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 Amendment
Applicant argued neither in combination nor individually Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al., Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the amendment, determining a minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct and wherein the actual amount of gas byproduct captured is allowed to exceed the minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct. All the arguments are considered but not found persuasive. Examiner’s response is set forth below.
The amended limitation, determining a minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct introduces new matter. No where on the specification or the drawings teach minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct. The specification recites target amount of byproduct but there is no specific definition of target amount other than reciting based on the target amount of the byproduct to be generated for CCUS, determine the amount of mining circuits that can be enabled by the target amount of the byproduct to be generated as recited in [0038] of the specification. Target amount can be a minimum value, maximum value, or any value in between the minimum and maximum or just a value without minimum and maximum values. There is no specific definition or indication on the specification that recites target value means minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct. No inherency can be applied to teach that target amount means minimum amount without any specific definition. Examiner looked into [0023] of the specification which recites the target amount of CO2 level required to grow cannabis is in the range of 1000-1500ppm. But this range is for successfully growing cannabis and has nothing to do with minimum desired amount of gas-byproduct to be generated to determine the amount of mining circuits to be powered by the electrical output generated by the released minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct or target amount of byproduct. As such minimum desired amount of gas-based product is a new matter and is not supported by the specification or the drawings.
Furthermore cited prior art of record Barbour teaches, the production of the byproduct/combustible gas varies from minimum to maximum production rate daily as recited in [0014]. The power output of the generator powering the blockchain mining device also varies depending on the minimum and maximum production rate of the gas-based byproduct/combustible gas since the generator is ran by the released combustible gas. That means the generator knows the minimum amount of the gas-based byproduct/combustible gas and determines the amount of mining circuitry that can be powered by the generator ran by minimum amount of the gas-based byproduct/combustible gas as taught by Barbour in [0072]. Wenzel et al. teaches to determine the desired amount of gas-based byproduct as taught in [0267],[0268],[0269] and [0257]. Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of
powering the blockchain computational operations where available power per desired amount of byproduct is determined as taught by combination of Welsko, Yelvington et
al. and Wenzel et al. by applying the known technique of knowing the amount of power
available of usage determined based on minimum and maximum production rate of the combustible gas, selectively operating particular blockchain operations based on the
available power output which could be minimum or maximum power generated by the generator/microgrid as taught by Barbour as an improvement to the blockchain operation to yield predictable result that is modulating the power load level of the datacenter performing blockchain operation with available variable energy output from the generator/microgrid.
Applicant argued neither in combination nor individually Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al., Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the amendment, wherein the actual amount of gas byproduct captured is allowed to exceed the minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct is considered but not found persuasive. Prior cited art of record Wenzel et al. teaches, based on amount of carbon offset purchased that is knowing the desired amount of carbon byproduct that can be utilized or stored by a third party, the load of the building is controlled such that the building emits carbon without exceeding the amount of carbon offset purchased which is treated as the carbon constraint as taught in [0267], [0267],[0268],[0269] and [0257]). The carbon offset is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide that can be released and if the load exceeds the carbon offset/maximum carbon dioxide value, the load of the building is modulated to drop down below the maximum. During modulation the load could be modulated to minimum value of carbon offset or any value below the maximum value of the carbon offset to ensure the load does not release carbon dioxide exceeding the maximum carbon offset value. That means actual amount of gas byproduct is allowed to exceed the minimum amount carbon offset value but not to exceed the maximum carbon offset value as taught in [0267],[0268],[0269] and [0257]). As such Wenzel et al. explicitly teaches wherein the actual amount of gas byproduct captured is allowed to exceed the minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11,13-21,23,25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For independent claim 11, the limitation, determining a minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct introduces new matter. No where on the specification or the drawings teach minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct. The specification recites target amount of byproduct but there is no specific definition of target amount other than reciting based on the target amount of the byproduct to be generated for CCUS, determine the amount of mining circuits that can be enabled by the target amount of the byproduct to be generated as recited in [0038] of the specification. Target amount can be a minimum value, maximum value, or any value in between the minimum and maximum or just a value without minimum and maximum values. There is no specific definition or indication on the specification that recites target value means minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct. Inherency cannot be applied to teach that target amount means minimum amount without any specific definition. In other words, with no definition, target amount could be any value without any limitation to minimum and maximum value. Examiner looked into [0023] of the specification which recites the target amount of CO2 level required to grow cannabis is in the range of 1000-1500ppm. But this range is for CO2 level required to successfully grow cannabis and has nothing to do with minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct to be generated to determine the amount of mining circuits to be powered by the electrical output generated by the released minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct or target amount of byproduct. As such minimum desired amount of gas-based product is a new matter and is not supported by the specification or the drawings.
Dependent claims 13-21, 23 and 25 depend from claim 11 inheriting each and every limitation of claim 11 and therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the reasons discussed above for claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Welsko (US 11,622,468 B1) in view of Yelvington et al. (US 20230286807 A 1) in
further view of Wenzel. et al. (US 20230253787 A 1) and Barbour et al. (US 20200051184 A1) and in further view of Ayana et al. (US 20160111879 A1) and Meehan et al. (US 20210355791 A1).
Regarding claim 11 Welsko teaches, a method of powering blockchain
computational operations (modular data center performing data mining operations is
powered by a microgrid, Col.12 lines 60-67 and Col.26 lines 14-17), comprising:
generating an electrical power output using a feedstock having pollutants
at a microgrid (modular data center powered by microgrid which is powered by natural
gas (fossil fuel)1, propane or combinations of fuel sources, Col.13 lines 12-35),
wherein the microgrid is situated at a first location and electrically
uncoupled from a main consumer or industrial grid (the microgrid is
located at a different location from the utility grid (separate from the industrial grid) and is directly connected to the equipment rack space to accommodate digital power
delivery, Col.22 lines 42-45 and Col.20 lines 15-18. Also, during utility grid failure, the
data center receives power solely from the microgrid that is the microgrid is located at a
different location from the utility grid, Col.13 lines 65-67 and Col.14 lines 1-5);
operating the blockchain computational operations of the computing
center using the actual electrical power output (modular data center performs intensive processor applications such as blockchain verification, crypto currency mining, and others using power output from the microgrid, Col.26 lines 14-17 and Col.13 lines12-35),
byproduct of the feedstock produced at the microgrid for the operating of the blockchain computational operations (the microgrid providing power to the data center burns natural gas (microgrid power source) which releases gaseous carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, Col.25 lines 63-65).
Welsko does not teach the details of determining a minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct for carbon capture utilization storage (CCUS); determining an estimated power output that would be needed to generate the minimum desired amount of byproduct; determining, based at least in part on the estimated power output, an amount of mining circuits of a computing center to utilize, comprising at least disabling one or more additional mining circuits whose utilization would exceed the estimated power output, that is sufficient to power the determined amount of mining circuits, further wherein the computing center runs on a power supply provided exclusively by the microgrid and does not draw power from the main consumer or industrial grid; capturing an actual amount of byproduct of the feedstock produced at the microgrid, preparing the actual amount of byproduct for CCUS, transmitting the byproduct to an EOR located at a third location that is different from first and second locations, the EOR system comprising a class II injection well and injecting the byproduct into a subsurface reservoir. However, Welsko teaches in Col.25, lines 63-65, that burning natural gas (microgrid power source) does release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and the microgrid is at the same location of the datacenter.
Yelvington et al. teaches, capturing an actual amount of gas byproduct of the feedstock (recover and utilize the carbon dioxide – actual amount of waste gas released from feedstock as byproduct, [0047] and [0049]), the byproduct comprising substantially all of the pollutants produced by the computing center for purposes of operating the blockchain computational operations (all the waste gas released as actual amount of byproduct of the industrial process includes carbon dioxide which is captured and utilized employing CCUS technologies2, [0022] and [0047]);
preparing the actual amount of byproduct for carbon capture utilization storage (CCUS) by utilizing one or more CCUS technologies (the captured carbon dioxide is utilized by for enhanced oil recovery operation, sold as commercial product for refrigeration, surface processing, chemical synthesis, carbonated beverages, etc., (CCUS technologies), [0047], [0049] and [0051]);
transmitting the actual amount of gas3 byproduct to an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) system situated at a third location that is different from the first and second locations (remote gas, byproduct of the industrial process, is captured and used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) near the well site that is the captured remote gas is produced at a different location than where EOR will be performed, third location different from first and second locations, [0049]),
injecting the actual amount of gas byproduct into a subsurface reservoir using the injection well (injection well used for enhanced oil recovery operation on the captured CO2 stream, [0077]),
thereby eliminating or substantially reducing atmospheric release of the
byproduct as a result of the blockchain computational operations4 (capturing the
released carbon dioxide gas (byproduct) and using it for CCUS or EOR reduces the
emission of the carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere reduces overall carbon footprint
[0020] and [0027]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of
generating an electrical power output using fossil fuel (natural gas) feedstock which is
used to operate the blockchain computational operations of a computing center and
burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide as taught by Welsko where the released
carbon dioxide is captured and utilized to be reused in different industries by performing
the CCUS technologies or Enhanced oil recovery operation using injection wells as
taught by Yelvington et al. to provide for reduced or zero carbon dioxide emissions by
capturing the carbon dioxide that would otherwise go up the exhaust stack as taught by
Yelvington et al. in [0051].
Neither in combination nor individually Welsko and Yelvington et al. teach the
details of determining a desired minimum amount of gas-based byproduct for carbon capture utilization storage (CCUS); determining an estimated power output that would be needed to generate the desired amount of byproduct; determining, based at least in part on the estimated power output, an amount of mining circuits of a computing center to utilize, comprising at least disabling one or more additional mining circuits whose
utilization would exceed the estimated power output, that is sufficient to power the
determined amount of mining circuits, further wherein the computing center runs on a
power supply provided exclusively by the microgrid and does not draw power from the
main consumer or industrial grid; the EOR system comprising a class II injection well
and injecting the byproduct into a subsurface reservoir and wherein the actual amount of gas byproduct captured is allowed to exceed the minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct.
Wenzel et al. teaches, determining a desired amount of gas-based
byproduct for carbon capture utilization storage (CCUS) (based on amount of
carbon offset purchased that is knowing the desired amount of carbon byproduct that
can be utilized or stored by a third party, the load of the building is controlled such that
the building emits carbon without exceeding the amount of carbon offset purchased
which is treated as the carbon constraint. If the load exceeds the carbon constraint/threshold, the load is modulated to drop below the carbon constraint/
threshold such that carbon emission due to load operation does not exceed the carbon
constraint/threshold, [0267],[0268],[0269] and [0257]);
determining an estimated power output that would be needed to generate
the desired amount of byproduct (based on the limited amount of carbon dioxide gas
that can be emitted per the purchased amount of carbon offset, the available power for usage for the building is determined. If the carbon constraint/threshold is exceeded, the
load of the building is modulated to such that load operation does not cause to emit
more carbon dioxide than the purchased carbon offset amount, [0257],[0267],[0268] and
[0269]);
wherein the actual amount of gas byproduct captured is allowed to exceed the minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct (the carbon offset amount is the maximum amount of carbon dioxide that can be released and if the load exceeds the carbon offset/maximum carbon dioxide value, the load of the building is modulated to drop down below the maximum. During modulation the load could be modulated to minimum value of carbon offset or any value below the maximum value of the carbon offset to ensure the load does not release carbon dioxide exceeding the maximum carbon offset value. That means actual amount of gas byproduct is allowed to exceed the minimum amount carbon offset value but not to exceed the maximum carbon offset value/amount as taught in [0267],[0268],[0269] and [0257]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of
powering the blockchain computational operations as taught by combination of Welsko,
and Yelvington et al. by applying the known concept of determining the amount of
power available/output based on the desired amount of carbon byproduct for carbon
capture or utilization and modulate load based on the available power as taught by
Wenzel et al. as an improvement to blockchain operation to yield predictable results for
controlling of blockchain operation without exceeding carbon emission constraint.
Neither in combination nor individually Welsko, Yelvington et al. and Wenzel et
al. teach the details of determining minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct, determining, based at least in part on the estimated power output, an amount of mining circuits of a computing center to utilize, comprising at least disabling one or more additional mining circuits whose utilization would exceed the estimated power output; sufficient to power the determined amount of mining circuits, the computing center is at second location remote from the first location of the microgrid; further wherein the computing center runs on a power supply provided exclusively by the microgrid and does not draw power from the main consumer or industrial grid and the EOR system comprising a class II injection well. However Wenzel et al. teaches to determine maximum amount of carbon dioxide that can be released based on the carbon offset value. Some of ordinary skill in the art can determine any value of carbon dioxide that can be released to the atmosphere without exceeding the carbon offset value.
On the other hand Barbour teaches, determining a minimum desired amount of gas-based byproduct (the production of the byproduct/combustible gas varies from minimum to maximum production rate daily as recited in [0014]. The power output of the generator powering the blockchain mining device also varies depending on the minimum and maximum production rate of the gas-based byproduct/combustible gas since the generator is ran by the released combustible gas. That means the generator knows the minimum amount of the gas-based byproduct/combustible gas and determines the amount of mining circuitry that can be powered by the generator ran by minimum amount of the gas-based byproduct/combustible gas as taught in [0072];
determining, based at least in part on the estimated power output, an amount of mining circuits of a computing center to utilize (based on the available power output from the generator, the power load of the miner/computing center is modulated by modulating mining activity, hashrate of mining processor such that only the processors that can be powered by the available power from the generator are operated, rest of the mining processors performing mining operation are not operated or disabled, [0071 ],[0072] and [0014]), comprising at least disabling one or more additional mining circuits whose utilization would exceed the estimated power output (the controller determines the number of mining processors that can be operated with the available power from the generator. If more power is available, in real-time the controller increases the number of mining processors and of less power is available, the controller can modulate the load by stopping reducing the workload on the mining processors that is disabling the one or more mining processor based on available power from the generator, [0071] and [0072]);
that is sufficient to power the determined amount of mining circuits (the
power from the generator is used to operate the mining processors. The mining
processors loads are modulated to meet the available power from the generator, [0071]
and [0072]),
further wherein the computing center runs on a power supply provided
exclusively by the microgrid and does not draw power from the main consumer
or industrial grid (the miner/computing center is powered by the generator, no other
energy source such as grid is available, [0014] and [0071]).
Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al. and Barbour et al. are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor that is releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of
powering the blockchain computational operations where available power per desired amount of byproduct is determined as taught by combination of Welsko, Yelvington et
al. and Wenzel et al. by applying the known technique of knowing the amount of power
available of usage determined based on minimum and maximum production rate of the combustible gas, selectively operating particular blockchain operations based on the
available power output which could be minimum or maximum power generated by the generator/microgrid as taught by Barbour as an improvement to the blockchain operation to yield predictable result that is modulating the power load level of the datacenter performing blockchain operation with available variable energy output from the generator/microgrid.
Neither in combination nor individually Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et
al. and Barbour teach the details of the computing center is at second location remote from the first location of the microgrid; the EOR system comprising a class II injection well.
Ayana et al. teaches, wherein the computing center is at second location
remote from the first location of the microgrid (the datacenter receives power from a
long transmission line whose other end is connected to a microgrid that is generating
power using group of gensets located at a different location to the load/data center, that
is the gensets are not within the structure of the datacenter or in the close vicinity of the
datacenter, in other words in a different location from the datacenter/load, [0020] -
[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of
powering blockchain computational operations of a computing center by a microgrid as
taught by combination of Welsko et al., Yelvington et al., Wenzel and Barbour et al. by
applying the known technique of powering the computing center by set of gensets
located at a different location connect to the local microgrid to power the local datacenter that is at a different location from the set of gensets as taught by Ayana et al.
as an improvement to the microgrid to yield predictable result of distributing power to
the loads using all available power resources to avoid single point failures for critical
service installations (loads) as recited in [0022] of Ayana et al.
Neither in combination nor individually Welsko et al., Yelvington et al., Wenzel
and Barbour et al. and Ayana et al. teach the details of the EOR system comprising a
class II injection well. However, Yelvington et al. explicitly teaches in [0077] that the
captured carbon dioxide is used in EOR using injection wells. The specific type of injection well used is not mentioned.
On the other hand Meehan et al. teaches the detail of, the EOR system
comprising a class II injection well (enhanced oil recovery system using class II
injection well, [0053] and [0062]);
using the class II injection well (enhanced oil recovery system using class II
injection well, [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of powering
blockchain computational operations of a computing center by a microgrid where the
released CO2 stream is captured for CCUS and EOR using injection well as taught by
combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al., Barbour et al. and Ayana et al.
by using Class II injection wells for EOR as taught by Meehan et al. as an improvement
to the EOR operation to yield predictable results for performing EOR on captured
hazardous elements released as byproduct during the industrial processes.
