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 Invention I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on December 1, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 1, 2025.
Drawings
Figure 5(A) should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated, see para. 123 of the October 19, 2023 Specification. See also MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 28, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
In particular, the IDS lists five foreign patent documents, but no copies have been filed.
Further, the listing of references in the specification (see paras. 134-136 of the October 19, 2023 Specification, under “Literature”) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 5 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 4 of copending Application No. 18/457,205 (reference application), respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application read on the instant application’s claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “… a second removal apparatus for CO2 at a start of the preheating zone …” Examiner is interpreting the start of the preheating zone consistent with Para. 26 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which states, “At the start of the preheating zone, the carbonate-containing rock, referred to as limestone hereinafter, is introduced into the shaft furnace at a temperature T.sub.KS and a mass flow rate m.sub.KS.” In other words, the start of the preheating zone is being interpreted as the top of the zone, or where the limestone is introduced; see also at least fig. 2, which shows the second removal apparatus located beside limestone feed 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang, Novel Lime Calcination System for CO2 Capture and Its Thermal-Mass Balance Analysis, published October 16, 2020.
Please Note: Yang was referenced in the Specification but not cited in any IDS.
Regarding claim 1. Yang teaches an apparatus for production of burnt lime or dolomite, having:
a shaft furnace (shaft kiln) having a preheating zone (preheating zone), a reaction zone (reacting zone), a separation zone (soaking zone) and a cooling zone (cooling zone);
a first feed apparatus for CO2 at a boundary of the separation zone to the reaction zone (line with the circulating carrier gas (CO2) being fed between the soaking and reacting zones);
a first removal apparatus at a boundary of the cooling zone to the separation zone (line with blower and oxidant gas (air+CO2) being removed between the cooling zone and soaking zone);
a second removal apparatus for CO2 at a start of the preheating zone (line with the blower and tail gas (CO2 captured and circulating carrier gas (CO2-) being removed from the top of the preheating zone, see claim interpretation section above); and
at least one heating apparatus (furnace system), wherein the at least one heating apparatus has a regenerator system (3.4. Thermal Balance Equations of the Furnace System, “The furnace system is equipped with a preheater and two identical regenerative hot stoves (stove-A and stove-B). Stove-A and stove-B are switched for use. When stove-A is in the heat storage step, stove-B is in the heat release step, and vice versa.”);
wherein the regenerator system has at least two regenerators (stove A and B), a preheater (preheater), a feed for fuel (coal gas) and a feed for fresh air (oxidant gas (air+CO2));
the second removal apparatus opens into the at least one heating apparatus (fed into stove A of the furnace system in the figure copied above); and
the first feed apparatus is formed by the at least one heating apparatus for the shaft furnace (in the figure copied above, hot CO2 is fed from stove A of the furnace system to the first feed apparatus).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. Yang teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first removal apparatus is connected to the regenerator system (Yang figure 2, copied above, circulating carrier gas (CO2) connected to stove A of the furnace system).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6261093 B1 to Matros.
Regarding claim 2. Yang teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the at least one heating apparatus also has an electrical heating system.
Matros teaches a regenerative heating system having a supplemental heat source being an electric heating element (col. 1 ll. 45-54).
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 device of Yang to implement a suitable supplemental heat source, as taught by Matros. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of introducing supplemental heat energy into the system of Yang, as well as being used to initially heat the system at startup, as suggested by Matros in the portion cited above.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102021201549 A1 to Pringer.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Pringer.
Regarding claim 3. Yang teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the shaft furnace also has a third removal apparatus at a boundary of the reaction zone to the preheating zone and the third removal apparatus outside the shaft furnace opens into the second removal apparatus upstream of the at least one heating apparatus.
Pringer teaches a removal apparatus in between a preheating and firing zone (fig. 4, gas outlet 56) which opens into an exhaust gas outlet upstream of a heating apparatus (fig. 4, the gas outlet 56 opens into the exhaust gas outlet line 39 of the exhaust gas outlet 19, after passing through heat exchanger 35a, upstream of the heating device 54. The point of connection is just after control device 44).
PNG
media_image2.png
491
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 device of Yang to implement a suitable third removal apparatus, which is provided with a heat exchanger 35a and opens into the second removal apparatus upstream of the heating apparatus, as taught by Pringer. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably heating the gas of the second removal apparatus, as suggested by Pringer on p. 11 para. 2, “The partial flow of the exhaust gas is heated in one of the heat exchangers 35a with the gas drawn off via the third material-free space 55 and in the other of the heat exchangers 35b with the cooling gas drawn off via the second material-free space 49 in countercurrent. The partial exhaust gas stream heated in the heat exchanger 35a by means of the gas drawn off from the combustion zone 20 is preferably combined upstream of the heating device 54 with the partial exhaust gas stream heated in the heat exchanger 35b by means of the gas drawn off from the cooling zone 22.”
Regarding claim 6. Yang teaches the apparatus according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the first removal apparatus is in contact with the second removal apparatus in a form of a second preheater.
Pringer teaches a preheater for an exhaust gas outlet line in contact with the outlet of a cooling zone (fig. 4, copied above, where p. 11 para. 2 describes, “The partial flow of the exhaust gas is heated … in the other of the heat exchangers 35b with the cooling gas drawn off via the second material-free space 49 in countercurrent.” Thus, the heat exchanger 35b heats the partial flow of the exhaust gas with the cooling gas)
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 device of Yang to implement a suitable heat exchanger between the oxidant gas and the circulating carrier gas, as taught by Pringer with the heat exchanger 35b. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably preheating the carrier gas prior to the heating apparatus, as suggested by Pringer in the portion cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4. The combination of Yang in view of Pringer, as applied to claim 3, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the second removal apparatus is connected directly to the first feed apparatus via a shortcut conduit upstream of a point at which the third removal apparatus opens into it.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, the combination teaches no divergent paths of the second removal apparatus upstream of a point at which the third removal apparatus opens into it. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a shortcut conduit connection from the second removal apparatus to the first feed apparatus, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762