DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 July 2026.
Summary
This non-final office action for application 18/469,139 is a response to Applicant’s election, filed on 16 July 2026, of Group I, claims 1-10, which was a reply to the election/restriction requirement dated 29 May 2026. Claims 1-10 are under full consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, the limitation claiming “the green H2 supply device is at least one of a solar generator or wind generator” is indefinite because solar and wind generators themselves do not produce hydrogen. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the green H2 supply device is powered by at least one of a solar generator or wind generator”.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (US-20200392053-A1), hereinafter “Winkler”, in view of Golecki et al. (US-2348774-A), hereinafter “Golecki”.
Regarding Claim 1, Winkler discloses a system for carbon dioxide (CO2) emission recovery (system to recover carbon dioxide from combustion emissions; see Abstract), the system comprising: a methanization reactor (methanation reactor; see [0024]), wherein the methanization reactor is configured to: receive CO2 separated from one or more off gases (carbon dioxide previously collected in a separation step is introduced into a methanation reactor; see [0038]); convert the CO2 and supplied hydrogen (H2) via methanization to produce methane (CH4) (carbon dioxide… is introduced into a methanation reactor with hydrogen to produce methane; see [0038]); and supply the produced CH4 to at least one of the carbon/carbon (C/C) preform production process or another system for heat generation (when the methane stored is needed for heat, electricity production, or mechanical energy, the methane is transferred to the original combustion appliance and/or another combustion appliance; see [0043]).
While Winkler discloses that the carbon dioxide can come from any source (see [0045]), Winkler does not explicitly teach a carbon/carbon preform production process. However, Golecki discloses a carbon/carbon preform production process (carbon bodies are densified by chemical vapor deposition by establishing a thermal gradient within the body, thermally decomposing a gaseous precursor to deposit carbon within the body; see abstract), and teaches that the gaseous byproducts such as methane, ethane, and hydrogen are oxidized in a burn box (see Col. 6 Lines 35-28), which inevitably produces carbon dioxide and water.
KSR Rationale B (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the waste carbon dioxide and water produced by Golecki as the source for Winkler to yield the same and predictable results contemplated by Winkler.
Regarding Claim 2, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 1. Golecki further discloses an H2 separator (by products such as hydrogen… a device to separate these stable by-products; see Col. 6 Lines 34-41), wherein the supplied H2 is separated by the H2 separator from the one or more off gases produced from the C/C preform production process (recycle them or use them as an energy source; see Col. 6 Lines 41-42). Utilizing the H2 produced by Golecki in the methanation reactor of Winkler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would allow the hydrogen to be utilized as an energy source or fuel (see Golecki, Col. 6 Lines 41-42).
Regarding Claim 3, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 1. Winkler further discloses a green H2 supply device (electrolysis apparatus uses electricity to split purified water into hydrogen and oxygen; see [0036] and “use intermittent renewable electricity”; see [0045]), wherein the supplied H2 is green H2 supplied via the green H2 supply device (the electrolysis apparatus segregates the hydrogen… the hydrogen is fed to the methanation reactor; see [0036]) and wherein the green H2 supply device is powered by at least one of a renewable energy (use intermittent renewable electricity; see [0045]). Winkler does not explicitly disclose use of a wind or solar generator, however KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to select wind energy or solar energy from the known and limited renewable energy sources.
Regarding Claim 4, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 1. The remaining limitations of claim 4 do not exceed those of claim 3 combined with claim 2. Please refer to the rejections of claims 2 and 3 as the rejection of claim 4 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 1. Golecki further discloses an H2 separator wherein the supplied H2 is separated by the H2 separator from the one or more off gases produced from the C/C preform production process (see claim 2 rejection). Winkler further discloses a burner/steam generator (combustion appliance typically burns a hydrocarbon such as methane; see [0019]), wherein off gases are fed to the burner/steam generator (burns a hydrocarbon such as methane; see [0019] and “gaseous by-products such as methane, ethane, and hydrogen; see Golecki Col. 6 Lines 36-37) and wherein the burner/steam generator generates at least the CO2 that is used by the methanization reactor (emitting the exhaust gas containing carbon dioxide; see [0019] and “water is removed from the mixed exhaust stream in order to obtain relatively pure carbon dioxide for later processing in the methanation reactor”; see [0022]).
Regarding Claim 7, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 5. Winkler further discloses a separator, (separation apparatus; see [0008]) wherein the burner/steam generator generates byproducts and wherein the separator separates the CO2 from the byproducts (separation apparatus configured to separate the carbon dioxide from the at least partially dried hydrocarbon combustion exhaust stream; see [0008]) and provides the CO2 to the methanization reactor (A reactor is configured for reaction between… the separated carbon dioxide to generate one or more hydrocarbons, including at least methane; see [0008]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (US-20200392053-A1), hereinafter “Winkler”, in view of Golecki et al. (US-2348774-A), hereinafter “Golecki” and Baudry et al. (US-20030101869-A1), hereinafter “Baudry”.
Regarding Claim 6, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 5. Winkler further discloses wherein the burner/steam generator further generates steam (emitting the exhaust gas containing… water, which may be present in various physical forms, such as steam, vapor, and liquid; see [0019]).
Wrinkler modified by Golecki does not explicitly teach supplying steam to the C/C preform production process. However, Baudry discloses a burner/steam generator that generates steam (the steam is produced in a boiler; see [0022]) and wherein the steam is supplied to a CVI production process (installation for chemical vapor infiltration that is intended more particularly for densifying porous substrates with pyrolytic carbon matrix; see [0028] and “The effluent gas is extracted from the oven… connected to pumping apparatus”; see [0031] and “The pumping apparatus comprises an ejector-condenser… The ejector-condenser comprises an ejector portion fed with steam from a boiler”; see [0058]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the system of Winkler modified by Golecki such that steam generated by the burner/steam generator is supplied to the C/C reform production process, as taught by Baudry, because Winkler contemplates the separation of steam (see [0023]), and Baudry discloses the benefit of utilizing generated steam to provide motive fluid for a steam-ejector pumping apparatus (see [0059]), thereby providing the desired low pressure necessary for operation of the CVI process (see [0031]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (US-20200392053-A1), hereinafter “Winkler”, in view of Golecki et al. (US-2348774-A), hereinafter “Golecki” and Krishnamurthy et al. (US-5100635-A), hereinafter “Krishnamurthy”.
Regarding Claim 8, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 7. Winkler further discloses wherein the separator further separates nitrogen (N2) and releases the N2 into an atmosphere (The nitrogen and any trace gases in the first separation vessel are vented from the top of the first separation vessel into the atmosphere; see [0027] and “separation of carbon dioxide from an exhaust gas containing primarily nitrogen”; see [0044] and “separating carbon dioxide from nitrogen in the exhaust gas stream… while venting the nitrogen into the atmosphere”; see [0051]).
Winkler does not explicitly disclose separating nitrogen from the byproducts, because Winkler discloses that any byproducts that are present are present in very small, trace amounts (see [0027]), and that the stream is primarily carbon dioxide and nitrogen (see [0044]). However, Krishnamurthy discloses separating a combustion exhaust gas into a carbon dioxide rich fraction and a nitrogen rich fraction, and then further purifying the nitrogen rich fraction to remove contaminants and produce pure nitrogen (see Col. 3 Lines 21-35).
Winkler and Krishnamurthy are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of combustion exhaust gas processing. Further separating and purifying nitrogen, as disclosed by Krishnamurthy, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Krishnamurthy offers the motivation of removing contaminants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides in order to meet regulations (see Col. 7 Lines 54-57) and enables the nitrogen to be distributed and used in other locations (see Col. 4 Lines 22-23).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. (US-20200392053-A1), hereinafter “Winkler”, in view of Golecki et al. (US-2348774-A), hereinafter “Golecki” and Guillet (US- 5271215-A).
Regarding Claim 9, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 7. Winkler further discloses wherein a separator further separates water (H2O) from the byproducts (water is removed from the mixed exhaust stream; see [0022]) and feeds the H2O into a burner/steam generator (water collected previously in step 104 is purified by boiling; see [0031]).
Winkler does not explicitly teach that water is separated by the same separator as the carbon dioxide and nitrogen. However, the Courts have held that making separate parts integral is a matter of obvious engineering design choice (see In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
While Winkler discloses feeding the separated water into a burner/steam generator, Winkler does not explicitly disclose feeding the separated water into the same burner/steam generator that generates the CO2 and byproducts. However, Guillet discloses recycling water from a combustion exhaust stream back into the combustion device (a liquid water injectin device disposed in the combustion chamber… the liquid water being obtained from recycling the condensed water produced in a condensation recuperator placed on the path of the exhaust gases from the expansion turbine; see Col. 2 Lines 46-52).
Winkler and Guillet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of combustion exhaust gas treatment. Recycling water back to the combustor, as disclosed by Guillet, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Guillet offers the motivation of the water giving rise to a quenching phenomenon (see Col. 1 Lines 53-54).
Regarding Claim 10, Winkler and Golecki together disclose the system of claim 1. Winkler further discloses a and a condenser (The water purifier may be embodied as a boiler and condenser; see [0032]), wherein converting the CO2 and the supplied hydrogen via methanization produces the CH4 and steam (The methane and water products are removed from the methanation reactor; see [0041]). Guillet further discloses wherein the condenser condenses the steam to water which is supplied to the burner/steam generator (liquid water injection device disposed in the combustion chamber… the liquid water being obtained from recycling the condensed water produced in a condensation recuperator placed on the path of the exhaust gases; see Col. 2 Lines 46-51). Incorporating the configuration in which water is recycled to a burner/steam generator via a condenser, as disclosed by Guillet, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Guillet offers the motivation of using the condensed water to give rise to a quenching phenomenon (see Col. 1 Lines 53-54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights