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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dvininov et al. US Publication 2013/0174739 in view of Voice et al. Patent 12,030,013.
Regarding claim 1, Dvininov teaches a method for carbon capture from exhaust systems comprising (see Figure 4):
a) Providing a gas stream containing carbon dioxide from an exhaust system ([0027]);
b) Contacting the exhaust stream with a sorbent material to separate out carbon dioxide where the material comprises lithium zirconate ([0032]) including Li2ZrO3 and Li4SiO4;
c) Removing the carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream and storing it onboard ([0029]).
Dvininov does not explicitly teach a membrane with the cited metal oxides, however Dvininov does teach a CO2 reactive metal oxide sorbent housed as pellets in a canister or sorbent coatings on substrates ([0028]). Dvininov’s disclosure of coating the CO2 reactive metal oxide sorbent onto a substrate teaches that the CO2 capture material can be incorporated as a supported layer on a structural element in the exhaust stream.
Voice teaches that membrane structures are known for CO2 recovery from exhaust streams and function as barrier-supported structures providing high interfacial areas for gas transport and contact, further describing membranes as supported barrier structures that permit transport of gas species across the barrier (column 18 lines 15-20).
In view of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would been motivated to implement Dvininov’s metal oxide sorbent as a substrate supported layer in a membrane configuration as taught by Voice, in order to increase interfacial area and improve gas contact and transport in a compact exhaust stream system. While Dvininov alone does not teach a membrane, Dvininov does teach coating the CO2 reactive metal oxide sorbent onto a substrate, and Voice teaches that substrate-supported barrier structures are used as membranes for CO2 separation.
Dvininov teaches the recovered carbon dioxide is cooled and compressed, but does not explicitly teach supercritical carbon dioxide.
Voice, in Figure 2, teaches a method where carbon dioxide 24 is recovered from an exhaust stream 10 (column 9 lines 28-47). The recovered carbon dioxide 24 is densified in unit 26 (column 9 lines 55-65) which includes compression and cooling to produce a supercritical carbon dioxide for storage onboard (column 31 lines 55-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Dvininov and produce supercritical carbon dioxide for storage because the densification of the recovered carbon dioxide would allow more carbon dioxide for compact storage and transport, thus providing an efficient carbon dioxide capture process.
Regarding claim 2, Dvininov teaches lithium zirconate for recovering carbon dioxide and further teaches that the oxide may be coated onto a ceramic substrate ([0028]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Dvininov teaches that the exhaust comes internal combustion engines from gasoline and diesel passenger cars, thus teaches spark-initiated internal combustion engines (abstract, [0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Dvininov teaches the lithium zirconate may be coated onto a support ([0028]) however does not explicitly teach a monolithic structure of the substrate. However, Dvininov’s teaches of coated supports in a canister constitute solid sorbent bodies arranged in a fixed structure within an exhaust system. The fixed continuous body in Dvininov corresponds to a monolithic structure as claimed ([0008], [0015]). Accordingly, Dvininov teaches or suggests a ceramic monolithic structure.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dvininov does not explicitly teach at least 20%, or 20% to 90%, of the carbon dioxide is removed from the separation step. However, since the separation step of the claimed invention includes a similar configuration to Dvininov, it is reasonably expected that Dvininov teaches teach at least 20%, or 20% to 90%, of the carbon dioxide is removed from the separation step absent any evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 8, Dvininov teaches the stored carbon dioxide is connected to a nozzle of a vessel tank which can be emptied during refueling ([0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Dvininov teaches the lithium zirconate are structures as pellets/granules in a canister or a coated substrate. These implementations constitute solid sorbent bodies arranged in a fixed structure within an exhaust system. Thus, the fixed continuous body corresponds to a monolithic structure as claimed ([0008], [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Dvininov teaches layered double hydroxides and mixed metal oxide sorbent systems comprising a plurality of layers, wherein different layers include different lithium-based metal oxide compositions selected from lithium zirconate Li2ZrO3, lithium silicate Li4SiO4, and other metal oxides ([0008], [0032]-[0036]). Dvininov further teaches the layers can comprise three layers of lithium-based oxides different oxide materials selected from ([0032]-[0036]) to promote an enhanced synergetic method for capturing carbon dioxide. Accordingly, Dvininov suggests a carbon dioxide separation substrate comprising a plurality of layers of different metal oxides as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772