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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bethell U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010.
Regarding claim 1, Bethell teaches a gas scrubbing apparatus (figure 2) for absorbing
carbon dioxide from raw biogas, said gas scrubbing apparatus comprising: a gas scrubber (figure
2 - scrubber vessel 5, paragraph 0080 and 0107) having a scrubbing chamber/column (paragraph
0036), a raw gas inlet (figure 2 - scrubber inlet gas) that is configured to receive an ambient air
stream containing carbon dioxide to be scrubbed, an absorbent inlet (figure 2 - scrubber inlet liquid) configured to receive an absorbent, a clean gas outlet (figure 2 - upgraded biogas 30, paragraph 0085) configured to discharge the scrubbed ambient air stream, and an absorbate
outlet (figure 2 - scrubber outlet liquid) configured to discharge an absorbate that has absorbed
the carbon dioxide, and a drying apparatus (figure 2 - drier columns 8, paragraph 0116)
fluidically connected to the clean gas outlet (figure 2 - line 30), wherein the drying apparatus
comprises at least one drying unit (figure 2 - drier columns 8, paragraph 0116), which is
configured to absorb water contained in the clean gas in a drying process and remove the water
in a regeneration process (paragraph 0116), wherein the drying apparatus is fluidically connected
to the absorbent inlet and/or to the raw gas inlet (figure 2 - recycled gas) such that the water
removed in the regeneration process is received in the scrubbing chamber via the raw gas inlet
and/or the absorbent inlet.
Regarding claim 2, Bethell teaches the drying apparatus comprises multiple drying units
(paragraph 0093- two columns 31) and a valve element (figure 2 - clean gas outlet line 30, flows
into valve), wherein the valve element is arranged in front of the drying units in a flow direction
of the clean gas, such that a stream of clean gas is selectively directed to either a first drying unit
or a second drying unit of the multiple drying units (paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 3, Bethell teaches that at least one drying unit comprises a drying
chamber (figure 1 - dehydration column 31) and a drying medium (figure 1 - molecular sieves 33) arranged in the drying chamber for absorbing the water contained in the clean gas.
Regarding claim 13, Bethel teaches a gas scrubbing system in which absorbent liquid absorbs carbon dioxide within the scrubber (5), producing an absorbate stream that exits the scrubber and is processed in downstream units including a flash tank (6) and a stripper (7), after which the regenerated absorbent is returned to the scrubber (fig. 1). The transfer of fluid between this unit necessary occurs via conduits and circulation of the absorbate and absorbent streams requires pumping or pressurization of the system mechanism.
Regarding claim 14, Bethel teaches a gas scrubbing system in which the absorbent liquid absorbs carbon dioxide in a scrubber (5), producing an absorbate stream that is subsequently processed in downstream units including a flash tank (6) and a stripper (7), where dissolved gases including carbon dioxide are removed from the absorbate (fig. 1; paragraphs 0110-0112). These units’ function to separate carbon dioxide from the absorbate, thereby regenerating the absorbent for reuse in the scrubber.
Regarding claim 15, Bethel teaches a gas scrubbing apparatus including a scrubbing chamber (5) having a raw gas inlet and an absorbent inlet for introducing gas and absorbent into the chamber. The biogas enters the scrubber at a lower portion and rises upwards, while the scrubbing liquid flows downward through the scrubber in counter-current fashion (fig. 2; paragraph 0107).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethell U.S. PG
Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010 in view of Ercan at al. U.S. PG Pub. No.
20170190574 Al, July 06, 2017 (hereinafter "Ercan").
Regarding claim 4, Bethell teaches the use of molecular sieves, a type of desiccant used
to remove moisture from gases but fails to teach other drying medium such as a silicate gel or a
zeolite material. However, Ercan teaches a drying medium that selectively adsorbs water using molecular sieves made of zeolite-3A (paragraph 0051). The composition of the drying medium influences which gas component is adsorbed and which components pass through the system and into the outlet air stream. It is well known in the art to remove moisture using desiccants in molecular systems, including those that contain zeolites, silica gel, activated alumina, activated carbon, or other drying agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a drying medium such a silica gel or zeolite, capable of adsorbing both carbon dioxide and/or water to effectively clean the gas.
Claims 5-8, 19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethell U.S.
PG Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010 in view of Farsad et al., U.S. PG Pub. No.
2010/0229725 Al, September 10, 2010 (hereinafter "Farsad").
Bethell is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 5, Bethell fails to teach the gas scrubber further comprises a raw gas
distribution element which is arranged in the scrubbing chamber. However, Farsad teaches at least one array of shed rows within the chamber, wherein the shed rows are configured to redistribute the flow of the gas as it enters the chamber such that the gas flows axially along the chamber over a greater area of the cross section of the chamber than the gas flow upon entering the chamber, prior to interacting with the shed rows (figure 17 - portion of an embodiment of the apparatus showing shed row lay out, paragraph 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to position a shed row at the gas inlet of the scrubber taught by Farsad to improve gas distribution and improve contact between the gas and scrubbing liquid.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Bethell fails to teach the gas scrubber further comprises a
water separator arranged in front of the drying apparatus in a flow direction of the clean gas,
wherein the water separator is a droplet separator. However, Farsad teaches the section just before the gas exits the apparatus is the demisting section (paragraph 0018). That section may include a high-efficiency gas absorbing system that uses, for example, flat sheets of clear liquid or very fine droplets (paragraph 0268). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a demisting section taught by Farsad at the top of the scrubber to remove entrained liquid from the gas stream prior to discharge. Prior art teaches the use of demisting or droplet separation elements to prevent carryover liquid and maintain downstream equipment performance, and it would have been within the routine skill of a practitioner to place such a section at the upper portion of a scrubber where gas exits.
Regarding claim 8, Bethell fails to teach the gas scrubber further comprises an absorbent distribution device which is arranged in the scrubbing chamber. However, Farsad teaches wherein the liquid introduction units comprise atomizing units that create sprays, wherein at least one atomizing unit is configured to create a spray of angle different from that of the other atomizing units (paragraph 0018). The spray tower (figure 18 and 19 - possible arrangement of sprays) is configured to produce streams, droplets, or a combination thereof of the absorbing solution in the industrial gas (paragraph 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an absorbent distribution spray within the scrubber as taught by Farsad, to enhance contact between the gas and scrubbing liquid.
Regarding claim 19, Bethel fails to disclose an absorbent distribution device disposed within the gas scrubber, and wherein the water separator is arranged upstream of the drying apparatus and downstream of the absorbent distribution device. However, Farsad discloses a gas scrubbing apparatus including a contacting chamber (absorber) having liquid introduction units (e.g., spray nozzle/distribution device) configured to distribute an absorbing solution within the chamber for contact with a gas stream (fig. 8-9). The contacting chamber includes a demisting or separating section positioned above the contacting region for removing entrained liquid from the gas stream prior to discharge (fig. 1 and 15). Farsad further teaches that the gas, after passing through the contacting and separation sections, is processed downstream, including drying or treatment stages for removal of residual moisture or components (paragraphs 0098 and 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the known arrangement of staged liquid distribution, separation, and downstream drying/treatment into the system of Bethel in order to improve removal of entrained liquid prior to downstream processing and enhance overall gas treatment efficiency.
Claims 9-10 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethell U.S.
PG Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010 in view of Alliger, U.S. Pub. No. 3768981 A,
Oct. 30, 1973.
Bethell is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Bethell fails to teach a vehicle comprising an exhaust gas
system, wherein the exhaust gas system comprising the gas scrubbing apparatus according to Claim 1. However, Alliger teaches an exhaust gas scrubber and more particularly to an apparatus
arranged to be mounted on an automotive vehicle for reducing the noxious material emanating from the combustion process of the internal combustion engine (col 1, lines 3-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the gas scrubber taught by Bethell in a vehicle comprising an exhaust gas system taught by Alliger. Prior art teaches the incorporation of liquid-based or wet scrubbers into exhaust systems of internal combustion engines to remove pollutants, particulates, or gaseous contaminants. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve the environmental performance of a vehicle's exhaust system, would have recognized that integrating a scrubber line with the exhaust pipe would provide predictable benefits such as pollutant removal, cooling of exhaust gases, and reduction of liquid entrainment.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethell U.S.
PG Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010 in view of Say, U.S. Pub. No. 4259301 A,
March 31, 1981.
Bethel is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 11, Bethel fails to disclose the drying apparatus is fluidically connected to the absorbent inlet such that the water removed in the regeneration process by the drying apparatus is received in the scrubbing chamber via the absorbent inlet. However, Say discloses a adsorption zone (50), to regenerate the adsorbent by removing the acid components adsorbed thereon. After passing through adsorption zone (50), the absorbing solution may pass through lines (54) and (16) into absorber (10) for further absorption (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 46-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Bethel to include a fluidic connection as taught by Say, such that the fluid stream associated with regeneration of the adsorption/drying apparatus is routed to the absorbent inlet of the scrubber.
Regarding claim 12, Bethel fails to explicitly disclose that the drying apparatus is fluidically connected to the raw gas inlet such that the water removed in the regeneration process by the drying apparatus is received in the scrubbing chamber via the raw gas inlet. However, Say discloses returning regenerated process streams back into an absorber system for reuse (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 46-55), thereby demonstrating recirculation of fluids within a gas treatment system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to route the regenerated stream to the raw gas inlet of Bethel as an alternative to routing to the absorbent inlet, since both the raw gas inlet and the absorbent inlet introduce materials into the scrubbing chamber. The selection of introducing the regenerated stream via the raw gas inlet instead of the absorbent inlet represents a predictable variation and a matter of design choice, depending on system configuration and desired mixing conditions within the scrubber. MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethell U.S.
PG Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010 in view of Mimura et al., CN 1112852 A, December 06, 1995 (hereinafter “Mimura”).
Bethel is relied upon as above.
Regarding claim 16, Bethel fails to disclose a humidification device that is fluidly connected to the raw gas inlet for humidifying the ambient air stream. However, Mimura discloses a gas treatment system in which gas stream is brought into contact with an aqueous solution prior to or during treatment, thereby introducing moisture into the gas stream and conditioning the gas for subsequent processing (fig.1; paragraphs 0038-0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a humidification device, as taught by Mimura into the system by Bethel at the raw gas inlet in order to control and optimize the moisture content of the incoming gas stream, to improve absorption efficiency and maintain desired operating conditions within the scrubber.
Regarding claim 17, Bethel as discussed above, disclose a drying apparatus that removes water from a gas stream and is regenerated by passing a gas stream through the drying unit, thereby removing water from the drying media. Mimura discloses introducing water into the gas stream for conditioning via gas-liquid contact prior to further processing. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to fluidically connect the drying apparatus of Bethel to the humidification device of Mimura such that water removed during regeneration is utilized to humidify an incoming gas stream, as this represents using process water to improve system efficiency. Reduce waste, and maintain desired moisture levels within the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bethell U.S.
PG Pub. No. 2010/0107872 Al, May 06, 2010 in view of Li et al., CN 105865145 A, August 17, 2016 (hereinafter “Li”).
Bethel is relied upon as above
Regarding claim 18, Bethel fails to disclose a water supply element that is fluidly connected between the absorbent inlet and the drying apparatus for delivering the water removed in the regeneration process by the drying apparatus to the absorbent inlet. However, Li discloses a gas treatment system in which process streams are cooled to condense moisture, the condensed liquid is separated in collection vessels, and the recovered liquid is conveyed through conduits and pumps for reuse within the system, including return to upstream processing units (figs. 2-3, 6-7; paragraphs 0021-0024, 0032-0045). These conduits, pump, and collection vessels constitute a water supply element for delivering recovered water within the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Bethel to include recovery and reuse of water removed during regeneration as taught by Li in order to improve process efficiency, and reduce water loss.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the sections 102 and 103 rejections.
Applicant argues that Bethel does not disclose “the water removed in the regeneration process is received in the scrubbing chamber via the raw gas inlet and/or the absorbent inlet,” and further asserts that Bethel’s recycle gas does not contain such water and that condensate collector pot (10) removes any such water prior to reaching the scrubber.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 requires that “the drying apparatus is fluidically connected to the absorbent inlet and/or to the raw gas inlet such that the water removed in the regeneration process is received in the scrubbing chamber via the raw gas inlet and/or the absorbent inlet.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation does not require that the water be collected as a separate liquid stream or transported through a dedicated water return line. Rather, the claim encompasses configurations which water removed during regeneration is conveyed within process streams that are returned to the scrubbing chamber.
Bethel discloses a gas scrubbing apparatus including a drying apparatus (drying unit 8) that removes water from a gas stream during a drying process and is subsequently regenerated by passing a gas stream through the drying unit, thereby removing water from the drying medium and transferring the water into a gas stream within the system (fig. 2). The gas streams are circulated and recycled within the system; Bethel shows recycle gas being routed via a recycle gas line back toward the scrubber (5), where the gas is reintroduced into the system upstream of or at the scrubber, thereby entering the scrubbing chamber via the raw gas inlet.
Bethel teaches that water is removed in multiple stages, including condensation, coalescing separation, and adsorption drying. The condensate collector pot (10) is disclosed as removing condensed liquid, but Bethel does not state that this stage removes all water from the gas stream. To the contrary, Bethel’s inclusion of downstream drying units demonstrates that additional water remains in the gas after condensation and is subsequently removed by adsorption and regeneration processes. Accordingly, Applicant’s position that the condensate collector pot removes all water prior to the scrubber is not supported by the reference.
Applicant’s argument improperly assumes that the claim requires complete removal, isolation, and dedicated return of liquid. However, no such requirement is recited in claim 1. The claim only requires a structure where water removed during regeneration could be received in the scrubbing chamber via the specified inlets, which is satisfied by Bethel’s disclosed system configuration. The apparatus of Bethel is structurally capable of passing at least some amount of water from the drying apparatus to the scrubbing chamber; therefore, the limitation is met. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
1190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights