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 .
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.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to a system for CO2 recovery, classified in B01D53/965.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a method of CO2 recovery, classified in B01D53/62.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as one in which the hydrogen comes from a process other than electrolysis, such as a H2 purification process utilizing a membrane separator.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Francis Lammes on 6/29/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (US 2020/0392053) in view of Golecki (US 5,348,774).
Regarding claim 1, Winkler teaches a system for carbon dioxide (CO2) emission recovery, the system comprising:
a methanization reactor (314, depicted in Fig. 3), wherein the methanization reactor is configured to:
receive CO2 separated from one or more off gases (the system of Winkler is configured to take a CO2 containing stream from a combustion appliance 302 and separate the CO2 which is then fed to the methanation reactor, see flow diagram in Fig. 3);
receive hydrogen (H2) produced from an electrolysis process (see Fig. 3 where hydrogen for the methanator is received from an electrolysis process 308);
convert the CO2 and the H2 via methanization reaction to produce methane (CH4) (see Fig. 3 which illustrates a methane stream exiting the methanator 314); and
supply the CH4 to at least one of the carbon/carbon (C/C) preform production process or another system for heat generation (see Fig. 3 where the produced methane is sent to the combustion appliance where heat can be generated).
Winkler teaches that the carbon dioxide utilized in the methanation reactor can be obtained from any sources (paragraph 45). However, Winkler does not teach a system that is configured to receive the carbon dioxide from a C/C preform production process.
Golecki also discloses a carbon dioxide producing process (see col. 6 lines 33-47).
Golecki teaches a C/C preform production process (see abstract) and teaches that the process produces a byproduct comprising methane, ethane, hydrogen which is oxidized in a burn box (18) to produce a waste gas stream comprising carbon dioxide and water (col. 6 lines 35-44).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the waste carbon dioxide and water stream of Golecki as the carbon dioxide source of Winkler. Such a modification would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known carbon dioxide source for another to yield entirely predictable results. Furthermore, such a modification would allow for the methane that is produced in modified Winkler, to be recycled back to Golecki as a feed stream for the C/C composition manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, Winkler further discloses H2 generator, wherein the H.sub.2 generator is configured to utilize electric power to electrolyze first water (H2O) into the H2 (electrolyzer, 308).
Regarding claim 3, Winkler further discloses a separator (304/310, see Fig. 3), wherein the separator is configured to separate the CO2 from byproducts and provides the CO2 to the methanization reactor (see separator 304/310 which separates CO2 from the other gasses in the CO2 containing stream).
Regarding claim 4, Winkler further discloses a steam removal mechanism (304), wherein the separator is further configured to provide remaining byproducts separated from the byproducts to the steam removal mechanism, and wherein the steam removal mechanism is configured to remove first steam from the remaining byproducts and supply the first steam to a condenser (see paragraph 44 which discloses condensing the water to remove it from the byproduct stream).
Regarding claim 5, Winkler further discloses the condenser (such as condensate tank 294), wherein the methanization reactor is configured to produce second steam (steam is produced as a result of the methanation reaction, see paragraph 41 which discloses the production of steam/water) and supply the second steam to the condenser (see paragraph 41 which states that the stream coming out of the methanation reactor is sent to the condensation tank 294), and wherein the condenser is configured to condense the first steam and the second steam to the first H2O and supply the first H2O to the H2 generator (purified water 278 is sent from the condenser to the electrolyzer 276 to produce oxygen and hydrogen).
Regarding claim 6, Winkler further discloses the steam removal mechanism is further configured to remove nitrogen (N2) from the remaining byproducts and releases the N2 into an atmosphere (see Fig. 3 which illustrates removing nitrogen from the by product stream and releasing to the atmosphere).
Regarding claim 7, Winkler, as modified by Golecki above, further discloses a burner/steam generator, wherein the burner/steam generator is configured to generate the byproducts from off gases and supply the byproducts to the separator (such as in the burnbox 18 of Golecki).
Regarding claim 10, Winkler further discloses H2 generator is further configured to utilize the electric power (electricity 284, see paragraph 36) to electrolyze the first water (H2O) into oxygen O2 (such is the case with electrolysis), and wherein the O2 from the H2 generator is proportionally added to air utilized by the burner/steam generator (see paragraph 36 which discloses that the oxygen from the electrolyzer is combined with air and sent to the combustor).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (US 2020/0392053) in view of Golecki (US 5,348,774) and further in view of Conchieri (US 2010/0058764).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Winkler, as modified by Golecki, teaches a burner which burns unreacted hydrocarbon to produce heat along with the CO2 containing by product stream that is utilized in modified Winkler. Winkler, however, does not teach the claimed steam utilization mechanism which receives steam from the burner, condenses the steam and sends it back to the burner.
Conchieri also discloses burner (turbine) to produce steam (see abstract).
Conchieri teaches a steam cycle system where a burner (gas turbine 16) produces heat via combustion which is then utilized to produce steam in a HSRG (10). Conchieri teaches that this steam is sent to a steam utilization device (steam turbine) to produce electricity and then the unused steam (low pressure steam exiting turbine 26) is sent to a condenser (36) in order to recycle the liquid water back to the steam generator/burner (10). Conchieri teaches such a configuration in order to generate electricity from the produced heat of the burner.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the steam cycle system of Conchieri to the burner of modified Winkler in order to produce electricity from the produced heat.
Relevant Prior Art
WO 2018/019872 A1 – Discloses a methanation system in which carbon dioxide is reacted with hydrogen produced in an electrolyzer to synthesis methane. This reference then goes on to teach separating water from the methanated stream, similar to the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights