DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed July 10th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
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 3 and 7 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 3 recites the limitation "the bottom section of the absorber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the different levels of absorber packing" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2013/0259785 A1 to Vitse et al. (hereinafter referred to as Vitse), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0322921 A1 to Miyamoto et al. (hereinafter referred to as Miyamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Vitse teaches a carbon capture system (Abstract “A system and a method is provided for removing carbon dioxide from a gas stream”), comprising: an absorber having a plurality of lean carbon capture solution inlets at different levels of the absorber (Fig. 1, absorber 110 and solvent 114a, 114b enter at different levels), a rich carbon capture solution outlet (Fig. 1, stream 120 ; ¶0019 “The contact between the CO2 semi-lean stream 114b and the gas stream 112 forms a stream 120 that is rich in CO2”), and a flue gas inlet (Fig. 1, CO2-containing gas stream 112 ; ¶0015 “wherein a CO2-containing gas stream 112, such as, for example, a flue gas stream, is introduced”); a stripper having at least one rich carbon capture solution inlet connected to the rich carbon capture solution outlet (Fig. 1, stream 120 becomes CO2-enriched phase stream 140 before entering regeneration system 126 and regenerator 144 ; ¶0017 “the CO2-lean stream 114a comprises a regenerated solvent 149 that is cycled back to the absorber 110 after exiting a regenerator 144 wherein the regenerated solvent 149 is stripped of carbon dioxide.”) and a lean carbon capture solution outlet connected to the plurality of lean carbon capture solution inlets (Fig. 1, solvent 149 is passed from regenerator 144 back to absorber 110 as CO2-lean streams 114a, 114b); a cooling system adapted to independent a carbon dioxide-lean carbon capture solution being delivered to each of the plurality of lean carbon capture solution inlets at the different levels of the absorber (Fig. 1, chillers 141 cool streams 114a and 114b); and a control module including a controller (Fig. 1, control system 136 comprises controller 137) and a plurality of temperature sensors (Fig. 1, devices 90-99 ; ¶0024 “the control system 136 comprises a controller 137 in communication with a plurality of devices 90-99 for measuring and selectively adjusting a plurality of operating parameters such as, for example, temperature”) wherein the controller is responsive to the plurality of temperature sensors provided at each of the different levels of the absorber to control operation of the cooling system and thereby maintain a desired temperature profile at the different levels of the absorber to enhance loading of carbon dioxide from the flue gas to a carbon capture solution and reduce energy requirements for lean carbon capture solution regeneration in the stripper (¶0024 “A 90% capture rate of CO2 may be achieved upon the regulation of the temperature of the absorber 110 via a control system 136 in communication with the absorber 110 and the regeneration system 126. … Such devices 90-99 are configured to transmit to, and receive from, the controller 137 one or more signals for operation of such devices, and the controller 137 is configured to receive and transmit multiple signals simultaneously”). Vitse does not teach wherein the cooling system is adapted to also independently cool a flue gas upstream from the flue gas inlet.
However, Miyamoto teaches a carbon dioxide capture system for capturing carbon dioxide from a flue gas (Abstract “A carbon dioxide recovery apparatus is disclosed including a flue gas cooling unit”) with a cooling system that is adapted to independently cool a flue gas upstream of a flue gas inlet (Fig. 1, flue gas cooling unit 10 cools the flue gas before entering absorption unit 20). Miyamoto further teaches that incorporating a flue gas cooling system allows for manipulation of the temperature to ensure optimal CO2 absorption (¶0003 “a pretreatment tower having a function of a flue gas cooling tower that preliminarily cools the gas G to be supplied to the absorption tower to adjust a temperature of the gas to a proper temperature suitable for the absorption of carbon dioxide.”).
Vitse and Miyamoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide capture systems utilizing absorption towers. 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 carbon capture system of Vitse to further incorporate cooling of the flue gas as taught by Miyamoto to further ensure the absorption tower is kept at optimal temperature for CO2 absorption.
Regarding claim 2, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above. Vitse further teaches wherein the controller is adapted to maintain a carbon dioxide rich-carbon capture solution in a bottom section of the absorber at a predetermined temperature less than or equal to 45⁰C (¶0024 “A 90% capture rate of CO2 may be achieved upon the regulation of the temperature of the absorber 110 via a control system 136 in communication with the absorber 110 and the regeneration system 126.” ; ¶0018 “In one embodiment, the absorber 110 is operated at a temperature of about 45⁰C. or less.”).
Regarding claim 3, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above. Vitse further teaches wherein the controller is adapted to maintain the carbon dioxide capture rich-carbon capture solution in the bottom section of the absorber at a predetermined temperature less than or equal to 35⁰C (¶0024 “A 90% capture rate of CO2 may be achieved upon the regulation of the temperature of the absorber 110 via a control system 136 in communication with the absorber 110 and the regeneration system 126.” ; ¶0018 “In another embodiment, the absorber 110 is operated in accordance with CAP, as described above, such that the temperature of the absorber 110 is about 20⁰C.”). Although Vitse does not explicitly disclose that the temperature is less than or equal to 35⁰C, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the cooling system includes a direct contact cooler upstream from the flue gas inlet that is adapted to cool the flue gas to a predetermined temperature prior to delivery to the flue gas inlet (¶0023 “In the gas-liquid contact section 12, the flue gas cooling water comes in contact with the flue gas, to cool the flue gas.”). With the combination of Vitse and Miyamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the control module as taught by Vitse could be adapted to additionally control the flue gas cooler as taught by Miyamoto. With such a modification, the control module would further include a flue gas temperature sensor for monitoring the current temperature of the flue gas exiting the direct contact cooler to further regulate the temperature of the absorption tower (¶0024 “A 90% capture rate of CO2 may be achieved upon the regulation of the temperature of the absorber 110 via a control system 136 in communication with the absorber 110 and the regeneration system 126. … The device 90-99 include, for example, sensors or other measurement devices … Such devices 90-99 are configured to transmit to, and receive from, the controller 137 one or more signals for operation of such devices”).
Regarding claim 5, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 4 above. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the direct contact cooler includes (a) a cooling chamber having a flue gas inlet (¶0022 “The flue gas cooling tower 10 includes an outer shell 11, a gas-liquid contact section 12 accommodated in the outer shell 11, and a cooling water supply section 13 that supplies flue gas cooling water to the gas-liquid contact section 12 from above. A flue gas introduction line L1 is connected to a lower part of the outer shell 11.”), a cooling water inlet (Fig. 1, cooling water supply section 13), and a water recycling outlet (¶0024 “The first circulation line L2 is provided with a circulating water pump 14, and a circulating water cooling device 15 that cools circulating water.” ; Fig. 1, water is circulated from the bottom of the cooling tower to the top where cooling water supply section 13 is located), (b) a cooling water pump connected to a cooling water source (Fig. 1, circulating water pump 14) and (c) a recycling water pump adapted for returning water to the cooling water source (Fig. 1, circulating water pump 14 ; In this scenario, the circulating water pump 14 functions as both a cooling water pump (sending water from the bottom of the tower to water cooling device 15) and as a recycling water pump (sending water from water cooling device 15 back to cooling water supply section 13) ; Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 6, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 5 above. Miyamoto further teaches wherein the direct contact cooler further includes at least one cooling water sprayer in the cooling chamber that receives cooling water from the cooling water pump (Fig. 1, cooling water supply section 13 within gas-liquid contact section 12 receives cooling water from circulating water pump 14).
Regarding claim 7, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above. Vitse further teaches wherein the cooling system further includes a cooler in a carbon dioxide rich-carbon capture solution recycling circuit (Fig. 1, chiller 123) adapted for recycling a portion of the carbon dioxide rich-carbon capture solution to the bottom section of the absorber and/or the different levels of absorber packing (Fig. 1, stream 120 is capable of being passed back after passing through regenerator 144 or beforehand, meeting the limitations of claim 7 ; Apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 and § 2173.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8, Vitse and Miyamoto teach the carbon capture system as applied to claim 1 above. Vitse further teaches wherein the cooling system includes a separate and independently controller-controlled chiller upstream from each of the plurality of lean carbon capture solution inlets (Fig. 1, chillers 141 are upstream from the inlets for streams 114a, 114b ; devices 93, 94, 96, and 97 are in communication with controller 136).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 2021/0245092 A1) teaches a carbon dioxide capture system utilizing a cooling system adapted to cool a flue gas and carbon dioxide lean capture solution.
Mabrouk (US 2019/0143261 A1) teaches a carbon dioxide capture system which introduces carbon dioxide lean capture solution at different levels of an absorber.
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