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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (encompassing claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 10/01/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“work extraction mechanism” in claim 1 is understood to be a turbo-expander or a condensing turbine (see the publication ¶ 0016, 0024);
“a heating device” in claim 1 is understood to be a recuperator assembly or a multi-pass heat exchanger (see claim 7);
“sequential recuperating mechanisms” in claim 8, is understood to be a plurality of recuperators (see the publication ¶ 0018);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the carbon dioxide" in line 3-4 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –the carbon dioxide gas--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a work extraction mechanism fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas line to condense the carbon dioxide from the gas stream into a solid form by work extraction and in substantial absence of surface accretion within the system” in line 3-5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the work extraction mechanism forms the solid in substantial absence of surface accretion within the system. It is unclear what part of the work extraction mechanism perform the forms the solid in substantial absence of surface accretion. For examination purpose, the heating device perform the absence of surface accretion.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a hydraulic network coupling the heating device to the work extraction mechanism” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what constitute the hydraulic network. For examination purposes, the hydraulic network is considered to be a warm fluid flow line.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mechanisms” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hydraulic network facilitates” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofer (US 2013/0125580 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hofer teaches a cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system comprising:
an exhaust line (101/111) for channeling a gas stream including carbon dioxide gas (¶ 0023, 0027-0029; fig. 5-9); and
a work extraction mechanism (100) fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas line (101/111) to condense the carbon dioxide from the gas stream into a solid form by work extraction and in substantial absence of surface accretion within the system (¶ 0006-0008, 0033-0035, 0041-0045; fig. 1-9), the work extraction mechanism comprising:
a housing (114) for receiving the gas stream (101/111) and containing at least one moving implement (115/119) for extracting work from the gas stream (101/111) (see ¶ 0028-0029; fig. 2-4; and
a heating device (electrical heating elements/circulating air or gas) coupled to one of the housing (114) and the at least one implement (115/119) to target one of an interior surface within the housing (114) and the at least one implement for maintaining a temperature thereof above a de-sublimation temperature of the carbon dioxide gas to substantially prevent any of the accretion at one of the interior surface and the at least one implement (¶ 0045-0045).
In regard to claim 2, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the work extraction mechanism (100) is one of a dynamic mechanism (turbo-expander) and a positive displacement mechanism (see ¶ 0027).
In regard to claim 3, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 2 wherein the dynamic mechanism (100) is one of a condensing turbine and a turbo-expander (see ¶ 0027) and the positive displacement mechanism is a piston.
In regard to claim 4, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the temperature of the gas stream (101) reaching the work extraction mechanism (100) is between about -80°C and about -120°C (-50ºC to about -100º) (see ¶ 0070).
In regard to claim 5, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 further comprising a recuperator assembly (a heat exchanger 220) coupled to the exhaust line (101) and the work extraction mechanism (100) for the cooling of the gas stream (¶ 0075-0076, 0080-0081; fig. 5-9).
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 2013/0125580 A1) in view of Gibble (US 2015/0354414).
In regard to claim 6, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 5, wherein Hofer teaches a warming fluid is circulating air or gas (¶ 0045-0045), but does not explicitly teach a hydraulic network coupling the heating device to the work extraction mechanism.
However, Gibble teaches an apparatus for heating an expansion machine of a waste heat recovery apparatus includes a heating jacket (30) structurally associated with an expander (14). Gibble further teaches a hydraulic network (branch line (42) of a working fluid circuit line 12a from the heat exchanger (10)) to connects the heating fluid from the heat exchanger (10) to the heating jacket (30) of the expander (14), wherein the heating jacket (30) circulates the working fluid as a warming fluid around the expander to heat it before it becomes operational or maintain a temperature between operational phases (¶ 0018-0024; fig. 4, 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Hofer by including a hydraulic network/warm fluid flowline to couple the heating device to the work extraction mechanism, in view of the teachings of Gibble, for the purpose of providing flow line to transfer the warming fluid efficiently between the heating device/the recuperator assembly to the work extraction mechanism.
In regard to claim 7, the modified Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 6 wherein the heating device is one of the recuperator assembly (a heat exchanger 220) (see Hofer ¶ 0075-0076, 0080-0081; fig. 5-9) and a multi-pass heat exchanger.
In regard to claim 8, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 7, wherein Hofer teaches a recuperator assembly (a heat exchanger 220) (¶ 0075-0076, 0080-0081; fig. 5-9) with the hydraulic network (as modified above), but does not explicitly teach the recuperator assembly comprises sequential recuperating mechanisms with the hydraulic network coupling thereto between the mechanisms. However, it is noted that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI B. therefore, the mere duplication of the recuperator assembly in the system is not considered to have patentable significance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Hofer by providing sequential recuperating mechanisms, for the purpose of increasing the cooling efficiency of the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system.
In regard to claim 9, Hofer in view of Gibble teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 6 wherein Gibble teaches the hydraulic network facilitates (42) a dedicated circulation of warming fluid between the heating device (heat exchanger 10) and the work extraction mechanism (14) (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
In regard to claim 10, the modified Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 9 wherein Hofer teaches the warming fluid is circulating air or gas, but does not explicitly teach the warming fluid is propane. However, official notice is taken that propane is an old and well-known manner of providing refrigerant to provide thermal energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the warming fluid of Hofer with propane for the same purpose of providing heating to the components of the work extraction mechanism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763