Regarding claim 13 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Yelvington et al. teaches, further comprising using the actual amount of gas byproduct for carbonation of minerals or industrial byproducts to produce carbonates (captured carbon dioxide used in chemical reaction for carbonate formation, [0051], [0094] and claim 43).
Regarding claim 14 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Yelvington et al. teaches, further comprising purifying the actual amount of gas byproduct to produce food-grade carbon dioxide (captured carbon dioxide is converted to value added product such as carbonated beverages - food grade carbon dioxide, [0051] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 15 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Barbour teaches, wherein the electrical power output is a variable electrical power
output (the amount of power generated by the generator is variable, based on the
availability of the combustible gas running the generator, [0014]) and the method
further comprises:
determining a value of the variable electrical power output (based on the
amount of gas available, the amount of power to be generated by the generator can be
determined, [0014], [0071] and [0072]);
determining, based at least in part on the variable electrical power output,
an amount of mining circuitry (based on variable power output of the generator ran
by the gas supply levels provided by a remote oil well, the power load level of the
mining circuitry is modulated by the controller5, [0070] and [0071 ]); and
responsive to the determination of the amount of mining circuitry (mining
processors) based at least in part on the variable electrical power output, disabling
one or more mining circuitry of the computing center that is used in the operating
of the blockchain computational operations (based on the variable power output of
the generator, the controller modulates the power load level of the mining circuitry by
increasing or decreasing mining activity or hashrate of the mining processors such as
power down one or more mining processors (mining circuitry), [0070] and [0071], see
also [0076]).
Regarding claim 16 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Yelvington et al. teaches, wherein the feedstock comprises a supply of natural gas
(waste gas released by feedstock includes natural gas, [0004] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 17 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Yelvington et al. teaches, wherein the supply of natural gas is derived from natural
gas production wells (gas wells releasing natural gases like carbon dioxide, methane
and others, [0005] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 18 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Wenzel et al. teaches, the feedstock comprises one or more of a supply of coal
or another fossil fuel (the fuel may be fossil fuel, coal, diesel and others, [0313]).
Regarding claim 19 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Wenzel et al. teaches, the feedstock comprises a renewable natural gas (fuel may
be biofuel, biomass and others. Biofuel and biomass are renewable natural gas, [0313]).
Regarding claim 20 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour et al., Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Welsko teaches, wherein the blockchain computational operations comprises one
or both of proof-of-work operations or proof-of-stake operations (modular data
center performing intensive processor applications such as blockchain verifications,
proof of stake, proof of work and cryptocurrency mining, Col.13, lines 12-15 and Col.26,
lines 14-17).
Claim(s) 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Welsko (US 11,622,468 B1) in view of Yelvington et al. (US 20230286807 A1) in further
view of Wenzel. et al. (US 20230253787 A1) and Barbour et al. (US 20200051184 A1)
and in further view of Ayana et al. (US 20160111879 A1) and Meehan et al. (US
20210355791 A1) and Sant et al. (US 20190367390 A1).
Regarding claim 21 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition,
Yelvington et al. teaches, utilizing the one or more CCUS technologies to capture
the actual amount of gas byproduct and utilizing the byproduct (CCUS systems and method, [0047]) by at least: utilizing the gas byproduct as raw material in production of chemicals or fuels (converting captured byproduct into value added product such as methanol, [0047] and [0051]);
or purifying the actual amount of gas byproduct, which is from industrial sources, to produce food-grade carbon dioxide for use in carbonated beverages (captured and separated carbon dioxide converted to value added product such as carbonated beverages, or etc., [0047] and [0051]).
Neither in combination nor individually Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al., Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach reacting the byproduct with minerals or
industrial byproduct to produce carbonates that can be utilized in construction materials.
However, Yelvington et al. explicitly teaches CCUS method applied to convert the
byproduct to value added item such as commercial product for refrigeration, chemical
synthesis, carbonated beverages and more in [0051].
Sant et al. teaches, reacting the actual amount of gas byproduct with minerals or industrial byproduct to produce carbonates that can be utilized in construction materials (" ... The process cycle can be operated as a CO.sub.2 capture method in post combustion flue gas treatment to reduce the carbon emissions of coal-fired power plants. In addition, the process cycle also produces carbonates that can be used in construction, chemical, paper, sealants/adhesives, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, and food industries…”, that is captured byproduct processed to form carbonates to be used in construction, [0022]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the CCUS technologies used to capture the byproduct of microgrid powering the blockchain
computational operations as taught by combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel
et al., Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. to applying the known technique of
capturing the byproduct carbon dioxide and further processing it to form carbonates to
be used in construction as taught by Sant et al. as improvement to the CCUS technologies used to yield predictable result that is utilizing captured byproduct in many
ways to control carbon emission to the atmosphere.
Regarding claim 25 combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. Furthermore
Yelvington et al. teaches, further comprising utilizing the one or more CCUS
technologies to produce carbonates (captured and separated carbon dioxide using CCUS technology is converted to value added product such as carbonated beverages,
or etc., [0047] and [0051]).
Sant et al. teaches, for use in construction materials (" ... The process cycle
can be operated as a CO.sub.2 capture method in post-combustion flue gas treatment
to reduce the carbon emissions of coal-fired power plants. In addition, the process cycle
also produces carbonates that can be used in construction. chemical, paper,
sealants/adhesives, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, and food industries.", that is captured
byproduct processed to form carbonates to be used in construction, [0022]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the CCUS
technologies used to capture the byproduct of microgrid powering the blockchain
computational operations as taught by combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel
et al., Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. to applying the known technique of
capturing the byproduct carbon dioxide and further processing it to form carbonates to
be used in construction as taught by Sant et al. as improvement to the CCUS
technologies used to yield predictable result that is utilizing captured byproduct in many
ways to control carbon emission to the atmosphere.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Welsko (US 11,622,468 B1) in view of Yelvington et al. (US 20230286807 A1) in further
view of Wenzel. et al. (US 20230253787 A1) and Barbour et al. (US 20200051184 A1)
and in further view of Ayana et al. (US 20160111879 A1) and Meehan et al. (US
20210355791 A1) and EP30 (EP 3771330 A1).
Reagrding claim 23, Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al., Barbour, Ayana et
al. and Meehan et al. teach the method of claim 11. In addition, Yelvington et al.
teaches, utilizing the one or more CCUS technologies to capture the gas
byproduct and utilizing the byproduct (CCUS systems and method, [0047]).
Neither in combination nor individually Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al.,
Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. teach collecting CO2 byproduct in a range of
1,000 to 1,500 parts per million (PPM), to be released in a cannabis growing area.
EP30 teaches, collecting CO2 byproduct in a range of 1,000 to 1,500 parts
per million (PPM), to be released in a cannabis growing area (CO2 gas is introduced through an inlet6 to the indoor room growing cannabis. The introduced CO2
gas has a concentration between 450ppm- 5500ppm, [0131] and [0132]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of powering blockchain computational operations while releasing CO2 gas is further
processed as taught by combination of Welsko, Yelvington et al., Wenzel et al., Barbour, Ayana et al. and Meehan et al. by applying the known technique of introducing
the released CO2 gas into a cannabis growing area with the gas concentration being between 450ppm-5500pm as taught by EP30 as an improvement to the released CO2
gas to yield predictable result of promoting effective cannabis growth by increasing the
photosynthesis rate of the cannabis plant as recited by EP30 in [0131].
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 ANZUMAN SHARMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7365. The examiner can normally be reached M and Th 7:00am - 3:00pm and Tue 8:00am-12:00pm.
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, KAMINI SHAH can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/ANZUMAN SHARMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Burning natural gas releases Carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as taught by Welsko in Col.25, lines 63-
65.
2 In view of Welsko, the carbon dioxide released from the burning of the natural gas powering the
microgrid is captured as taught in Col.25 lines 63-65 and Col.26 lines 14-17. The microgrid provides
power to the data center performing blockchain operation.
3 There are only certain forms of carbon dioxide that can be injected for storage and the forms are either
gas, liquid or solid. Someone of ordinary skill in the art can choose any form of carbon dioxide from the
above finite number of identified, predictable solutions for injecting the byproduct for carbon storage or
utilization with a reasonable expectation of success, MPEP.2143.1.(E).
4 Blockchain operations performed on the data center powered with microgrid which is powered by
burning natural gas in view of Welsko.
5 Based on the generator power outputs, the controller determines how much power load level is
available to run certain amount of mining circuitry and turn off or disable the mining circuitry based on the
variable power output.
6 Released CO2 gas from the microgrid in view of Welsko.