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 filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant uses the boiler plate statement “The References Are Non-Analogous and Their Combination Lacks Rationale” and argues “Ding contains no mention, suggestion, or motivation to capture or convert carbon dioxide (C02). In Ding's process, C02 is merely an inert component or a carrier gas, not a target pollutant.” Applicant further argues the secondary Bannister pertains to an entirely different technical field and that Banister merely “mentions in passing that C02 with water can form carbonic acid (para. [0035]). Critically, this statement is made in the context of describing a corrosion problem inherent in oil field operations, not as a teachable method for actively producing carbonic acid as a valuable product in an environmental control system.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the secondary reference was cited to teach the chemistry of carbon dioxide reacting with water. Applicant acknowledges carbon dioxide is present in the flue gas taught by the primary Ding but Applicant erroneously states the carbon dioxide is “merely an inert compound”. The Office disagrees because based on the chemistry taught by Applicant and the secondary Bannister carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Therefore, the rejection is maintained unless Applicant has evidence the carbon dioxide that is present in the flue gas will not react with the water that is sprayed down into the cyclone chamber.
Applicant then argues the proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, using the Applicant's disclosure as a blueprint to retroactively piece together disparate teachings from unrelated arts. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, the primary teaches all the claimed limitation except for the chemical reaction, carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. The secondary was provided to teach the chemical reaction carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid.
Applicant once again uses boiler plate language and states “The Claimed Invention Achieves a New, Non-Obvious, and Synergistic Result”. Applicant states The inventive concept resides in creating a specific "super-heavy centrifugal cryogenic pressure field" within the cyclone separator under the claimed conditions (temperature below 10°C and pressure not less than 0.12 MPa) which is not persuasive because Ding et al. teaches “the compressed air chamber and the cyclone enhancement chamber are provided with one or more tangential through gas pipes, and the pressure of the inner wall of the cyclone enhancement chamber can reach 0.12MPa to 0.25 MPa. The temperature of the cooling liquid in the cooling medium chamber is between 10 ℃ below zero and 10 ℃.” and as stated in the Office action dated 01/13/2026 meets the claimed limitations. As stated supra, carbon dioxide is present in the flue gas taught by Ding et al. and the secondary was cited to teach carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant concludes with the argument that the specific ranges recited in dependent claims 2-4 (e.g., flue gas pressure, air pressure, tangential velocities, cooling medium temperature) are critical for establishing and maintaining the claimed "super-heavy centrifugal cryogenic pressure field" that is essential for achieving the high-efficiency conversion of CO2. Applicant’s arguments is not persuasive because the flue gas pressure and temperature taught by Ding et al. overlaps with Applicant’s claimed pressure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has changed the invention of claims 5-8 from a method to an apparatus. Claims 5-8 are now directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: • the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification • the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter • the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 5-8 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ding et al. (CN112915754; translation provided by Google Patents 01/2026). In view of Bannister et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0151719).
Regarding claim 1, Ding et al. teaches flue gas entry into a cyclone tower which meets the limitation of introducing the industrial flue gas into the upper part of a cyclone separator to create a gas flow that rotates downward along the cyclone wall (Image 1; page 3). Ding et al. teaches a compression gas inlet (5) at the bottom of the cyclone chamber which meets the limitation of simultaneously introducing fresh air into the lower part of the cyclone separator to create an air flow that rotates downward along the cyclone wall (Image 1; page 3). Ding et al. teaches simultaneously arranging flue gas cyclone in the device to increase pressurization and cool the refrigerant chamber and a cyclone chamber which meets the limitation of cooling the cyclone separator to make the industrial flue gas and air react (page 2). Ding et al. teaches temperature of the cooling liquid in the cooling medium chamber is between 10 ℃ below zero and 10 ℃ which meets the limitation under conditions of temperature below 10°C (page 2). Ding et al. teaches the pressure of the inner wall of the cyclone enhancement chamber can reach 0.12MPa to 0.25 which meets the limitation of pressure not less than 0.12MPa (page 2). Ding et al. teaches generation of HNO3 and H2SO4 (page 2). Ding et al. does not teach capturing and converting carbon dioxide in industrial flue gas and to generate a mixed acid containing carbonic acid.
Bannister et al. teaches carbon dioxide may be produced by reforming fuel(s) or other combustible material(s) by pyrolysis in a boiler with a partial recycling of the produced carbon dioxide back into the burner inlet in combination with the reforming of pure oxygen and is called flue gas in some instances (paragraph 103). Bannister et al. teaches CO2 with water (e.g., either water entrained with the CO2 or water present in the reservoir) forms carbonic acid (paragraph 35). It is clear that the carbon dioxide in industrial flue gas taught by Ding et al. would necessarily forms carbonic acid when mixed with water. Furthermore, the temperature and pressure taught by Ding et al. is commensurate with the temperature and pressure claimed by Applicant. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Adjusting pressure is frequently treated as routine optimization of a result-effective variable under MPEP § 2144.05. Ding et al. teaches flue gas rotates at a high speed under the boosting of tangential high-pressure compressed air in the cyclone chamber through the tangential air nozzle (page 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would naturally experiment with pressure levels to find an optimum workable range in a cyclone system because the inner wall pressure is recognized as a variable that directly affects centrifugal force and particle cut-size.
Regarding claim 4, Ding et al. teaches temperature of the cooling liquid in the cooling medium chamber is between 10 ℃ below zero and 10 ℃ which overlaps with using a cooling medium with a temperature ranging from 5°C to -15°C (page 2). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights