 recovered in gaseous form is destined to conversion processes of the CO2 recovered in gaseous form into other molecules, or is directed to geological storage (¶72).
Response to Arguments
The following is a response to Applicant’s arguments filed 14 Jan. 2026:
Applicant argues that the objection to the drawings is overcome by amendment.
Examiner disagrees. The claim amendment recites the same feature with different wording, however the feature is not shown. Only a single contact module is shown in the drawings and not the two contact modules as claimed in claim 4.
Applicant argues that the objection to the specification is overcome by amendment.
Examiner agrees and the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Saunders does not teach the insoluble carbonate of claim 1.
Examiner agrees, however the feature is taught by Constantz, as detailed above.
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 STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights