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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN061 (CN115318061, applicant’s translation will be referenced) in view of Faezeh (Accelerated CO2 capture on adsorbent coated finned tube, applicant’s attached NPL will be referenced.) as evidenced by Chen (Using 13X/LiX/LiPdAgX zeolites for CO2 capture from post combustion flue gas, attached reference will be used).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN061 in view of Faezeh further in view of US498 (US20210023498A1).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN061 in view of Faezeh further in view of Sueoka (US20090126397A1).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN061 in view of Faezeh further in view of WO970 (WO2022186970).
Rejection in view of CN061 and Faezeh
Claim 1: CN061 teaches a solar updraft system (Figure 1 can read upon this system) comprising: a chimney (chimney 102-1); a solar collector feeding into the chimney (base 102-2, the arrows show there is sunlight hitting it); and a contactor to an opening of the solar collector (carbon capture unit 101 along with 101-1).
CN061 does not explicitly teach having a plurality of fins including sorbent material, wherein the sorbent material absorbs carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). CN061 teaches in the figures that the CO2 contactors have tubes for CO2 adsorption as can be seen in 101-1 throughout the figures.
Faezeh teaches a method of removing CO2 in the atmosphere by using adsorption is known (Page 1 second paragraph). It teaches the use of zeolites on an external surface of a finned tube in the abstract. The introduction section 1 page 2 last paragraph teaches that finned tube heat exchangers are known to be used with an adsorbent coat to capture CO2. The conclusion section 4 teaches that finned tube being coated with a layer of zeolite enables better desorption rates for capturing CO2 as it has bigger surface area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sorbent material on a plurality of fins as Faezeh teaches this is known in the art of removing CO2 from the air.
Referring to the limitation of the sorbent being able to remove CO2 and water, this is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Faezeh teaches in page 1 second paragraph that there are some zeolites that show high selectivity for CO2 compared to other components except for water vapor. This means that water vapor is being removed or can be removed with certain sorbents. If they do not teach this, Chen is referenced in Faezeh and teaches in the second page right side column that the zeolite has water adsorption capabilities. Therefore this reads upon the limitation.
Claim 2: Faezeh teaches the sorbent material also adsorbs trace gasses selected from the group consisting of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and combinations (13X zeolite is capable of adsorbing methane.). This is also considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 3: Faezeh teaches the contactor is a component of a two stage system for adsorbing the carbon dioxide (CO2) and the water (H2O), wherein a first stage includes the contactor and a second stage includes a rapid temperature swing adsorption (RTSA) spot source capture system (Introduction section page 2 teaches that it is known that RTSA can be used instead of TSA for these processes for desorption.).
Claim 5: CN061 teaches the solar updraft system provides the carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) without an external energy input (Abstract teaches this is a DAC system, so it is getting it from the atmosphere.).
Claim 6: CN061 teaches the solar updraft system is a sloped solar updraft system (102-2 is sloped as seen in figure 1).
Claim 8: CN061 teaches the contactor provides direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide (Abstract teaches DAC).
Claim 10: Faezeh teaches the sorbent material includes a porous structure selective towards carbon dioxide (zeolite is porous).
Claim 11: CN061 teaches a solar updraft system (Figure 1 can read upon this system) comprising: a chimney (chimney 102-1); a solar collector feeding into the chimney (base 102-2, the arrows show there is sunlight hitting it); and a two stage system for absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) at an opening to the solar collector (101-1 and 101-2, also 104).
CN061 does not explicitly teach having a plurality of fins including sorbent material, wherein the sorbent material absorbs carbon dioxide and a second stage of the two stage system including a rapid temperature swing adsorption (RTSA) spot source capture system. CN061 teaches in the figures that the CO2 contactors have tubes for CO2 adsorption as can be seen in 101-1 and 101-2 throughout the figures.
Faezeh teaches a method of removing CO2 in the atmosphere by using adsorption is known (Page 1 second paragraph). It teaches the use of zeolites on an external surface of a finned tube in the abstract. The introduction section 1 page 2 last paragraph teaches that finned tube heat exchangers are known to be used with an adsorbent coat to capture CO2. The conclusion section 4 teaches that finned tube being coated with a layer of zeolite enables better desorption rates for capturing CO2 as it has bigger surface area. Faezeh also teaches RTSA is known in the art of removing CO2 and desorption (Introduction section page 2 teaches that it is known that RTSA can be used instead of TSA for these processes for desorption.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sorbent material on a plurality of fins as Faezeh teaches this is known in the art of removing CO2 from the air.
Faezeh also teaches RTSA is known in the art of removing CO2 and desorption (Introduction section page 2 teaches that it is known that RTSA can be used instead of TSA for these processes for desorption.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a RTSA as taught by Faezeh in the desorption device of CN061 as Faezeh teaches that RTSA is a known desorption process.
Referring to the limitation of the sorbent being able to remove CO2 and water, this is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Faezeh teaches in page 1 second paragraph that there are some zeolites that show high selectivity for CO2 compared to other components except for water vapor. This means that water vapor is being removed or can be removed with certain sorbents. If they do not teach this, Chen is referenced in Faezeh and teaches in the second page right side column that the zeolite has water adsorption capabilities. Therefore this reads upon the limitation.
Claim 12: Faezeh teaches the sorbent material also adsorbs trace gasses selected from the group consisting of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and combinations (13X zeolite is capable of adsorbing methane.). This is also considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 14: CN061 teaches the solar updraft system provides the carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) without an external energy input (Abstract teaches this is a DAC system, so it is getting it from the atmosphere.).
Claim 15: CN061 teaches the solar updraft system is a sloped solar updraft system (102-2 is sloped as seen in figure 1).
Claim 17: CN061 teaches the contactor provides direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide (Abstract teaches DAC).
Claim 19: Faezeh teaches the sorbent material includes a porous structure selective towards carbon dioxide (zeolite is porous).
Claim 20: CN061 teaches a sloped solar updraft system (Figure 1 can read upon this system, 102-2 is sloped) comprising: a chimney (chimney 102-1); a solar collector feeding into the chimney (base 102-2, the arrows show there is sunlight hitting it), wherein the solar collector is built into a geographic feature (This appears to mean any kind of natural and human constructed object. In this case it would read upon the limitation as it is attached to a chimney that can be attached to something else. There is no further limitation so any part of this can read upon geographic feature.); and a two stage system for absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) at an opening to the solar collector (101-1 and 101-2, also 104).
CN061 does not explicitly teach having a plurality of fins including sorbent material, wherein the sorbent material absorbs carbon dioxide and a second stage of the two stage system including a rapid temperature swing adsorption (RTSA) spot source capture system. CN061 teaches in the figures that the CO2 contactors have tubes for CO2 adsorption as can be seen in 101-1 and 101-2 throughout the figures.
Faezeh teaches a method of removing CO2 in the atmosphere by using adsorption is known (Page 1 second paragraph). It teaches the use of zeolites on an external surface of a finned tube in the abstract. The introduction section 1 page 2 last paragraph teaches that finned tube heat exchangers are known to be used with an adsorbent coat to capture CO2. The conclusion section 4 teaches that finned tube being coated with a layer of zeolite enables better desorption rates for capturing CO2 as it has bigger surface area. Faezeh also teaches RTSA is known in the art of removing CO2 and desorption (Introduction section page 2 teaches that it is known that RTSA can be used instead of TSA for these processes for desorption.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sorbent material on a plurality of fins as Faezeh teaches this is known in the art of removing CO2 from the air.
Faezeh also teaches RTSA is known in the art of removing CO2 and desorption (Introduction section page 2 teaches that it is known that RTSA can be used instead of TSA for these processes for desorption.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a RTSA as taught by Faezeh in the desorption device of CN061 as Faezeh teaches that RTSA is a known desorption process.
Referring to the limitation of the sorbent being able to remove CO2 and water, this is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Faezeh teaches in page 1 second paragraph that there are some zeolites that show high selectivity for CO2 compared to other components except for water vapor. This means that water vapor is being removed or can be removed with certain sorbents. If they do not teach this, Chen is referenced in Faezeh and teaches in the second page right side column that the zeolite has water adsorption capabilities. Therefore this reads upon the limitation.
Rejection in view of CN061, Faezeh, and US498
Claims 4 and 13: The prior arts do not explicitly state a gasometer is present between the contactor of the first stage and the rapid temperature swing adsorption (RTSA) spot source capture system of the second stage.
US498 teaches in [0040] that gasometers are known in the art of PSAs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a gasometer at an optimal location as taught by US498, as US498 teaches that gasometers are known to be used in CO2 PSAs ([0040]) and that gasometers are used in order to provide controlled shutdown or the ability to properly control the system when issues arise ([0004]-[0006]).
Rejection in view of CN061, Faezeh, and Sueoka
Claim 7 and 16: The prior arts do not explicitly state the contactor includes a channel housing a plurality of aluminum fins on copper tubes, wherein the plurality of the aluminum fins are coated with a layer of a sorbent material.
Faezeh teaches the use of aluminum fins on a tube, but does not explicitly state it is copper. Sueoka teaches adsorption heat exchangers that have aluminum fins formed on copper tubes with adsorbent applied to them. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred material such as copper since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Rejection in view of CN061, Faezeh, and WO970
Claims 9 and 18: The prior arts do not explicitly state injection of aerosol into the chimney, wherein the injection of the aerosol produces a rotating airflow plume to reach stratosphere. CN061 does teach that the chimney 102-1 exhausts the clean air into the atmosphere. WO970 teaches in page 3 lines 6-30 additional ways to help reduce climate change cause by GHG. It teaches that injection of aerosol particles into the Earth’s stratosphere is a known method of reducing climate change. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include an injection of aerosol into the chimney as it causes the air to be released high into the atmosphere.
The limitation of “injection of the aerosol produces a rotating airflow plume to reach stratosphere” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 01/28/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776