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 .
This is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 24-46 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 32-35, 37, and 40-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 May 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/18/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because non-patent literature documents 4 and 8 do not include an English translation. See 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2),(3). The IDS has otherwise been considered, but documents 4 and 8 have not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended Abstract and specification are objected to because the amendments are not presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies by use of optical character recognition, as shown in this sample:
PNG
media_image1.png
32
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is respectfully advised that papers which will become part of the record must use permanent dark ink or its equivalent. See MPEP 714.07 and 37 CFR 1.52 (a)(1)(iv,v). Applicant is respectfully advised that such issues may be caused by submitting documents depicting tracked changes that are illustrated in a different color (e.g., red) or contrast. Changing the "track changes" settings such that the color and contrast of all claim text is the same may yield acceptable clarity and contrast.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 24, 26, 27, 31, 36, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 24 and 27: Line 3 of claim 1 recites, “at least one electrolysis unit,” but subsequent references to this claim element recite, “the electrolysis unit.” Applicant is respectfully advised to amend each instance of “the electrolysis unit” to “the at least one electrolysis unit” for consistency of terminology in the claims. Applicant is respectfully advised to amend each instance of “the carbon dioxide sorption unit” to “the at least one carbon dioxide sorption unit” (line 9). Applicant is respectfully advised to amend “the oxygen outlet” and “the air outlet” (line 16) to include “at least one” in each case (lines 14, 15).
Claim 26: Applicant is respectfully advised to amend “the power generating unit” to “the at least one power generating unit” (claim 1, line 18).
Claims 31, 36, and 37: Applicant is respectfully advised to amend “the water supply line” to “the at least one water supply line.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 36 is 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 36: The claim recites, “the water return line.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, noting that the claim does not depend from claim 29. For the purposes of examination only, claim 36 will be interpreted as depending from claim 29.
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.
Claims 24, 26-27, 30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes (US 9,221,685 B2) in view of Yonezawa et al. (US 2019/0127867 A1) and Berdellé (DE102020002543A1), and as evidenced by Berdellé and Yonezawa.
Regarding claim 24, Noyes discloses system 100 for capturing carbon oxides such as carbon dioxide from a source gas stream 102 (Fig. 3; col. 2, line 17; col. 6, lines 13-15) sourced from the atmosphere (col. 6, lines 60-62) (i.e., a plant adapted for reduction of carbon dioxide content of atmospheric air) comprising:
implicitly, an electrolyzer for converting water 208 to hydrogen and oxygen (col. 12, lines 47-48: “may be electrolyzed”), the water implicitly provided by a pipeline for a water stream 115 (col. 7, lines 29-32) (i.e., an electrolysis unit configured for oxygen production; a water quantity; the electrolysis unit adapted to decompose the received water quantity by electrolysis into an oxygen partial quantity and a hydrogen partial quantity; the electrolysis unit connected to a water supply line to receive a water quantity);
a catalytic converter 112 that receives a reducing gas 110 via an implicit pipeline to produce a solid carbon product 114 (col. 6, lines 20-23), wherein the reducing gas includes hydrogen from the electrolyzer (col. 7, lines 31-32; col. 8, lines 10-11) (i.e., implicitly, a hydrogen transport device adapted to connect the electrolysis unit to a carbonation unit for carbon synthesis);
a carbon oxide concentrator 104 that receives the source gas stream 102 (col. 6, lines 16-17) that may be an amine absorption separation system or a pressure swing absorption system (col. 7, lines 5-10) with an inlet (Fig. 3) for receiving the source gas from the atmosphere (col. 6, lines 60-62) (i.e., a carbon dioxide sorption unit having at least one air inlet for supplying ambient air of an outside atmosphere surrounding the plant, the carbon dioxide sorption unit configured to extract a carbon dioxide quantity from the ambient air); and
implicitly, a pipeline (Fig. 3) for conveying a process gas stream 106 from the carbon oxide concentrator 104 to the catalytic converter 112 (col. 6, lines 17-20), the process gas including CO2 at a selected purity (col. 7, lines 1-2, 13-17) (i.e., implicitly, a carbon dioxide transport device adapted to connect the carbon dioxide sorption unit to the carbonation unit),
wherein the carbon oxide concentrator 104 has an outlet for purified discharge gases 108 reduced in carbon oxides vented to the atmosphere (col. 7, lines 1-3, 11-21) (i.e., wherein the carbon dioxide sorption unit has an air outlet for emission of cleaned ambient air, wherein the air outlet is open into the outside atmosphere), and means for the removal of the solid carbon product 114 (Fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18-20) (i.e., wherein the carbonation unit has a carbon outlet for removal of carbon).
Noyes does not explicitly disclose (i) an electrolysis unit has at least one oxygen outlet for emission of the oxygen partial quantity that is open into the outside atmosphere; or (ii) at least one power generating unit for self-sufficient power supply of the plant using one or more regenerative energy sources for power generation.
Regarding (i), Yonezawa discloses an electrolytic system 1000 for generating hydrogen (Abstract; Fig. 2; [0031]). Yonezawa teaches an oxygen pipe 201 for releasing generated oxygen to the atmosphere or for storage ([0053]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noyes by providing (i) an electrolysis unit has at least one oxygen outlet for emission of the oxygen partial quantity that is open into the outside atmosphere as taught by Yonezawa because (1) Noyes teaches an electrolyzer that produces oxygen (Noyes, col. 12, lines 47-48) but does not state where the oxygen should be directed; and (2) oxygen from an electrolyzer can be released to the atmosphere (Yonezawa, [0053]), which was known to improve ambient air, as evidenced by Berdellé ([0017]).
Regarding (ii), Berdellé discloses a process (claim 1) using an electro-catalytic surface ([0088]) to produce building components consisting of carbon molecules from greenhouse gases in ambient air ([0001]). Berdellé teaches that decentralized extraction of raw materials is enabled by solar power generation ([0056], [0058]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa by providing (ii) at least one power generating unit for self-sufficient power supply of the plant using one or more regenerative energy sources for power generation as taught by Berdellé because (1) solar power generation enables the decentralized extraction of raw materials in the production of carbon from ambient air (Berdellé, Abstract; [0056], [0058]); (2) it was known that an electrlyzer can be powered by renewable energy such as by using sunlight, as evidenced by Yonezawa ([0031], [0117]); and (3) it would have been obvious to provide solar energy in the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé, which includes an electrolyzer and a carbon synthesis reactor, since it was known in the art that each of an electrolyzer and a carbon synthesis reactor, in order to provide for decentralized operation (Berdellé, [0056], [0058]) and to utilize renewable energy (Yonezawa, [0117]). See MPEP 2143(I)(A),(D).
Regarding claim 26, Yonezawa teaches the supply of power from a solar panel with solar cells using a photovoltaic effect connected to a power generator (Fig. 1; [0032]), or from wind power ([0117]), so it would have been obvious to provide a power generating unit comprising a photovoltaic unit configured for conversion of solar energy into power, or a wind power unit for the conversion of wind energy into power in the embodiment taught by Noyes in view of Yonezawa, Berdellé, and Schuhmann.
Regarding claim 27, Noyes teaches a water stream 208 to be electrolyzed (Fig. 3; col. 12, lines 47-48), wherein the water is obtained from condensed from a gas stream 202 removed from the catalytic converter 112 (col. 5, lines 39-40; col. 10, lines 10-15), so it would have been obvious in the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé to provide a pipeline for the transport of the removed water to the electrolyzer (i.e., wherein the carbonation unit is connected to the electrolysis unit by at least one water transport device).
Regarding claim 30, Noyes teaches that the catalytic converter 112 uses a suitable catalyst that includes metals selected from iron, cobalt, nickel, and ruthenium (col. 13, lines 35, 53-61) (i.e., wherein the carbonation unit has a catalyst comprising one of iron, cobalt, nickel or ruthenium).
