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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 12/18/25 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredette et al (US 20170072362; hereinafter Fradette) in view of Kim et al (US 20180185786; hereinafter Kim).
As regarding claim 1, Fredette discloses the claimed invention for a continuous carbon dioxide conversion process comprising: a first process in which carbon dioxide introduced into a first reaction portion is converted into bicarbonate ions through a conversion reaction portion including a liquid, which includes water, and a new liquid is supplied into the first reaction portion; a second process in which the liquid containing the bicarbonate ions, which is introduced into the second reaction portion through the first process, is regenerated into a liquid from which the bicarbonate ions are removed through a liquid regeneration portion ([0062]) in the second reaction portion; and a third process in which the regenerated liquid recovered through the second process is directly or indirectly resupplied to the first reaction portion ([0016], [0045], [0068], claim 1).
Fredette does not disclose the carbonic anhydrase positioned in the vicinity of the surface of the liquid; and a liquid exceeding a predetermined liquid level in the first reaction portion due to the supplied new liquid overflows and is supplied to a second reaction portion. Kim teaches the carbonic anhydrase positioned in the vicinity of the surface of the liquid (121a); and a liquid exceeding a predetermined liquid level in the first reaction portion due to the supplied new liquid overflows (131) and is supplied to a second reaction portion. Both Fredette and Kim are directed to CO2 sorption. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide the carbonic anhydrase positioned in the vicinity of the surface of the liquid; and a liquid exceeding a predetermined liquid level in the first reaction portion due to the supplied new liquid overflows and is supplied to a second reaction portion as taught by Kim in order to enhance interfacial CO2 hydration kinetics, maintain a high absorption driving force through continuous surface renewal, and improve enzyme utilization and operational stability.
As regarding claim 2, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein: the new liquid is supplied from a liquid storage to the first reaction portion; and in the third process, the regenerated liquid is indirectly resupplied by being supplied to the first reaction portion after being supplied to the liquid storage (lean absorption solution 17, [0069] and fig. 2).
As regarding claim 3, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein: in order to control both a flow rate of the new liquid supplied from the liquid storage to the first reaction portion and a flow rate of the liquid supplied from the first reaction portion to the second reaction portion through a single first pump, the liquid overflowing from the first reaction portion and being supplied to the second reaction portion is supplied by natural drainage; and in the third process, the regenerated liquid is supplied to the liquid storage through natural drainage. However, such configuration constitutes a design choice that allows passive maintenance of a predetermined liquid level and reduces mechanical complexity and shear stress relative to multi-pump systems.
Claim 4 is likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those set forth in claim 3 above.
As regarding claim 5, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the carbon dioxide introduced into the first reaction portion is carbon dioxide contained in a flue gas or carbon dioxide separated and refined from a flue gas ([0004], claim 1).
As regarding claim 6, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the carbon dioxide introduced into the first reaction portion has a gas flow in which a residual amount unconverted after being introduced from a portion above the surface of the liquid flows out above the surface of the liquid (Kim - [0014], [0076] figs. 1 and 4).
As regarding claim 7, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein, in order to position the carbonic anhydrase in the vicinity of the liquid surface without being affected by a change in liquid level and prevent loss of the carbonic anhydrase at the time of discharge of the overflowing liquid, the carbonic anhydrase is provided to be fixed to a floating body (Kim – figs. 4-5), and the floating body is provided to not exit the first reaction portion.
As regarding claim 8, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the vicinity of the liquid surface is a liquid region from the surface to a point where a depth is 10 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the vicinity of the liquid surface is a liquid region from the surface to a point where a depth is 10 cm in order to enhance the efficiency of the CO2 conversion process, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As regarding claim 9, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses wherein the conversion reactor with the carbonic anhydrase cross-linked complex has a carbon dioxide conversion efficiency 1.9 times greater than that without the carbonic anhydrase cross-linked complex (Kim – [0146]).
Fredette as modified fails to disclose or suggest determining a flow rate of new liquid supplied to the first reaction portion such that the flow rate exceeds a flow rate at which the value of R, as defined by Equation 1, equal 1, in order to increase a rate of conversion of CO2 to bicarbonate ions in the first reaction portion. Any improvement in CO2 conversion efficiency resulting from operating at such a flow rate would therefore constitute an unexpected result not taught or suggested by Fredette in view of Kim.
As regarding claim 11, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the liquid regeneration portion includes calcium ions (Kim – [0145] and table 1), and by the bicarbonate ions introduced into the liquid regeneration portion being ultimately converted into calcium carbonate through the calcium ions, the bicarbonate ions are removed.
As regarding claim 12, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the second process is run in a batch circulation manner in which a plurality of second reaction portions each having the liquid regeneration portion (claim 1 and fig. 2) containing calcium ions (Kim – [0145]) are sequentially added to the second process, and the second reaction portion that has completed the second process is added to the second process again.
As regarding claim 13, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second reaction portion that has completed the second process further performs: a regenerated liquid discharge process in which the regenerated liquid, excluding a calcium carbonate precipitate, in the second reaction portion is separated and discharged; a precipitate discharge process in which the calcium carbonate precipitate is discharged from the second reaction portion from which the liquid has been discharged; and a selective regenerated liquid processing process in which, as a result of measuring a concentration of calcium ions in the regenerated liquid, the regenerated liquid is supplied to another second reaction portion, which is in a state in which both the liquid and the precipitate have been discharged, and then added to the second process again in a case in which the calcium ions are contained at a predetermined concentration or higher, or the regenerated liquid is added to the third process in a case in which the calcium ions are contained at a concentration lower than the predetermined concentration.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide such processes through routine design modifications in view of Fredette’s disclosure of withdrawing regenerated absorption solution from a desorption unit and recycling at least a portion thereof to an absorption unit (claim 1), and Kim’s disclosure of extracting a reaction solution and reacting the solution with calcium chloride to precipitate a carbonate ([0145]), because combining known liquid withdrawal, precipitation, and recycling techniques to manage regenerated solution composition would have yielded no more than predictable results consistent with the rationale set forth in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc..
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredette et al (US 20170072362; hereinafter Fradette) in view of Kim et al (US 20180185786; hereinafter Kim), as applied supra and further in view of Little et al (US 20210113959; hereinafter Little).
As regarding claim 10, Fredette as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Fredette as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein, in order to disperse the bicarbonate ions obtained by conversion in the first process, the liquid in the first reaction portion is stirred in the first process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein, in order to disperse the bicarbonate ions obtained by conversion in the first process, the liquid in the first reaction portion is stirred in the first process in order to enhance CO2 conversion process efficiency, since it was known in the art as shown in Little ([0005] and [0098]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 L. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773