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 Group II in the reply filed on 13 Nov. 2025 is acknowledged.
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 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 7, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube US 8,986,640 (hereafter Dube) and further in view of Dube et al. US 2012/0195816 (hereafter ‘816).
Regarding claim 7, Dube teaches a method (Fig 2), comprising:
recovering ammonia (col 3 lines 22-40) in an ammonia stripper (162) in a chilled ammonia-based carbon dioxide removal system (col 5 lines 10-21), by:
collecting ammonia-rich streams from an ammonia water wash section (163) in the ammonia stripper; and
condensing water in an overhead condenser (194) of the ammonia stripper;
water circulating between a direct contact cooler (102) and a direct contact heater (160), where the circulation includes a preheater (174).
Dube does not teach condensing water in an overhead condenser of the ammonia stripper via heat water circulating exchange against between a direct contact cooler and a direct contact heater.
‘816 teaches carbon dioxide removal with ammonia comprising using the same liquid for gas cooling and gas heating in order to recovery energy (¶53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the overhead condenser (194) and preheater (174) of Dube by using the using the same liquid for gas cooling and gas heating (¶53) as taught by ‘816 in order to recovery energy (¶53). The modification would have resulted in using the waste heat of the ammonia stripper gas (tops from 163) to preheat the water circulating between the direct contact cooler (102) and a direct contact heater (160).
Regarding claim 10, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7.
Dube does not teach returning water from the overhead condenser to a first water line upstream of a water tower.
The combination as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above would result in the water in conduit 170 being the heat exchange fluid in heat exchanger 194, combining separate heat exchangers 174 and 196 into a single heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have resulted in returning water from the overhead condenser to a first water line upstream of a water tower (water 199 from combined heat exchanger 174, 194 to first water line 199 to water tower 160 and/or water 196 from condenser 194 to a first water line between pump 198 and sprayer 192 to water tower 163).
Regarding claim 12, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dube further teaches pumping water (120) from the direct contact cooler (112) to the direct contact heater (160).
Regarding claim 13, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dube further teaches pumping water (120) from the direct contact cooler (112) to the direct contact heater (160).
Dube does not state pumping water vertically from the direct contact cooler to the direct contact heater.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pump water vertically in order to allow the gas in line 128 to flow upwards via buoyancy, where line 128 enters the column below the outlet from the pump at 167.
Regarding claim 14, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7.
Dube does not teach wherein the direct contact heater and direct contact cooler form a vertical stack.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the direct contact heater and direct contact cooler integral in the form of a vertical stack in order to minimize the footprint. See MPEP 2144.04 V B.
Regarding claim 15, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dube further teaches where the gas flows from the bottom of the direct contact cooler to the top of the direct contact heater (see Fig 2).
Dube does not state wherein the direct contact heater resides at an elevation that is above the direct contact cooler.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the direct contact heater to reside at an elevation that is above the direct contact cooler in order to allow the gas to flow upwards via buoyancy.
Regarding claim 16, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dube further teaches pumping water (120) from the direct contact cooler to the preheater (174).
Dube does not teach pumping water from the direct contact cooler to the overhead condenser.
The combination as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above would result in the water in conduit 170 being the heat exchange fluid in heat exchanger 194, combining separate heat exchangers 174 and 196 into a single heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have resulted in pumping water from the direct contact cooler to the overhead condenser.
Regarding claim 17, Dube in view of ‘816 teaches all the limitations of claim 7. Dube further teaches pumping water (120) from the direct contact cooler to the direct contact heater and the preheater (174).
Dube does not teach pumping water from the direct contact cooler to the overhead condenser.
The combination as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above would result in the water in conduit 170 being the heat exchange fluid in heat exchanger 194, combining separate heat exchangers 174 and 196 into a single heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have resulted in pumping water from the direct contact cooler to both the direct contact heater and the overhead condenser.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art is Dube US 8,986,640 which teaches recovering ammonia, collecting ammonia-rich streams, condensing water, and pumping water from the direct contact cooler to the direct contact heater via a water feed pump through a second water line. Dube does not teach delivering water from the direct contact heater to the direct contact cooler through a first water line or diverting a side stream of water from the second water line downstream of the water feed pump to the overhead condenser of the ammonia stripper. The modification would not have been obvious because Dube does not teach the water delivered from the DCH to the DCC. The prior art Augustsson US 20150343374 teaches a direct contact cooler and a direct contact heater. Augustsson does not make obvious the deficiencies of Dube.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art is Dube US 8,986,640 which teaches recovering ammonia, collecting ammonia-rich streams, and condensing water. Dube does not teach returning water from the overhead condenser to a first water line connecting the direct contact heater and the direct contact cooler. The modification would not have been obvious because Dube does not teach the water delivered from the DCH to the DCC.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art is Dube US 8,986,640 which teaches recovering ammonia, collecting ammonia-rich streams, and condensing water. Dube does not teach returning water from the overhead condenser to a second water line connecting the direct contact heater and the direct contact cooler, and therefrom to the direct contact heater. The modification would not have been obvious because Dube does not teach the water delivered from the DCH to the DCC.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art is Dube US 8,986,640 which teaches recovering ammonia, collecting ammonia-rich streams, and condensing water. Dube does not teach flowing water downwardly through the direct contact heater to the direct contact cooler. The modification would not have been obvious because Dube does not teach the water delivered from the DCH to the DCC.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art is Dube US 8,986,640 which teaches recovering ammonia, collecting ammonia-rich streams, and condensing water. Dube does not teach flowing water downwardly through the direct contact heater to the direct contact cooler in counter-flow to CO2-lean, ammonia rich flue gas. The modification would not have been obvious because Dube does not teach the water delivered from the DCH to the DCC.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art is Dube US 8,986,640 which teaches recovering ammonia, collecting ammonia-rich streams, and condensing water. Dube does not teach flowing water down downwardly through the direct contact heater to the direct contact cooler; and flowing CO2-lean, ammonia rich flue gas in an ammonia water wash section counter to flow of the water. The modification would not have been obvious because Dube does not teach the water delivered from the DCH to the DCC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9914. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/STEPHEN HOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1776