Regarding claim 38, Noyes teaches that the catalytic converter 112 is a Bosch reaction zone (col. 13, lines 21-24) (i.e., wherein the carbonation unit comprises a Bosch reaction unit).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Besarati et al. (US 2021/0146299 A1), and as evidenced by Schuhmann (US 2021/0053897 A1).
Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé does not explicitly disclose a hydrogen transport device and a carbon dioxide transport device that are additionally connected to a methanol synthesis unit for production of methanol, wherein the methanol synthesis unit has a methanol outlet for the removal of methanol.
Besarati discloses methods for direct capture of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its conversion into value-added products (Abstract). Besarati teaches that water electrolyzed using electricity generated from a photovoltaic power plant can be used to produce hydrogen and oxygen, with the generated hydrogen used to reduce the captured CO2 to produce a methanol final product that can be sold in the market ([0023]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé by providing a hydrogen transport device and a carbon dioxide transport device that are additionally connected to a methanol synthesis unit for production of methanol, wherein the methanol synthesis unit has a methanol outlet for the removal of methanol as taught by Besarati because (1) it was known that, in a system with a CO2 sorption device and an electrolyzer, captured CO2 and hydrogen can be used to produce methanol to be sold in the market (Besarati, [0015], [0023]); (2) it was known that produce methanol was removed from a system using an outlet, as evidenced by Schuhmann (Fig. 1; [0109]: “106’); and (3) it would have been obvious to provide the piping necessary to enable the production of methanol in the system taught by Noyes in view of Yonezawa, Berdellé, and Schuhmann.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Besarati, and as evidenced by Noyes (US 2016/0023902 A1, hereinafter “Noyes ‘902”).
Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé does not explicitly disclose a carbonation unit that is connected to a carbon store by a carbon transport device.
Noyes ‘902 discloses a Bosch-type reactor of a reactor subsystem (i.e., a carbonation unit) for producing solid carbon (Fig. 1a; [0050], [0094]) from carbon oxides (Abstract). Noyes ‘902 teaches a product removal subsystem 24 (i.e., a carbon transport device) ([0065]) and a product packaging subsystem 26 (i.e., a carbon store) ([0066]) so the carbon can be shipped ([0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé by providing a carbonation unit that is connected to a carbon store by a carbon transport device as taught by Noyes ‘902 because (1) Noyes teaches that the solid carbon can be a valuable product for sale (Noyes, col. 13, lines 2-3) but does not teach how the solid carbon product can be prepared for shipping; and (2) carbon product removal and packaging subsystems can allow a carbon product to be packaged for shipping (Noyes ‘902, [0066], [0101]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Eisaman (US 2017/0342004 A1).
Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé does not explicitly disclose at least one carbon dioxide extraction unit that is connected to the water supply line for extraction of carbon dioxide from the water quantity.
Eisaman discloses a hydrogen production unit 144 that produces hydrogen and oxygen from fresh water via electrolysis (Fig. 1A; [0027]). Eisaman teaches a carbon extraction unit 196 ([0015]) to remove dissolved inorganic carbon from seawater ([0019]) that is an input 102 for the hydrogen production unit 144 (Fig. 1a). Eisaman teaches that CO2 evolved from carbon extraction unit 196 and the H2 produced by hydrogen production unit 144 is received by a CO2 and H2 reaction unit 146 to produce methanol ([0028]) to produce fuels ([0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé by providing at least one carbon dioxide extraction unit that is connected to the water supply line for extraction of carbon dioxide from the water quantity as taught by Eisaman because (1) Noyes teaches the electrolysis of water to obtain hydrogen (Noyes, col. 7, lines 29-33); and (2) by using seawater as a source of water for electrolysis and as a source of carbon dioxide, hydrogen from the electrolyzer can be used to produce methanol (Eisaman, [0028], [0030]). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Ballantine et al. (US 2021/0156039 A1).
Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé does not explicitly disclose at least one buffer store that is provided for storing energy.
Ballantine discloses an electrolyzer for hydrogen generation (Abstract). Ballantine teaches a battery (i.e., a buffer store) to maintain a voltage bias on the electrolyzer to reduce the number of start-stop cycles for the electrolyzer that may otherwise degrade performance of the electrolyzer ([0060]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Noyes in view of Yonezawa and Berdellé by providing a buffer store that is provided for storing energy as taught by Ballantine because a battery can maintain a voltage bias on the electrolyzer to reduce the number of start-stop cycles for the electrolyzer that may otherwise degrade performance of the electrolyzer (Ballantine, [0060]).
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 29 and 36.
The concept of a plant adapted for reduction of carbon dioxide content of atmospheric air comprising:
at least one electrolysis unit configured for oxygen production, the electrolysis unit connected to at least one water supply line to receive a water quantity, the electrolysis unit adapted to decompose the received water quantity by electrolysis into an oxygen partial quantity and a hydrogen partial quantity;
at least one hydrogen transport device adapted to connect the electrolysis unit to a carbonation unit for carbon synthesis;
at least one carbon dioxide sorption unit having at least one air inlet for supplying ambient air of an outside atmosphere surrounding the plant, the carbon dioxide sorption unit configured to extract a carbon dioxide quantity from the ambient air; and
at least one carbon dioxide transport device adapted to connect the carbon dioxide sorption unit to the carbonation unit,
wherein the electrolysis unit has at least one oxygen outlet for emission of the oxygen partial quantity, and the carbon dioxide sorption unit has at least one air outlet for emission of cleaned ambient air, wherein the oxygen outlet and the air outlet open into the outside atmosphere, wherein the carbonation unit has a carbon outlet for removal of carbon, and wherein at least one power generating unit is provided for self-sufficient power supply of the plant using one or more regenerative energy sources for power generation (claim 24);
wherein the carbonation unit is connected to a carbon store by a carbon transport device (claim 28); wherein the carbon transport device is formed at least partially by a water return line (claim 29)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Noyes (US 9,221,685 B2), which discloses system 100 for capturing carbon oxides such as carbon dioxide from a source gas stream 102 (Fig. 3; col. 2, line 17; col. 6, lines 13-15) sourced from the atmosphere (col. 6, lines 60-62) comprising:
implicitly, an electrolyzer for converting water 208 to hydrogen and oxygen (col. 12, lines 47-48: “may be electrolyzed”), the water implicitly provided by a pipeline for a water stream 115 (col. 7, lines 29-32);
a catalytic converter 112 that receives a reducing gas 110 via an implicit pipeline to produce a solid carbon product 114 (col. 6, lines 20-23), wherein the reducing gas includes hydrogen from the electrolyzer (col. 7, lines 31-32; col. 8, lines 10-11);
a carbon oxide concentrator 104 that receives the source gas stream 102 (col. 6, lines 16-17) that may be an amine absorption separation system or a pressure swing absorption system (col. 7, lines 5-10) with an inlet (Fig. 3) for receiving the source gas from the atmosphere (col. 6, lines 60-62); and
implicitly, a pipeline (Fig. 3) for conveying a process gas stream 106 from the carbon oxide concentrator 104 to the catalytic converter 112 (col. 6, lines 17-20), the process gas including CO2 at a selected purity (col. 7, lines 1-2, 13-17),
wherein the carbon oxide concentrator 104 has an outlet for purified discharge gases 108 reduced in carbon oxides vented to the atmosphere (col. 7, lines 1-3, 11-21), and means for the removal of the solid carbon product 114 (Fig. 3; col. 8, lines 18-20).
However, Noyes does not suggest a carbon transport device for connecting a carbonation unit
to a carbon store, wherein the carbon transport device is formed at least partially by a water return line.
Claim 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights