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 III claims 22-29 in the reply filed on 5/21/2026 is acknowledged. The non-elected claims have been canceled.
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).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on July 22, 2021 Italian Patent Application No. 102021000019547 It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words (auto word count 165 words) and should be a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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) 22-25, 27and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balfe et al (US 2018/0028967)
Regarding Claims 22-25, 27 and 29:
Balfe et al (US 2018/0028967) discloses a process as more fully below set forth including a feed stock subjected to first calcination producing carbon dioxide gas and preheated raw material followed by carbonation and a second calciner with a carbon dioxide capture system using oxy fuel combustion and cooling the material producing the calcium oxide material forming clinker and the second calciner also has energy from oxy combustion forming clinker and using a kiln which includes a rotary kiln using flue gas for heat followed by cooling where the temperatures of the reaction and process steps overlap those of the instant claim. Etc.
PNG
media_image1.png
820
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Teaching calcium oxide. Feed to 1st calciner to carbonator to 2nd calciner to kiln.
PNG
media_image2.png
628
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4: raw material feed stock
21: preheater
1: First calciner
2: carbonator
3: kiln
15: calciner
PNG
media_image3.png
512
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The calciner kiln may be a rotary kiln [0004]
Cement is made by clinkering raw material such as limestone etc. [0004-0007] the material is clinkered at the kiln 3 [0017] and cooled [0056]
The kiln 3 is connected to a heat exchanger for cooling the clinker [0059](meeting claim 29)
The carbonator is cooled against the rich sorbent CaCo.sub.3 moved from carbonator 2 to second calciner [0067](meeting 22 a)) part of the cooled solids returning from calciner 1 or 15 is heated with flue gas (i.e. Co.sb.2) [0076] (meeting claim 22 b) c) e) f) and meeting the limitation of claim 22 b) for cooling and c) for carbonation).
[0093] The additional calciner 15 provides increased flexibility to consider increased calcination times ensuring complete calcination of make-up sorbent and ultimately increasing the sorbent activity (quantity CO.sub.2/quantity sorbent).
The kiln flue gas is generated by combustion of fuel with air and COsub.2 is created during clinkering reaction due to residual carbon content [0015] [0018] and there can be oxy fuel calcination direct fired or other [0054] such as solid fuel of coal etc. [0055, 0059] (meeting claim 22 a) oxy fuel combustion and d) oxy fuel combustion)(meeting claim 25)
The raw material (4) goes to preheater 21 and 22 [0045] to heat exchanger (31) to second calciner (15) [0050] FIG 4 (meeting claim 27)
Calciner 1 usually at a temperature above 900ºC [0064] carbonator at temperature between 600-750ºC [0066] Second calciner at temperature usually above 900º C [0069] (overlapping claim 23)(where the temperature at carbonator indicates cooling of first calcined material overlapping range of claim 24)See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
The flue gases are cooled [0058] heat exchanger at kiln 3 cools the clinker discharged from the kiln [0059]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach a process and configuration encompassing the combined limitations of claims 26 and 28 there is no reason to modify the teachings of the prior art to include/encompass same absent impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As previously cited:
Blount et al US 2010/0319586 which teaches a BI and CO.sub.2 gas capture (Abstract) Figures 2 and 3 show an apparatus with a pre heater, a first calciner A and a second calciner B and a carbonation unit / CO.sub.2 capture/CaCO.sub.3. See reference claims 1 and 4 referring to a first calciner and a second calciner and CO.sub.2 capture. (meeting the limitation for a first calcination reaction a) and CO.sub.2 removal of a) and carbonator) (and meeting d) second calcination reaction and CO.sub.2 generation)
PNG
media_image4.png
652
966
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Showing feed stock pre heated, calcined A sent to CO.sub.2 capture etc. also showing calcining A then calcining B with no carbonation.
The system is an open loop system which separates carbon dioxide during manufacture of cement and uses Ca and Mg oxide as a reactant for capturing carbon dioxide from fuel combustion gases. [0002][0012]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights