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 .
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 1-10 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).
Regarding claim 5, Ding et al. teaches flue gas cavity, refrigerant cavity and swirl chamber, whirlwind reinforcing tower is equipped with compressed air cavity which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a shell with a cyclone separator arranged inside, and the bottom of the cyclone separator is connected to the bottom of the shell; a cavity is formed between the cyclone separator and the shell; a sealing baffle is arranged in the cavity; the sealing baffle is sleeved on the cyclone separator and connected to the inner wall of the shell; the sealing baffle divides the cavity into a first cavity and a second cavity, wherein the first cavity is located above the second cavity; a cooling cavity is provided on the side wall of the cyclone separator (Fig. 1; page 2). Ding et al. teaches flue gas entry, flue gas cavity and compressed air cavity, compressed air tangential through tuber pipe which meets the limitation a first injection module and a second injection module are also provided on the side wall of the cyclone separator, wherein the first injection module is located in the first cavity, and the second injection module is located in the second cavity (Fig. 1; page 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ding et al. teaches flue gas entry, flue gas cavity and compressed air cavity, compressed air tangential through tuber pipe which meets the limitation the first injection module comprises multiple first air jet nozzles, and the second injection module comprises multiple second air jet nozzles, wherein the first air jet nozzles and the second air jet nozzles are both arranged through the side wall of the cyclone separator; the inlet ends of the first air jet nozzles and the second air jet nozzles are located inside the cavity, and the outlet ends are located inside the cyclone separator and positioned lower than the inlet ends (Fig. 1; page 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ding et al. teaches the cyclone separator comprises a cylindrical section and a conical section, wherein the larger end of the conical section is connected to the end of the cylindrical section, while the smaller end of the conical section is connected to the bottom of the shell and in communication with the outside; the sealing baffle is positioned between the cylindrical section and the conical section, with the cylindrical section located inside the first cavity and the conical section located inside the second cavity (Fig. 1; page 2).
Regarding claim 8, Ding et al. teaches refrigerating machine is adopted to provide refrigerant liquid for a refrigerant cavity which meets the limitation a circulating cooling device, which is provided with an outlet and an inlet; the outlet is connected to the bottom of the cooling cavity via a pipeline, while the inlet is connected to the top of the cooling cavity via a pipeline (Fig. 1; page 2).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Ding et al. teaches industrial flue gas treatment which can be applied industrial processes that produce SOx, NOx, and/or CO2 (page 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-10 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.
Claims 5-8 recite both an apparatus and method of using the apparatus. Per §2173.05(p) a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claims 9 and 10 are use claims which do no recite positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Per §2173.05(q) attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Conclusion
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 01/08/2025