DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The claims recite “about” with regards to a value however the instant specification does not define the metes and bounds for ‘about.’ Thus, the term is taken to have a deviation of 10% as is standard in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 5 objected to because of the following informalities: please correct the compositions to include subscripted numbers (i.e. Na2O, Al2O3, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veselovskaya et al. “A Novel Process for Renewable Methane Production…” (provided by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Veselovskaya teaches a system comprising (Figure 2):
a) At least one reactor comprising an inlet for H2 and air;
b) A stream of target gas (air) in communication with one inlet containing oxygen and carbon dioxide (section 2.4);
c) A stream of desorption (recirculation gas) in communication with at least one inlet;
d) A dual functional material (catalyst and composite comprising Ru/Al2O3- and K2CO3/Al2O3-) inside the reactor that further includes:
e) A carrier portion comprising the alumina;
f) An adsorbent potion comprising K2CO3/Al2O3- to absorb the carbon dioxide until saturation (composite sorbent, section 2.2 and 2.4, second column);
g) A catalyst portion placed adjacent to the adsorbing portion and comprising the Ru/Al2O3- (section 2.1 and 2.3) that converts the desorbed carbon dioxide into methane with a reactive gas comprising hydrogen (section 2.4, second column)
h) The temperature of the carbon capture occurs at ambient temperature (Table 1, No. 1);
i) The target gas is air (abstract, section 2.4).
Veselovskaya does not explicitly teach the amount of the dual function material includes less than about 0.1% by weight catalyst and between about 6% and about 10% by weight adsorbent. However, the amount of catalyst and absorbent used in the reactor is considered a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, the carrier includes Al2O3 (section 1, 2.1 and 2.2).
Regarding claim 4, the catalyst includes Ru (section 1, 2.1 and 2.2).
Regarding claim 6, Veselovskaya teaches the reactor was purged with hydrogen following the adsorption and desorption (section 2.4, 3rd paragraph), thus it is taken that at least 15% hydrogen is introduced. Alternatively, the amount of hydrogen is considered a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, the reactor comprises an outlet that includes the methane product (Figure 2).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. US Publication 2024/0139705.
Regarding claim 3, Veselovskaya teaches the adsorbent includes Na2CO3 and K2CO3 but nodes not explicitly teach using Na2O for the adsorbent. However, Na2O is a commonly used adsorbent to capture carbon dioxide in ambient temperatures as done in Gupta ([0062]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill it in the art to use known effective materials for direct carbon capture.
Regarding claim 5, Veselovskaya does not explicitly teach the dual function material includes: less than about 0.1% by weight Ru; and between about 6% and about 10% by weight Na2O. However, the amount of catalyst and absorbent used in the reactor is considered a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights