DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1-20 are subject to a restriction and election of species
Claims 10 and 19-20 are withdrawn
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species (b) in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 10 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/27/2026.
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.
4. Claims 14 and 17 are 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.
5. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the exothermic reaction" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the heat" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vente et al. (EP 3604210 A1) (Vente) in view of Cheng et al., Amine-based post-combustion CO2 capture mediated by metal ions: Advancement of CO2 desorption using copper ions (Cheng) taken in view of evidence by Baboo et al., Reactor Kinetics of Urea formation (Baboo).
9. Regarding claim 1, Vente teaches a process for the production of carbon dioxide and ammonia for the production of urea or ammonium carbamate (Vente, Abstract);
wherein a second product stream (i.e. first reactant) originates from step (a) comprises CO2- which is desorbed from the regenerated sorbent (i.e. treating a sorbent having a species sorbed) (Vente, [0025]);
wherein a first product stream (i.e. second reactant) from step (b) contains ammonia (Vente, [0025]);
wherein the ammonia stream originating from step (b) (i.e. second reactant) and the CO2 stream originating from step (a) (i.e. first reactant) are combined and converted to ammonium carbonate (Vente, [0042]) that is an exothermic reaction (i.e. reacting a first reactant and second reactant to generate heat) (Baboo, p. 3, paragraph 4).
Vente further teaches CO2 originates from step (a) with a sorbent loaded with CO2 (i.e. the first reactant comprises a molecule having the same identity as the sorbed species) (Vente, Claim 12).
Vente further teaches in an exothermic reaction the reaction releases energy to the surrounding in the form of heat (i.e. increasing the temperature) (Vente, [0035])
wherein the higher temperature is used to regenerate the sorbent by releasing the adsorbed or absorbed product (Vente, [0035])
wherein regeneration is an endothermic process (i.e. requires heat) (Vente, [0035]).
However, Vente does not further teach heating the sorbent with the generated heat to desorb the sorbed species from the sorbent.
With respect to the difference, Cheng teaches an approach to decreasing
the heat requirement of absorbent regeneration after CO2 capture to reduce the heat of CO2 desorption (i.e. a method of treating a sorbent having a species sorbed) (Cheng, Abstract)
wherein Cu– monoethanolamine (MEA) complexes (Cheng, Abstract) from Cu(MEA)32+ complexed with MEA to form Cu(MEA)42+ is an exothermic process in which the heat released from complexation is used for the heat of CO2 desorption (i.e. heating the sorbent with generated heat to desorb the sorbed species from the sorbent) (Cheng, p. 1035, right column, 3.3.2. Heat of CO2 desorption).
Cheng expressly teaches Cu(II) complexes in MEA solution improve the performance of CO2 absorption and desorption (Cheng, p. 1037, left column, 4. Discussion)
wherein releasing the heat via exothermic complexation during CO2 desorption it
decreases the heat of CO2 desorption and reduce the energy consumption of amine regeneration (Cheng, p. 1037, left column, 4. Discussion).
Vente and Cheng are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of desorbing CO2 from a sorbent.
In light of the motivation for improving the performance of CO2 absorption and desorption as disclosed by Cheng, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an exothermic process in which the heat released from complexation is used for the heat of CO2 desorption (i.e. heating the sorbent with generated heat to desorb the sorbed species from the sorbent in the process for the production of carbon dioxide and ammonia for the production of urea or ammonium carbamate of Vente, in order to decreases the heat of CO2 desorption and reduce the energy consumption of amine regeneration, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
10. Regarding claims 2 and 5-6, the second product (i.e. first reactant) is a gas comprising CO2 (i.e. first reactant comprises CO2) and the first product (i.e. second reactant) is a gas comprising NH3 (i.e. second reactant comprises ammonia)- (Vente, [0008]).
11. Regarding claims 3-4 and 7, Vente further teaches CO2 originates from step (a) with a sorbent loaded with CO2 (i.e. the sorbed species and the first reactant comprise CO2) (Vente, Claim 12)
wherein the ammonia stream originating from step (b) (i.e. second reactant) and the CO2 stream originating from step (a) (i.e. first reactant) are combined and converted to ammonium carbamate (i.e. reacting forms ammonium carbamate) or urea (i.e. desorbed CO2- as a feedstock for urea production) (Vente, [0042]).
12. Regarding claim 9, Vente further teaches regeneration of the loaded sorbent to obtain a stream of desorbed CO2 (i.e. desorb at least some of the sorbed species) involves depressurization (i.e. reducing pressure adjacent the sorbent) (Vente, [0021]).
13. Regarding claim 12, Vente further teaches in the production of urea or ammonium carbamate (Vente, Abstract)
wherein the molar ratio of NH3 (i.e. second reactant) to CO2 (i.e. first reactant) in the feed of step (c) is optimally in the range of 2 to 4 (Vente, [0045]), which falls within the claimed range.
14. Regarding claims 13-14, Vente further teaches the synthesis of urea and ammonium carbamate from CO2 (i.e. first reactant) and NH3 (i.e. second reactant) operates at a temperature of 100 - 300 °C and a pressure of 100 - 500 bar (Vente, [0044]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
15. Regarding claim 17, Vente further teaches all processes employ a heat exchanger for heating the reaction mixture of feed gas and recycle gas (i.e. a heating medium) (Vente, [0049]).
Vente further teaches Regeneration of the loaded sorbent is performed with the hot gases exiting reactors (i.e. transferring the heat to the sorbent using a heating medium) (Vente, [0036]).
16. Regarding claim 18, Vente further teaches the second product stream (i.e. first reactant) originate from step (a) comprises CO2, which is desorbed from the regenerated sorbent (i.e. first reactant is a species desorbed from the sorbent) (Vente, [0025]).
17. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vente in view of Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al., Low Regeneration Temperature Sorbents for Direct Air Capture of CO2 (Zhou).
18. Regarding claim 8, Vente does not teach wherein one of the following holds: the sorbent comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of an amine solvent, an ionic liquid, a hydroxide-containing liquid, and a caustic solution; or the sorbent comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of a metal organic framework (MOF), a covalent organic framework (COF), a zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF), a zeolite, a hyper cross-linked organic polymer (HCP), a Scholl-coupled organic polymer (SCP), a conjugated microporous organic polymer (CMP), an amine fixed on a solid support, and an amino polymer.
With respect to the difference, Zhou teaches the development of catalyzed amine-based solid sorbents with fast kinetics and low regeneration temperature for direct air capture (DAC) of CO2 (Zhou, p. 2, Overall Project Objective)
ionic liquid catalyst (i.e. ionic liquid) (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 1) was added to amine-based adsorbent (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 2) CO2 sorption and desorption (Zhou, p. 4, first paragraph);
wherein an ionic liquid catalyst (i.e. an ionic liquid) (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 1) added to PEI/Silica Sorbent (i.e. an amine or amino polymer and an amine fixed on a solid support) (Zhou, p. 15, Title).
Zhou expressly teaches the catalyst that can be added to amine doped DAC sorbents to increase adsorption and desorption kinetics (Zhou, p. 7, paragraph 1);
wherein an increase of at least 30% in adsorption and desorption rates as compared with state-of-art sorbents (Zhou, p. 7, paragraph 2).
Vente, Cheng, and Zhou are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of desorbing CO2 from a sorbent.
In light of the motivation for increased adsorption and desorption kinetics as disclosed by Zhou, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an ionic liquid catalyst (i.e. an ionic liquid) (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 1) added to PEI/Silica Sorbent (i.e. an amine or amino polymer and an amine fixed on a solid support) in the production of carbon dioxide and ammonia for the production of urea or ammonium carbamate of Vente in view of Cheng, in order to achieve an increase adsorption and desorption kinetics, an increase of at least 30% in adsorption and desorption rates as compared with state-of-art sorbents, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
19. Regarding claim 15, Vente in view of Cheng does not further teach the sorbent is heated to a regeneration temperature of about 80 °C to about 200 °C.
With respect to the difference, Zhou further teaches a regeneration temperature to as low as 80°C (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 2) and in the range of 80-90 ºC (Zhou, p. 4, Table), which fall within the claimed range.
Zhou expressly teaches potential to reduce the regeneration temperature thus lowering the overall cost of CO2 capture (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 2)
wherein reduce energy consumption for sorbent regeneration resulting in lower cost of DAC (Zhou, p. 2, Overall Project Objective).
In light of the motivation for a potential to reduce the regeneration temperature as disclosed by Zhou, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a regeneration temperature to as low as 80°C (Zhou, p. 4, paragraph 2) and in the range of 80-90ºC in the production of carbon dioxide and ammonia for the production of urea or ammonium carbamate of Vente in view of Cheng, in order to achieve lowering the overall cost of CO2 capture and reduce energy consumption for sorbent regeneration resulting in lower cost of DAC, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
20. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vente in view of Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al., Low Regeneration Temperature Sorbents for Direct Air Capture of CO2 (Zhou) taken in view of evidence by Baboo et al., Reactor Kinetics of Urea formation (Baboo), Webbook.nist.gov, Carbon dioxide (Webbook1), Webbook.nist.gov, ammonia (Webbook2), and chem.libretexts.org, Heats of Reactions and Calorimetry (chem.libretexts).
21. Regarding claim 11, Vente further teaches the ammonia stream originating from step (b) (i.e. second reactant) and the CO2 stream originating from step (a) (i.e. first reactant) are combined and converted to ammonium carbonate (Vente, [0042]) that is an exothermic reaction (i.e. reacting a first reactant and second reactant to generate heat) with an excess of 157.5 KJ/mol of energy (Baboo, p. 3, paragraph 4);
wherein a molar ration of NH3 and CO2 are used in a molar ratio of 2 (Vente, [0045]);
wherein the heat capacity of CO2 is approximately 40 J/mol*K at 373 K (Webbook1, Cp plot), see annotated Cp plot 1 below;
PNG
media_image1.png
395
1561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Cp plot 1
wherein the wherein the heat capacity of NH3 is approximately 40 J/mol*K at 373 K (Webbook2, Cp plot), see annotated Cp plot 1 below;
PNG
media_image2.png
411
1578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Cp plot 2
wherein the heat generated (q) of the reaction is of 157.5 KJ/mol (i.e. q = n (moles of ammonium carbonate) * ΔHrxn);
wherein the total mass of CO2 and NH3 is 78 g (i.e. (44 g/mol CO2 * 1 mol CO2 + 17 g/mol NH3 * 2 mol NH3);
wherein the estimated temperature change of the surroundings (i.e. ΔT = qrxn / m *Cp) is around 50.5 K (i.e. (i.e. 157.5 kJ/mol / (78 g * 40 J/ K*mol) (chem.libretexts, Equation 7.3.14).
Zhou further teaches the sorbents to increase adsorption and desorption kinetics (Zhou, p. 7, Success criteria)
wherein the adsorption temperature is ~26°C (Zhou, p. 10, 4th bullet) and the regeneration is in the range of 80-90 °C (Zhou, p. 8, Table 1);
wherein the temperature increase for absorption to desorption is from about 54 (i.e. 80 - 26 °C) to about 64 °C (i.e. 90 - 26 °C), which is greater than 50.5 K (i.e. an energy to desorb the sorbed species is greater than the energy provided by the generated heat)
wherein the desorption (i.e. regeneration) was performed on the catalyzed sorbent (Zhou, p. 5, first bullet) (i.e. the method further comprises providing additional heat to the sorbent).
22. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vente in view of Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raganati et al., On improving the CO2 recovery efficiency of a conventional TSA process in a sound assisted fluidized bed by separating heating and purging (Raganati).
23. Regarding claim 16, Vente does not further teach preheating the sorbent to a temperature of about 50 °C to about 200 °C.
With respect to the difference, Raganati teaches a separate heating and purge regeneration strategy consisting in desorbing part of the CO2 from a fine powder sorbent (a method of treating a sorbent having a species sorbed) (Raganati, Abstract);
wherein the sorbent undergoes a pre-heating step (i.e. pre-heating the sorbent) (Raganati, p. 26, left column, paragraph 2) in a pre-heating chamber (Raganati, p. 27, left column, 2.1. Experimental apparatus);
wherein the temperature would be maintained at a desired value (Raganati, p. 26, left column, paragraph 2) of 40, 70, 100, 130, 150 °C, which fall within the claimed range.
Raganati expressly teaches the problem of CO2 dilution is easily overcome in the case of a fluidized bed reactor, by preheating the sorbent with tube heat exchangers immersed in the bed (Raganati, p. 26, left column, paragraph 2)
wherein the high heat transfer coefficients typical of fluidized bed reactors would maintain the temperature uniformly at a desired value (Raganati, p. 26, left column, paragraph 2) and lead to an easier temperature control (Raganati, p. 26, left column, paragraph 2).
Vente, Cheng, and Raganati are analogous art as they are all drawn to a method of desorbing CO2 from a sorbent.
In light of the motivation for the problem of CO2 dilution is easily overcome in the case of a fluidized bed reactor, by preheating the sorbent as disclosed by Raganati, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/include pre-heating the sorbent to a temperature of 40, 70, 100, 130, 150 °C in the production of carbon dioxide and ammonia for the production of urea or ammonium carbamate of Vente in view of Cheng, in order to achieve maintain the temperature uniformly at a desired value, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/KELING ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights