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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Cappello (WO-2021/137044), Caserini et al (“Buffered accelerated weathering of limestone for storing CO2: Chemical background”, Int J Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol 112, (2021), 103517, pp. 1-10 and Supplemental Materials), and Feng et al (“Effect of various factors on the particle size of calcium carbonate formed in a precipitation process”, Materials Science and Engineering: A, Vol 445-446, (2007), pp 170-179) are presently cited for teaching or suggesting all of the limitations of claims 14-18.
Since the current rejections were not necessitated by the amendment, this rejection is Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cappello et al (WO-2021/137044 submitted in the IDS filed 7/26/2023).
First, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a grace period disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor. An applicant may show that a disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) (an affidavit or declaration of attribution). See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982) and MPEP § 717.01(a)(1). Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an unequivocal statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that the inventor or joint inventor (or some combination of named inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982).
Here, the Capello publication which has a publication date of 7/8/2021 is prior to the effective filing date 7/26/2023 contains more than one author that are not listed as a named joint inventor of the instant application, namely, Ross Morrey. Furthermore, the effective filing date is not the foreign priority date 2/18/2022 since a translation of the priority application has not been submitted.
Therefore, Applicant my file a translation of the priority document or a Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 averring that the subject matter of the disclosure originated from Capello with a reasonable explanation of the involvement of Ross Morrey would establish that the subject matter of the disclosure is the inventor’s own work and disqualify the publication as prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Cappello teaches a method for the permanent sequestration of CO2 at sea in the form of bicarbonates: the method comprising the steps of:
arranging an apparatus 10 in accordance with the above description;
supplying the mixer 12 with predetermined flow rates of water, carbonic gas and carbonate so as to obtain a design flow rate of poor mixture 130; conveying the poor mixture 130 into the reactor 14;
conveying the poor mixture 130 through the reactor 14 so that it can be transformed into rich mixture 131 by the reaction CaCO₃+CO₂+H₂O [Wingdings font/0xE0]Ca(HCO₃)₂;
maintaining the mixture inside the reactor for a minimum time Tmin >= 7200s calculated at the design flow rate; and maintaining the mixture inside the reactor 14 in a turbulent regime with Reynolds number Re >4000 calculated at the design flow rate;
defining a desired pH;
supplying the pH correction zone 220 with hydroxide 28;
mixing the ionic mixture 27 with the hydroxide 28 so as to obtain a buffered ionic mixture 29 having the desired pH; and
releasing the buffered ionic mixture 29 from the pH correction zone 220 of the tubular structure 21 to the sea at a depth 65 below the CCD so that it can form the plume 25.
Capello further teaches where calcium hydroxide is used to correct the pH by the equation 2CO2(g) + Ca(OH)2(s) + H2O [Wingdings font/0xE0] Ca2(aq) + 2HCO3 (aq) (see [00146]).
Regarding claim 15, Capello further teaches arranging an apparatus 10 further comprising providing the pH correction reactor with a hydroxide supply means, pH meter, and control system (see [00147]; measuring the pH in the ionic mixture 27 released from dissolution; calculating the correct flow rate of hydroxide 28 to be mixed with the ionic mixture 27 to obtain the buffered ionic mixture 29; commanding the supply means of hydroxide 28 to supply the correct flow rate of hydroxide 28; and releasing the buffered ionic mixture 29 from the pH correction zone 220 of the tubular structure 21 to the sea at a depth 65 below the CCD so that it can form the plume 25 (see [00182]).
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappello as applied to claim 15, and in further view of Caserini et al (“Buffered accelerated weathering of limestone for storing CO2: Chemical background”, Int J Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol 112, (2021), 103517, pp. 1-10 and Supplemental Materials).
As applied to claim 15, Cappello teaches a method for accelerated dissolution of CO2 with buffered pH comprising all of the claimed limitations.
The Caserini publication has a publication date of 11/22/2021 is prior to the effective filing date 7/26/2023 contains more than one author that are not listed as a named joint inventor of the instant application, namely, Caserini, Righi, Raos, Campo, De Marco, Renforth, Varliero, and Grosso. Furthermore, the effective filing date is not the foreign priority date 2/18/2022 since a translation of the priority application has not been submitted.
Therefore, Applicant my file a translation of the priority document or a Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 averring that the subject matter of the disclosure originated from Capello with a reasonable explanation of the involvement of Caserini, Righi, Raos, Campo, De Marco, Renforth, Varliero, and Grosso would establish that the subject matter of the disclosure is the inventor’s own work and disqualify the publication as prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Caserini teaches a process for accelerated weathering of limestone to store CO2 in sea water in the form of bicarbonates wherein the amounts of reactants (water, CO2, and carbonate) are results effective variables on the amount of unreacted CO2 and dissolved CaCO3 for residence times from 60,000 to 120,000s (see Pages 6-7, 4.1. Carbonate dissolution and Supplemental Material, Figure SM.3). Caserini further teaches an example where 1000 kg of Cot, 2000 m3 of seawater, and 1310 kg of micronized CaCO3 (10 µm diameter) are fed to the dissolution reactor (see Page 5, 3.5. Example of BAWL working conditions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to improve upon the known reactant concentrations and residence time to determine optimum or workable range for optimum CO2 storage.
Regarding claim 18, Caserini teaches micronized CaCO3 (see Page 5, 3.5. Example of BAWL working conditions).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappello as applied to claim 15, and in further view of Caserini and Feng et al (“Effect of various factors on the particle size of calcium carbonate formed in a precipitation process”, Materials Science and Engineering: A, Vol 445-446, (2007), pp 170-179).
As applied to claim 15, Cappello teaches a method for accelerated dissolution of CO2 with buffered pH comprising all of the claimed limitations. Cappello further teaches a method where the particle size of the carbonate is from 0.1 µm to 500 µm (see [0050]).
Regarding claim 17, Feng teaches a precipitated calcium carbonate that are superfine and have average particle size less than the typical average particle size of 1 and 3 µm (see Abstract). Caserini teaches a method of buffered accelerated weathering of limestone for storing CO2 where a decreased mean particle size increases CaCO3 dissolution and should be optimized to reduce cost (See Page 7, 5. Discussion, ¶4 and Page 8, 5.2. Preliminary economic evaluation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Cappello where the carbonate is precipitated calcium carbonate as taught by Feng since it is a calcium carbonate with fine particle size that can increase CaCO3 dissolution as suggested by Caserini.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights