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
The amendment filed March 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims and drawings have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 16th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12th, 2026, with regards to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Sharma, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sharma does not disclose “wherein each capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels includes a respective inter-exchanger configured to circulate a respective coolant within a respective capture vessel during a respective CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel, and without the coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel, in order to cool at least a portion of capture media of the respective capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As is required by the amended claim, each capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels includes a respective inter-exchanger configured to circulate a respective coolant within a respective capture vessel during a respective CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel, and without the respective coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel (emphasis added). Sharma teaches that each of the capture vessels are in different stages (Fig. 5, Adsorption D4, Precooling D3, Desorption D2, and Preheating D1); there is only one capture vessel in a CO2 capture stage at once and the coolant therefore only passes through the inter-exchanger of a single capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage, meeting the limitations of amended claim 1. For this reason, the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Sharma as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 16th, 2025 has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed March 12th, 2026, with regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 8 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent US 12478914 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Patent ‘914) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claims 1 and 8 renders the claims as non-obvious over claim 8 of Patent ‘914. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 of the instant application has been amended to require the limitation of “wherein each capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels includes a respective inter-exchanger configured to circulate a respective coolant within a respective capture vessel during a respective CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel, and without the respective coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel” (emphasis added). Claim 1 of Patent ‘914 requires that the plurality of capture vessels are configured to be in different stages simultaneously (Claim 1 of Patent ‘914 “wherein, while a first capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels is configured in the drying stage, a second capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels is configured in the CO2 capture stage”). There is only one capture vessel in a CO2 capture stage at once and the coolant therefore only passes through the inter-exchanger of a single capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage, meeting the limitations of amended claim 1. Claim 8 of the instant application has been amended to require the limitation of “wherein the inter-exchanger is configured to, during the CO2 capture stage, circulate a coolant within the capture vessel to regulate a temperature of the capture media without the coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel” (emphasis added). Claim 8 of Patent ‘914 teaches wherein each inter-exchanger is configured to circulant a coolant within a respective capture vessel during the CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel (Claim 8 of Patent ‘914 “wherein each respective inter-exchanger is configured to circulate a coolant within a respective capture vessel during the CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel”). As there are no other capture vessels simultaneously in the CO2 capture stage, claim 8 of Patent ‘914 still appears to read on the amended claim 8 of the instant application. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 8 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 16th, 2025 has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 17, “wherein absorption of the water vapor onto the capture media displaces previously adsorbed CO2” should read “wherein adsorption
In claim 18, “wherein the capture media are configured to release the absorbed water” should read “wherein the capture media are configured to release adsorbed
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12478914 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Patent ‘914).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Patent ‘914. Claim 8 of Patent ‘914 is dependent upon claim 1, which teaches a carbon capture system for carbon dioxide (CO2)-thermal swing adsorption (TSA), the carbon capture system comprising: an exhaust source configured to produce a hot exhaust; an adsorption inlet arranged downstream from the exhaust source and configured to receive a cold exhaust comprising a mixture of CO2 and nitrogen (N2), wherein the cold exhaust is derived from the hot exhaust using one or more first heat exchangers; and a plurality of capture vessels that are configured to be respectively cycled through a plurality of stages of a CO2-TSA process, including a CO2 capture stage, a regeneration stage, and a cooling stage, wherein the plurality of capture vessels are respectively coupled to the adsorption inlet for receiving the cold exhaust during the CO2 capture stage. Claim 8 of Patent ‘914 teaches wherein each capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels includes a respective inter-exchanger, and wherein each respective inter-exchanger is configured to circulate a respective coolant within a respective capture vessel during a respective CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel, and without the respective coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel (There is only one capture vessel in a CO2 capture stage at once and the coolant therefore only passes through the inter-exchanger of a single capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage), in order to cool at least a portion of capture media of the respective capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Patent ‘914. Claim 8 of Patent ‘914 is dependent upon claim 1, which teaches a capture vessel configured to capture carbon dioxide according to a thermal swing adsorption (TSA) process, wherein the TSA process includes a cyclical sequence including a CO2 capture stage, a regeneration stage, and a cooling stage, the capture vessel comprising: capture media arranged inside the capture vessel; wherein the capture media are configured to adsorb CO2 from an exhaust gas during the CO2 capture stage to produce a nitrogen (N2) gas that exits the capture vessel. Claim 8 of Patent ‘914 teaches an inter-exchanger arranged inside the capture vessel and thermally coupled to the capture media, and wherein the inter-exchanger is configured to, during the CO2 capture stage, circulate a coolant within the capture vessel to regulate a temperature of the capture media without the coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel (As there are no other capture vessels simultaneously in the CO2 capture stage, claim 8 of Patent ‘914 reads on “without the coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel”).
