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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 07/09/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection filed 07/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bronson discloses liquefying rather than solidifying the target gas (page 2). The examiner disagrees as Bronson provides a solidification step in one heat exchanger and then a liquefying of said solidified CO2 in the other heat exchanger and then continuing the process alternatively (see columns 3 and 4 – “after the freezing coil 31 has frozen out its efficient capacity of carbon dioxide” and “when the desired deposited of solid carbon dioxide has been built up in freezer 29”. With regard to applicant’s arguments (page 3) that Bronson cools both heat exchanges, the examiner again disagrees, Bronson clearly allows gaseous CO2 to enter one of the heat exchangers that has the solidified CO2 to liquefy said CO2 (i.e. from a solid to a liquid) which would require warning stating “it is to be noted that…the large liquid carbon dioxide storage tank constitutes….a heat source….this released heat is effective in changing the deposited solid carbon dioxide to liquid carbon dioxide” (column 3, lines 55-65).
With regard to applicants second argument on page 3 discussing Bronson not sublimating the frozen gas. This is taught by Assink in the rejection below. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. patent number 2,738,658 Bronson in view of U.S. patent application publication number 2011/0023537 Assink et al. (hereinafter Assink).
Regarding claim 1, Bronson discloses a method of separating gas (see figure) through a gas separation apparatus for separating a gas by using a deep cooling process (see columns 2-4) wherein the gas separation apparatus comprises a first heat exchanger (freezer 29) for cooling an inlet gas (11/15/27 through 28), a first gas inlet unit (valves 25 and 28, 11/15/25/27/28) and introducing the inlet gas to the first heat exchanger 29 and a first circulation pipe for reintroducing a stream discharged from the first heat exchanger to the first heat exchanger and including a first compressor (see 35/39/43/45/47/49/83/85, compressor 87, back up through 39, 41 and 37 to 29; see columns 2-4). Bronson discloses a second heat exchanger (freezer 63) for cooling the inlet gas, a second gas inlet unit connected to the second heat exchanger and introducing the inlet gas to the second heat exchanger 11/13/15 through valve 25 in second process operation through 62/62 into 63 and a second circulation pipe for reintroducing a stream discharged from the second heat exchanger to the second heat exchanger and including a second compressor (first and second compressor and first and second recirculation loops can be the same, see further dependent claims and applicant’s figure – see above 71/39/43/47/49/81/83/87/89/41/69 back to heat exchanger 63; see columns 2-4 in specification of Bronson). Bronson discloses a first process operation including: a first freezing operation of blocking the second gas inlet unit, introducing the inlet gas to the first heat exchanger through the first gas inlet unit, and freezing a target gas in the first heat exchanger; a first transfer operation of sublimating or evaporating the frozen target gas in the second heat exchanger and transferring the same to the second compressor of the second circulation pipe; and a first thawing operation of reintroducing the target gas transferred to the second compressor to the second heat exchanger and thawing the second heat exchanger (see columns 2-4 of specification, when valve 25/62 blocks flow through 63, feed gas is sent through 25/28 into 39 where it freezes in 29 meanwhile frozen CO2 is melted in HE 63by flowing 71/43/47/49/87/89 back up through 41 and 69 into 63 to help melt the solidified components within 63 ; and
a second process operation including: a second freezing operation of blocking the first gas inlet unit, introducing the inlet gas to the second heat exchanger through the second gas inlet unit, and freezing the target gas in the second heat exchanger; a second transfer operation of sublimating or evaporating the frozen target gas in the first heat exchanger and transferring the same to the first compressor of the first circulation pipe; and a second thawing operation of reintroducing the target gas transferred to the first compressor to the first heat exchanger and thawing the first heat exchanger (see columns 2-4 of specification of Bronson, reversed operation not shown in the figure, wherein the inlet gas is sent through 15/25/51/62 into 63 to be frozen while the first heat exchanger melts the solidified component using 35/43/47/81/85/87/89/41/37 back into 29 to melt components).
wherein the first process operation is performed for a specified time and then the second process operation is performed for a specified time (see column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 19; further see column 4, lines 31-45). While Bronson discloses the recirculation of a gaseous stream to help melt the solid CO2 and frozen components within heat exchangers 29 and 63 through recirculation of gas 41 through 69 or 37. Bronson does not explicitly disclose the sublimation of the solid state, instead melting said solid and then allowing said liquid to boil off in downstream storage 45/49/83 prior to compression in 87 as gaseous streams 89 and 41/69/37. Assink however in a similar parallel bed CO2 separation process clearly provides that the frozen CO2 within the heat exchangers/beds (see 102 in figure 2) can utilize sublimation into a gas which is then recycle through a compressor and returned back to the heat exchanger to help sublimate further components (see 134/138/137 back into 102; further see paragraphs 32-36 and paragraphs 51-52). It would have been obvious to use a recycled gaseous stream and sublimation within the heat exchangers as disclosed by Assink including removal of a gaseous recirculation stream and product with the apparatus and method of Bronson in order to be able to utilize less refrigeration needs to keep CO2 in a liquid state and further to avoid the additional fluid dynamics of capillary forces (see paragraphs 24-27 of Assink). Additionally said modification is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (both Assink and Bronson are similar parallel bed solidification processes for separating out CO2 and clearly it is well known to utilize sublimation and a gaseous recycled streams to help separate out previously solidified CO2 in similar processes). Further it is use of a known technique (CO2 sublimation and utilization of gaseous recycle streams to help sublimate the CO2 to improve similar devices in the same way – to help sublimate solidified CO2 in heat exchangers operating in parallel that freezes CO2 out of a feed stream for separation purposes). Bronson as modified further discloses wherein the first process operation is performed again after the second process operation is performed and the first and second process operations are alternately performed (see column 4, stating “the two switch valves 25 and 39 and the supplises of refrigerant are adjusted simultaneously….so that while one freezer is refrigeration and is collecting solid carbon dioxide from incoming gases, the other freezer is not refrigerated and is used to liquefy previously deposited carbon dioxide for delivery, further see lines 31-44; Bronson further states in the two freezer embodiment “continuous production by alternate use of the freezes is provided” (column 3, lines 66-75) - Bronson provides for the process being repeatable, said process to include sublimation as modified by Assink, see above).
Regarding claim 3, Bronson as modified by Assink discloses wherein the target gas is a sublimating gas (see reintroduced gas 41 through 37 and 69 which is a gas helping melt the CO2 in 29/63, see claims 1-5 of Bronson). Assink provides a sublimated gas can be utilized to help further sublimate CO2 (figure 1, 134/138/137/132 and paragraph 52 see rejection of claim 1 above). See motivation to combine with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Bronson and Assink discloses wherein the target gas is carbon dioxide. See boil off 41 from liquid CO2 storage in Bronson or see paragraph 52 of Assink. Motivation to combine in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Bronson discloses wherein the first inlet unit and the second gas inlet unit are connected to a compressor (Blower 13).
Regarding claim 6, Bronson discloses wherein the first circulation pipe and the second circulation pipe are connected to each other, and the first compressor and the second compressor configure one compressor.(see full circulation cycle 43/47/49/83/85/87/89/41 which provides gas recirculated back to both HE 29 through 37 and to HE 63 through 69). See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Bronson discloses wherein a first opening or closing valve for opening or closing the first gas inlet unit is provided at the first gas inlet unit, and
a second opening or closing valve for opening or closing the second gas inlet unit is provided at the second gas inlet unit (see check valves 28 and 62 and valve 25 which additionally provides control of the stream to 29 and 63).
Regarding claim 8, Bronson discloses wherein the first circulation pipe includes a (1-1)th circulation valve for opening or closing the first circulation pipe at a front end of the first compressor, and a (1-2)th circulation valve for opening or closing the first circulation pipe at a rear end of the first compressor, and the second circulation pipe includes a (2-1)the circulation valve for opening or closing the second circulation pipe at a front end of the second compressor, and a (2-2) the circulation valve for opening or closing the second circulation pipe at a rear end of the second compressor (see valve 39 which provides the ability to control both flow down through the compressor and circulation pipe but also controls flow back up from the compressor. Said valve includes controls to both first and second heat exchanger. The examiner goes on official notice that it would have been obvious to utilize different valves instead of a singular multi path glove valve such as 39 in Bronson to provide a less expensive control option and more easily replaceable valves. Further it allows for additional parallel heat exchangers to still operate with the cycle even if one valve breaks. Bronson further already provides additional valves upstream of the compressor on 47 and 81. Clearly valved connections are well known including check valves such as the check valves 28/62 or the valves on 47 and 81 to make sure flow control is provided just like the flow control through 39 and 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes U.S. 608133 Barclay, US 2012/0297821 Baxter, and US 9339752 Reddy all of which also disclose the utilization of freezing and separation of CO2.
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 Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798