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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/07/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the Specification were received on 08/07/2025. These amendments are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1
Lines 19-22 recite the limitation “the heat exchanger constructed and arranged to produce a cooled exhaust gas mixture comprising carbon dioxide for delivery to a heating system (142) on-site at the industrial facility”. However, paragraph [0034] of the Specification discloses that while heat is captured via a heat exchanger (63) and provided to the heating system (142), the exhaust gas (57) [the exhaust gas includes carbon dioxide, heat, water, and water vapor] is used for the production system (112). The Specification does not disclose delivery of carbon dioxide to a heating system (142), and therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claims 2-11 and 13
Claims 2-11 and 13 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper, US 2017/0341942.
Regarding Claim 1
Harper discloses an apparatus for producing heat and reducing emissions (Harper, Abstract) with an exhaust gas mixture at an industrial facility [the processing site of Harper is interpreted as the industrial facility], comprising:
a CO2 generation chamber (2 - OXFCPS) located on-site at the industrial facility [as the processing site of Harper is interpreted as the industrial facility, and the carbon dioxide is not transferred away until after the production chamber (3), the CO2 generation chamber (2) and the production chamber (3) are both located on-site at the same industrial facility] (Harper, Figures 1, 3, and 9), the CO2 generation chamber (2 - OXFCPS) adapted to generate an exhaust gas mixture comprising gaseous carbon dioxide (Harper, [0428], Figures 1 and 9);
a production chamber (3 - stunning chamber) located on-site at the industrial facility [as the processing site of Harper is interpreted as the industrial facility, and the carbon dioxide is not transferred away until after the production chamber (3), the CO2 generation chamber (2) and the production chamber (3) are both located on-site at the same industrial facility] (Harper, [0261] [0129], Figures 1, 3, and 9), the production chamber (3 - stunning chamber) constructed and arranged to receive therein gaseous carbon dioxide and as many a product selected to be processed with the gaseous carbon dioxide at the industrial facility (Harper, Figures 1 and 9); and
a first pipeline (12) (Harper, [0270], Figures 1 and 9) interconnecting the CO2 generation chamber (2) with the production chamber (3 - stunning chamber) for delivering at least a portion of the exhaust gas mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide from the CO2 generation chamber (2 - OXFCPS) (Harper, Figures 1 and 9) to the production chamber (3 - stunning chamber) without the portion being vented directly to atmosphere (Harper, Figures 1 and 9) [It is inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that since exhaust gas is introduced to the production chamber (3), at least a portion of the exhaust gas is provided to the production chamber (3) from the CO2 generation chamber (2) without being vented to the atmosphere].
Harper discloses in an additional embodiment the presence of a boiler [element providing heat capture within the system to modulate steam addition to reach desired CO2 provided to the production chamber, [0575]] located at the industrial facility (Harper, [0129] and [0575]) for being contacted by the exhaust gas mixture from the CO2 generation chamber (2) (Harper, [0414] and [0575], Figure 3).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Harper to include a boiler located at the industrial facility for being contacted by the exhaust gas mixture form the CO2 generation chamber in order to obtain post-combustion power from excess heat present in the CO2 generation chamber exhaust as is taught by Harper as well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 2
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses that the first pipeline (12) is constructed and arranged to deliver the exhaust gas mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide to the production chamber (3) (Harper, Figures 1 and 9).
[While Harper does not explicitly disclose delivering all of the exhaust mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide to the production chamber without any of the gaseous carbon dioxide being vented directly to the atmosphere, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that all of the exhaust gas mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide to the production chamber as (12) indicates a mass transfer of post combustion gas (containing both carbon dioxide and water vapor) to the production chamber (3) (Harper, [0270]).]
Regarding Claim 3
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses a second pipeline (10) interconnecting the CO2 generation chamber (2) with a heating system (9) at the industrial facility for providing hot water and steam from the boiler[element providing heat capture within the system to modulate steam addition to reach desired CO2 provided to the production chamber, [0575]] to the heating system (9) (Harper, Figure 4).
[While Harper does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the hot water and steam provided is not vented to the atmosphere, it would have been inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least a portion of the hot water and steam provided is not vented to the atmosphere, as it is provided to the heating system (Harper, Figure 4).]
Regarding Claim 4
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses a second pipeline (10) interconnecting the CO2 generation chamber (2) with a heating system (9) at the industrial facility for providing hot water and steam from the boiler [element providing heat capture within the system to modulate steam addition to reach desired CO2 provided to the production chamber, [0575]] to the heating system (9), wherein none of the hot water and steam is vented directly to the atmosphere (Harper, Figure 4).
[While Harper does not explicitly disclose wherein none of the hot water and steam provided is not vented to the atmosphere, it would have been inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that none of the hot water and steam provided is not vented to the atmosphere, as it is provided to the heating system (Harper, Figure 4).]
Regarding Claim 5
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses a source of oxygen (via (10)) connected to the CO2 generation chamber (2) (Harper, [0268], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses a source of carbon dioxide (via (11)) connected to the production chamber (3, 7) (Harper, Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 8
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses a fuel source containing fuel (methane) in fluid communication with the CO2 generation chamber (2) (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figures 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 9
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 8 above. Harper further teaches that the fuel (methane) comprises a flammable substance selected from the group consisting of natural gas (methane) and propane (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 8 above. Harper further teaches an existing combustion chamber (OXFCPS) at the industrial facility, wherein the fuel from the fuel source may be directed to both the CO2 generation chamber (2) and the existing combustion chamber (OXFCPS) at the industrial facility (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses that the CO2 generation chamber (2) comprises a burner (OXFCPS) selected from the group consisting of an oxyfuel burner, and an air-oxyfuel burner [oxy-fueled combustion of methane in the OXFCPS] (Harper, [0428] and [0268]).
Regarding Claim 13
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 1 above. Harper further discloses that the product selected is from the group consisting of animals, chemical inerting processes, and a fire suppression system (Harper, [0129]).
Regarding Claim 14
Harper discloses a method for producing heat and reducing emissions with an exhaust gas mixture at an industrial facility (Harper, Abstract, Figure 1), comprising: generating an exhaust gas mixture comprising gaseous carbon dioxide from a CO2 generation chamber (2) located on-site at the industrial facility ([0261] and [0129], Figures 1, 3, and 9); providing the exhaust gas mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide to a production chamber (3) constructed and arranged on-site at the industrial facility for receiving therein the gaseous carbon dioxide and as may a product selected to be processed with the carbon dioxide at the industrial facility (Harper, [0270], Figures 1 and 9); and delivering the exhaust gas mixture from the CO2 generation chamber (2) to the production chamber (3), wherein at least a portion of the exhaust gas mixture from the CO2 generation chamber (2) is not vented directly to atmosphere (Harper, Figures 1 and 9).
Harper discloses in an additional embodiment, the presence of a heat exchanger (HEPPU) [obtaining post-combustion power from heat present in the OXFCPS exhaust] (Harper, [0324]) located at the industrial facility for receiving at least a portion of the exhaust gas mixture, the heat exchanger (HEPPU) constructed and arranged to produce cooled exhaust gas mixture comprising carbon dioxide for delivery to the production chamber (3 - stunning chamber) (Harper, [0324], Figures 1 and 9).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Harper to include cooling the exhaust gas mixture before delivering the exhaust gas mixture to the production chamber in order to obtain post-combustion power from excess heat present in the CO2 generation chamber exhaust as is taught by Harper as well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 15
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses delivering all the exhaust gas mixture to the production chamber (3) without any of the exhaust gas mixture being vented directly to the atmosphere (Harper, Figures 1 and 9).
While Harper does not explicitly disclose delivering all of the exhaust mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide to the production chamber without any of the gaseous carbon dioxide being vented directly to the atmosphere, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that all of the exhaust gas mixture comprising the gaseous carbon dioxide to the production chamber as (12) indicates a mass transfer of post combustion gas (containing both carbon dioxide and water vapor) to the production chamber (3) (Harper, [0270]).
Regarding Claim 16
Harper discloses the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses in an additional embodiment providing heat from the CO2 generation chamber (2) for heating a heating system (HEPPU) at the industrial facility, wherein at least a portion of the heat from the CO2 generation chamber (2) is not vented directly to the atmosphere [obtaining post-combustion power from heat present in the OXFCPS exhaust] (Harper, [0324], Figures 1 and 9).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Harper to include heating a heating system at the industrial facility, wherein at least a portion of the heat from the CO2 generation chamber is not vented directly to the atmosphere in order to obtain post-combustion power from excess heat present in the CO2 generation chamber exhaust as is taught by Harper as well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 17
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses in an additional embodiment providing heat from the CO2 generation chamber (2) for heating a heating system (HEPPU) at the industrial facility, wherein none of the heat from the CO2 generation chamber (2) is vented directly to the atmosphere [obtaining post-combustion power from heat present in the OXFCPS exhaust] (Harper, [0324], Figures 1 and 9).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Harper to include heating a heating system at the industrial facility, wherein none of the heat from the CO2 generation chamber is vented directly to the atmosphere in order to obtain post-combustion power from excess heat present in the CO2 generation chamber exhaust as is taught by Harper as well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 18
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses providing oxygen (via (10)) to the CO2 generation chamber (2) (Harper, [0268], Figures 1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 19
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses providing back-up carbon dioxide [from methane combustion, [0537], Figure 4] to the production chamber (3) (via (10)) (Harper, [0537], Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 20
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses providing fuel (methane) to the CO2 generation chamber (2) (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 21
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses that the fuel is a flammable substance selected from the group consisting of natural gas (methane), and propane (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 22
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses providing air and a fuel to an existing combustion chamber at the industrial facility for heating the heating system (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 23
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claims 14 and 22 above. Harper further discloses providing the fuel to both the CO2 generation chamber (2) and the existing combustion chamber at the industrial facility (Harper, [0056] [0510], Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 25
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses that a percentage of the carbon dioxide in the exhaust gas mixture is in a range of from 11% to 99% (Harper, [0081] and [0414]).
Regarding Claim 26
Harper teaches the method as rejected in Claim 14 above. Harper further discloses that the product is selected from the group consisting of animals, products requiring chemical inerting processes, and a fire suppression system (Harper, [0129]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper, US 2017/0341942, in view of Shelor, US 2015/0282440.
Regarding Claim 7
Harper teaches the system as rejected in Claim 6 above. Harper further teaches a flow of the exhaust gas mixture and the carbon dioxide from the source of the carbon dioxide delivery to the production chamber (3) (Harper, Figures 1, 4, and 9). However, Harper does not explicitly disclose a multi-port valve in fluid communication with and positioned to control a selected from of each of the exhaust gas mixture and the carbon dioxide from the source of the carbon dioxide for delivery to the production chamber.
Shelor teaches a multi-port valve in fluid communication with and positioned to control a selected flow of each of the exhaust gas mixture and the carbon dioxide from the source of the carbon dioxide for delivery to the production chamber (Shelor, [0078)) [fresh air and CO2 from the cooled exhaust gas from the absorption unit are mixed with air and CO2 drawn through a return duct from inside the greenhouse (additional source of carbon dioxide) to produce CO2 enriched air having a CO2 concentration that maintains a greenhouse (production chamber) environment that is conducive to both photosynthesis and human occupancy, with a CO2 concentration setpoint from 750 to 2000 ppm – therefore, the use of a multi-port valve is inherent from the communication, control, and flow of the exhaust gas and carbon dioxide and air] (Shelor, [0078)).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the multi-port valve as taught by Shelor with the system of Harper since this would provide the advantage of providing the carbon dioxide amount to the production chamber to achieve the desired production output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the Specification and Drawing objections have been fully considered and is persuasive. The Specification and Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered.
With regards to claim 12 (the claimed subject matter now partially included within claim 1), the Applicant’s argument that Harper does not disclose that the CO2 generation chamber and the production chamber are located on-site at the same industrial facility so that the claimed apparatus does not have to rely upon a separate carbon dioxide delivery from a location remote from the same facility, the Examiner is unconvinced. The processing site of Harper is interpreted as the industrial facility, and the carbon dioxide is not transferred away until after the production chamber. Therefore, the CO2 generation chamber (2) and the production chamber (3) are both located on-site at the same industrial facility.
With regards to claim 14, the Applicant’s argument that Harper does not disclose the subject matter of cancelled claim 24, that the carbon dioxide generation chamber and the production chamber are located on-site at the same industrial facility so that the claimed method does not have to rely upon a separate carbon dioxide delivery from a location remote from the same facility, the Examiner is unconvinced. The processing site of Harper is interpreted as the industrial facility, and the carbon dioxide is not transferred away until after the production chamber. Therefore, the CO2 generation chamber (2) and the production chamber (3) are both located on-site at the same industrial facility.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 changed the limitation previously recited in claim 12. Claim 1 now requires “the heat exchanger constructed and arranged to produce a cooled exhaust gas mixture comprising carbon dioxide for delivery to a heating system (142)”(emphasis added). Previously the cooled exhaust gas mixture was to be delivered to the production chamber. There is no support for such a claim amendment, therefore, claims 1-11 and 13 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (new matter).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3746 12/09/2025
/MARK A LAURENZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 12/10/2025