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein each capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels includes a respective inter-exchanger configured to circulate a respective coolant within a respective capture vessel during a respective CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel, and without the respective coolant passing through an inter-exchange of another capture vessel.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends for the coolant to not pass through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel while a respective capture vessel is in a respective CO2 capture stage or whether Applicant intends for the coolant to not pass through an inter-exchange of another capture vessel at any point in the cycle (CO2 capture stage, regeneration stage, cooling stage). As the claim may have more than one reasonable interpretation, it is unclear when infringement may occur and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claims 2-7, which are dependent upon claim 1, are likewise 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 8 recites the limitation “wherein the inter-exchanger is configured to, during the CO2 capture stage, circulate a coolant within the capture vessel to regulate a temperature of the capture media without the coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel.” It is unclear whether Applicant intends for the coolant to not pass through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel during the CO2 capture stage or whether Applicant intends for the coolant to not pass through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel at any point in the cycle (CO2 capture stage, regeneration stage, cooling stage). As the claim may have more than one reasonable interpretation, it is unclear when infringement may occur and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claims 9-20, which are dependent upon claim 8, are likewise 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0010707 A1 to Sharma et al. (hereinafter referred to as Sharma).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma teaches a carbon capture system (Abstract “System (2) for CO2 capture from a combustion engine (1)”) for carbon dioxide (CO2)-thermal swing adsorption (TSA) (Abstract “and a CO2 temperature swing adsorption (TSA) reactor (4) fluidly connected to an outlet end of the exhaust gas flow circuit.”), the carbon capture system comprising: an exhaust source configured to produce a hot exhaust (Abstract “comprising an exhaust gas flow circuit (6) having an inlet end fluidly connected to an exhaust of the combustion engine”); an adsorption inlet arranged downstream from the exhaust source (¶0020 “Disclosed herein is a system for CO2 capture from a combustion engine comprising an exhaust gas flow circuit having an inlet end fluidly connected to an exhaust of the combustion engine”) and configured to receive a cold exhaust comprising a mixture of CO2 and nitrogen (N2) (Fig. 1 depicts the typical composition of exhaust gas from a diesel engine), wherein the cold exhaust is derived from the hot exhaust using one or more first heat exchangers (¶0067 “Further heat exchangers for the exhaust gas stream, in particular an additional exhaust gas heat exchanger H4 in the exhaust gas stream after the primary exhaust gas heat exchanger H1 may be provided to further cool down the exhaust gas stream prior to entry in the TSA reactor 4.”); and a plurality of capture vessels configured to be respectively cycled through a plurality of stages of a CO2-TSA process (¶0071 “In an advantageous embodiment (illustrated in Fig. 13b), the adsorbent material is on the surface of a fixed bed in each of a plurality of reactor chambers D1-D4”), including a CO2 capture stage, a regeneration stage, and a cooling stage (¶0071 “In an advantageous embodiment (illustrated in Fig. 13b), the adsorbent material is on the surface of a fixed bed in each of a plurality of reactor chambers D1-D4 that are interconnected by a gas flow circuits and valves that may be operated to rotate the function of each of the reactor chambers successively from adsorption, to preheating, to desorption, to precooling.”), wherein the plurality of capture vessels are respectively coupled to the adsorption inlet for receiving the cold exhaust during the CO2 capture stage (Fig. 13a depicts an embodiment in which any of the reactor units D1-D4 may receive the exhaust gas), wherein each capture vessel of the plurality of capture vessels includes a respective inter-exchanger (¶0034 “In an advantageous embodiment, the reactor units are interconnected by fluid flow circuits and valves that may be operated to successively cycle the reactor units through different states from adsorption, preheating, desorption and precooling.”) configured to circulate a respective coolant within a respective capture vessel during a respective CO2 capture stage of the respective capture vessel, and without the respective coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel (Fig. 5 depicts all the capture vessels are simultaneously in a different stage, Adsorption D4, Precooling D3, Desorption D2, and Preheating D1 ; there is only one capture vessel in a CO2 capture stage at once and the coolant therefore only passes through the inter-exchanger of a single capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage), in order to cool at least a portion of capture media of the respective capture vessel during the respective CO2 capture stage (¶0026 “In an advantageous embodiment, the TSA reactor further comprises a preheating unit and a precooling unit, … and a cooling section of the heat exchange circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”).
Regarding claim 2, Sharma teaches the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the capture media of the respective capture vessel are configured to, during the respective CO2 capture stage, receive the cold exhaust and adsorb CO2 from the cold exhaust to produce an N2 gas (Fig. 12, exhaust gas passes through H1 and H4 for cooling before entry to adsorption unit D4 ; Fig. 1 shows the composition of exhaust gas includes 67% N2, once the CO2 is captured the exhaust stream will read on “to produce an N2 gas”).
Regarding claim 3, Sharma teaches the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein each respective inter-exchanger is thermally coupled to the capture media of the respective capture vessel, and wherein each respective inter-exchanger is configured to, during the respective CO2 capture stage, circulate the respective coolant within the respective capture vessel to regulate a temperature of the capture media of the respective capture vessel (¶0026 “In an advantageous embodiment, the TSA reactor further comprises a preheating unit and a precooling unit, … and a cooling section of the heat exchange circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units” ; ¶0057 “It is advantageous to produce a cooling capacity at a temperature lower than the 40⁰C. for the adsorption step of a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) process, especially in mobile applications where environmental temperature may exceed the optimal temperature for efficient adsorption of CO2.”).
Regarding claim 4, Sharma teaches the carbon capture system as applied to claim 3 above, wherein each respective inter-exchanger is a heat exchanger arranged in the capture media of the respective capture vessel (¶0026 “a heating section of the heat exchanger circuit passing through the preheating unit and the desorption unit to heat these units to cause the adsorbed CO2 to be extracted from the adsorbent, and a cooling section of the heat exchanger circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”).
Regarding claim 7, Sharma teaches the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein each respective inter-exchanger is configured to circulate the respective coolant within the respective capture vessel during a respective cooling stage of the respective capture vessel in order to cool at least a portion of capture media of the respective capture vessel during the respective cooling stage (¶0026 “and a cooling section of the heat exchanger circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”).
Regarding claim 8, Sharma teaches a capture vessel configured to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) according to a thermal swing adsorption (TSA) process (¶0071 “In an advantageous embodiment (illustrated in Fig. 13b), the adsorbent material is on the surface of a fixed bed in each of a plurality of reactor chambers D1-D4” ; Fig. 5, TSA reactor 4), wherein the TSA process includes a cyclical sequence including a CO2 capture stage, a regeneration stage, and a cooling stage (¶0034 “In an advantageous embodiment, the reactor units are interconnected by fluid flow circuits and valves that may be operated to successively cycle the reactor units through different states from adsorption, preheating, desorption and precooling.”), the capture vessel comprising: capture media arranged inside the capture vessel (¶0033 “In an advantageous embodiment, the TSA comprises adsorbent material on the surface of a fixed bed in each of said reactor units.”); and an inter-exchanger arranged inside the capture vessel and thermally coupled to the capture media (¶0034 “In an advantageous embodiment, the reactor units are interconnected by fluid flow circuits and valves that may be operated to successively cycle the reactor units through different states from adsorption, preheating, desorption and precooling.” ; the fluid flow circuits read on the “inter-exchanger”), and wherein the capture media are configured to adsorb CO2 from an exhaust gas during the CO2 capture stage (¶0020 “Disclosed herein is a system for CO2 capture from a combustion engine comprising an exhaust gas flow circuit having an inlet end fluidly connected to an exhaust of the combustion engine”) to produce a nitrogen (N2) gas that exits the capture vessel (Fig. 1 depicts the typical composition of exhaust gas from a diesel engine ; ¶0070 “for instance around 90% of the CO2 is adsorbed by the adsorbent in the adsorption unit D4 and the remaining gases may be output into the environment.”), wherein the inter-exchanger is configured to, during the CO2 capture stage, circulate a coolant within the capture vessel to regulate a temperature of the capture media (¶0026 “In an advantageous embodiment, the TSA reactor further comprises a preheating unit and a precooling unit, … and a cooling section of the heat exchange circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units” ; ¶0057 “It is advantageous to produce a cooling capacity at a temperature lower than the 40⁰C. for the adsorption step of a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) process, especially in mobile applications where environmental temperature may exceed the optimal temperature for efficient adsorption of CO2.”) without the coolant passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel (Fig. 5, coolant passes through Adsorption vessel D4 without previously passing through an inter-exchanger of another capture vessel).
Regarding claim 9, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the inter-exchanger is configured to cool at least a portion of the capture media during the CO2 capture stage in order to increase a CO2 adsorption capacity of the capture media (¶0057 “It is advantageous to produce a cooling capacity at a temperature lower than the 40⁰C. for the adsorption step of a temperature swing adsorption (TSA) process, especially in mobile applications where environmental temperature may exceed the optimal temperature for efficient adsorption of CO2.”).
Regarding claim 10, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the inter-exchanger is a heat exchanger arranged in the capture media (¶0026 “a heating section of the heat exchanger circuit passing through the preheating unit and the desorption unit to heat these units to cause the adsorbed CO2 to be extracted from the adsorbent, and a cooling section of the heat exchanger circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”).
Regarding claim 12, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the coolant does not make physical contact with the exhaust gas during the CO2 capture stage (¶0034 “In an advantageous embodiment, the reactor units are interconnected by fluid flow circuits and valves” ; ¶0024 “In an embodiment, fluid in the heat exchanger circuit is independent of a CO2 output flow circuit of the TSA reactor.”).
Regarding claim 16, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the capture vessel is configured to, during the regeneration stage, release adsorbed CO2 to produce a CO2 stream (¶0026 “a heating section of the heat exchanger circuit passing through the preheating unit and the desorption unit to heat these units to cause the adsorbed CO2 to be extracted from the adsorbent”) and receive a heated CO2 stream derived from the CO2 stream (¶0023 “In an embodiment, the heat exchanger circuit is fluidly connected to a CO2 output flow circuit of the TSA reactor and the heat exchanger circuit contains CO2 outputted from the TSA reactor.”).
Regarding claim 19, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the inter-exchanger is configured to, during the cooling stage, circulate the coolant within the capture vessel to regulate the temperature of the capture media (¶0026 “and a cooling section of the heat exchanger circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, and further in view of Salimpour, M. R. Heat transfer coefficients of shell and coiled tube heat exchangers, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol. 33 (2009), pp. 203-207 (hereinafter referred to as Salimpour).
Regarding claim 5, Sharma teaches the carbon capture system as applied to claim 3 above, wherein each respective inter-exchanger is configured to, during the CO2 capture stage, carry the respective coolant such that the respective coolant absorbs heat from the capture media of the respective capture vessel and carries the heat away from the respective capture vessel (¶0026 “a cooling section of the heat exchanger circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”). Sharma does not explicitly teach wherein the inter-exchanger includes a coil configured to carry the respective coolant.
However, Salimpour teaches that helically coiled tubes have been shown as superior to straight tube configurations in heat transfer applications (Introduction, “Several studies have indicated that helically coiled tubes are superior to straight tubes when employed in heat transfer applications.”).
Sharma is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of carbon dioxide capture. Salimpour is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (efficient heat transfer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inter-exchanger as taught by Sharma to include a helical coil tube configuration as taught by Salimpour to increase the heat transfer efficiency. Furthermore, such a substitution of inter-exchanger configurations would result in a predictable result (higher heat transfer efficiency); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 6, Sharma and Salimpour teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 5 above. Salimpour further teaches wherein the respective coolant does not make physical contact with the cold exhaust during the respective CO2 capture stage (In a helical coil tube configuration as taught by Salimpour, the heat exchange fluid (coolant) would circulate throughout the tube and not come into physical contact with the cold exhaust).
Regarding claim 11, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the inter-exchange is configured to, during the CO2 capture stage, carry the coolant such that the coolant absorbs heat from the capture media and carries the heat out of the capture vessel (¶0026 “a cooling section of the heat exchanger circuit passes through the precooling unit and the adsorption unit D4 to cool these units”). Sharma does not explicitly teach wherein the inter-exchanger includes a coil configured to carry the respective coolant.
However, Salimpour teaches that helically coiled tubes have been shown as superior to straight tube configurations in heat transfer applications (Introduction, “Several studies have indicated that helically coiled tubes are superior to straight tubes when employed in heat transfer applications.”).
Sharma is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of carbon dioxide capture. Salimpour is considered analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned (efficient heat transfer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inter-exchanger as taught by Sharma to include a helical coil tube configuration as taught by Salimpour to increase the heat transfer efficiency. Furthermore, such a substitution of inter-exchanger configurations would result in a predictable result (higher heat transfer efficiency); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0072470 A1 to Dunn et al. (hereinafter referred to as Dunn).
Regarding claim 13, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above, wherein the capture media comprises: a first portion of capture media arranged proximate to an inlet of the capture vessel, wherein the inlet is configured to receive the exhaust gas; and wherein the inter-exchanger is thermally coupled to the first portion of capture media. Sharma does not teach wherein the capture media comprises a second portion of capture media arranged proximate to an outlet of the capture vessel, wherein the outlet is configured to output the N2 gas, wherein the inter-exchanger is arranged between the first portion of capture media and the second portion of capture media.
However, Dunn teaches a carbon capture system with a plurality of CO2 thermal swing adsorption beds (Abstract “A carbon capture system can include a plurality of CO2 thermal swing adsorption (TSA) beds”) in order to output nitrogen gas (¶0006 “at least one of the plurality of TSA beds is operated in a capture mode to remove CO2 from an exhaust flow and to output a nitrogen flow”), wherein the adsorption beds comprise distinct layers of adsorbent material (Fig. 13A, H2O adsorption molecular sieve and CO2 adsorption molecular sieve), wherein a first layer is proximate to an inlet of the adsorption bed and a second layer is proximate to an outlet of the capture vessel, wherein the outlet is configured to output the N2 gas (Fig. 13C, first layer is proximate to “inlet CO2 manifold” and a second layer is proximate to “outlet N2 manifold”). Dunn additionally teaches that the recovered nitrogen may be recycled to cool the TSA beds (¶0012 “In certain embodiments, a nitrogen recirculation system can have a nitrogen flow mover configure to recirculate nitrogen output by a respective TSA bed in the capture mode in order to increase cooling effect of the first, second, and third TSA beds when operated in the cooling mode.”).
Sharma and Dunn are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture vessel as taught by Sharma to include the multi-layered TSA adsorbent bed as taught by Dunn to recirculate nitrogen within the capture system to improve the overall efficiency. With such a modification, the inter-exchanger as taught by Sharma would be thermally coupled to both the first and second portions as the inter-exchanger runs through the entirety of the adsorbent beds as depicted in Figures 13a and 13b of Sharma, additionally reading on the limitation of wherein the inter-exchanger is arranged between the first and second portions of capture media.
Regarding claim 14, Sharma and Dunn teach the capture vessel as applied to claim 13 above. As explained above, the combination of Sharma and Dunn would produce a capture vessel wherein the inter-exchanger is thermally coupled to both the first and second portion of the capture media (see Fig. 13a and 13b of Sharma).
Regarding claim 15, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above. Sharma does not teach a dehydrating media arranged inside the capture vessel, wherein the dehydrating media are configured to adsorb water from the exhaust gas during the CO2 capture stage. Sharma does teach a separate gas-liquid separator to extract water from the exhaust gas stream (¶0027 “In an advantageous embodiment, the exhaust gas flow circuit comprises a gas-liquid separator upstream of the TSA reactor to extract water from the exhaust gas stream.”).
However, Dunn teaches a carbon capture system with a plurality of CO2 thermal swing adsorption beds (Abstract “A carbon capture system can include a plurality of CO2 thermal swing adsorption (TSA) beds”), wherein the TSA adsorption beds contain a dehydrating media inside of the vessel that is configured to adsorb water from an exhaust gas during a CO2 capture stage (¶0011 “In certain embodiments, the dehydration subsystem can be integrated with each of the first, second, and third TSA beds to remove water and CO2 in the same location.”).
Sharma and Dunn are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture vessel as taught by Sharma to include the dehydration media as taught by Dunn in order to efficiently remove water from the exhaust stream with a more compact system. Such a modification may reduce production costs as a result of replacing the gas-liquid separator as taught by Sharma with the dehydration media within the capture vessel itself.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 8424515 B1 to MacCallum (hereinafter referred to as MacCallum).
Regarding claim 20, Sharma teaches the capture vessel as applied to claim 8 above. Sharma does not teach wherein the capture media includes activated carbon.
However, MacCallum teaches a gas regeneration system comprising temperature swing adsorption (Abstract “Closed system breathable gas regeneration systems comprising temperature swing adsorption”) to capture carbon dioxide (Col. 2, lines 44-46 “Also, it provides such a system further comprising at least one carbon dioxide adsorber adapted to adsorb carbon dioxide”), wherein the carbon dioxide adsorber may utilize materials such as activated carbon when cost is taken into consideration (Col. 14, lines 16-20 “Upon reading the teachings of this specification, those skilled in the art will now appreciate that, under appropriate circumstances, considering such issues as future technology, cost, materials, etc., other sorbents, such as, for example, activated charcoal, metallic sorbents, etc., may suffice.”).
Sharma and MacCallum are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture vessel as taught by Sharma to include activated carbon as the adsorbent material as taught by MacCallum as a lower cost item compared to other adsorbents. Furthermore, such a substitution of adsorption media would result in a predictable result (carbon capture); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights