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 Status
The Claims are newly amended to include features that were previously optional and not previously treated as a result. They are now required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 7/7/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 7-14, 16, 18-20 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek (EP 3581257) and in view of Strandgaard (US Pat.: 6319579) and in view of Jones (US Pat.: 9359221) and in view of Lee et al. “Title: Research and Education of CO2 Separation from Coal Combustion Fire” and in view of Gilliam (US Pub.: 2010/0150802).
As to Claims 1, 3 and 7, Skocek describes a waste material for CO2 cleaning (para. 1). The waste material can be cement/concrete (para. 6). In the field, it is known to use recycled concrete aggregates for CO2 absorption (para. 7). Alternatively, Skocek describes use of flyash or slag material, which are Ca or Mg-rich waste materials to capture CO2 (para. 7). Since the CO2 absorption using these compositions can be slow (para. 7), Skocek describes use of the hydrated-form of the waste (para. 16, “especially the cement hydration products.. . “, para. 18, “. . e.g. hydrates. . “). Skocek explains that higher humidity causes faster CO2 gas diffusion (para. 19). Therefore, the humidity of the concrete can be increased (para. 19).
Skocek describes the waste used to capture CO2 as a calcium magnesium silicate hydrate of cement (para. 19).
Skocek does not teach that the cement has a magnesium chloride composition.
Strandgaard explains in the background that a magnesium cement composition is known to comprise magnesium oxide, magnesium chloride and other composition (col. 1, lines 29-35) and that the magnesium chloride constitutes a significant portion in the composition as compared to magnesium oxide (col. 1, lines 31-35). These cements are that these cements are good for floor leveling or for manufacturing of moulded products (col. 1, lines 30-38).
Skocek explains that concrete taken from building and infrastructure of demolition sites may be used in their treatment process (para. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a cement composition that contains both magnesium oxide and magnesium chloride, as taught by Strandgaard for use with the CO2 treating waste cement of Skocek because Strandgaard explains that these cements are known for use in floors for both leveling and tiling and a demolition site would include a large number of various cement compositions, to include some from leveled floors and tiles.
Skocek describes a hydrated cement composition and Strandgaard teaches that these cements are known to contain magnesium chloride. Skocek teaches that a hydrated form of cement has improved CO2 sequestration properties and that the humidity of the cement can be adjusted, but the reference does not specifically teach added water and heating the cement to generate HCl and Mg(OH)2 prior to reacting the cement with CO2.
Jones describes CO2 sequestration using a two-salt-based thermolytic processes (title). The process can include MgCl2 in hydrate form (col. 5, lines 13-14) that is combined with water and heated (col. 5, lines 15-16) to produce HCl and magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) and Mg(OH)Cl (col. 5, lines 16-17). The Mg(OH)Cl is reacted with H2O to form MgCl2 and Mg(OH)2 (col. 43, lines 11-13). These are then reacted with CaCl2/H2O and CO2 from a flue gas to form CaCO3 (col. 43, lines 12-15).
Since Skocek explains that increased humidity facilitates greater CO2 diffusion (see Skocek, para. 24, 19, 18, 16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accelerate the cement hydration by applying water and heat, as taught by Jones for use in CO2 absorption because Skocek explains that adjusting cement humidity is known to effectively sorb CO2 gases from the atmosphere.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce HCl from the hydration of cement, followed by contacting the treated cement with CO2, as taught by Jones because Skocek explains that increased humidity facilitates greater CO2 diffusion and Jones shows that hydration of cement produces HCl, which Skocek explains produces superior CO2 sorption.
As to the other features of Claim 1, Jones does not specifically teach that the reaction of Mg(OH)2 and CO2 forms Mg(OH)x(HCO3)y, where x+y=2.
Lee describes the process of capturing CO2 using Mg(OH)2 (abstract, para. 1). The process combines CO2, water and shows that two byproducts are made: Mg(HCO3)2 and MgCO3 (see equations 2.5 and 2.6 on page 11). Lee explains that magnesium bicarbonate is completely soluble and that magnesium carbonate is a solid and require more energy to recover CO2 (see page 11, para. 2). As to the amounts of each, Lee teaches that the equilibrium of these is based on the pH concentration (see page 11, para. 2 and equations 2.8 and 2.9).
Therefore, since Jones also combines CO2, water and Mg(OH)2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the sorption of CO2 with Mg(OH)2 produces some magnesium bicarbonate in addition to magnesium carbonate.
Furthermore, as to the amounts of each, since the concentrations are based on the pH, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amounts of carbonate and bicarbonate are optimizable features, as taught by Lee for use with the production of bicarbonate and carbonate in Jones.
As to the leaching mineral ion salts into a brine or slurry and recovering the mineral ions from the brine or slurry feature, the HCl in Jones made may be sold or reacted with silicate rocks to form road salt, CaCl2 (col. 5, lines 59-60). The mixture may be reacted in salt and water (brine) to isolate Mg2+ and Ca2+ and the Mg2+ ions may be recycled (col. 5, lines 59-64). The silicate rock can be considered a waste material.
Jones explains sequestration of CO2 using Mg2+ as a catalyst (col. 18, line 3) where magnesium is combined with CO2 (col. 18, lines 37, 42-43) and CaCl2 (col. 18, lines 44). The CO2 reacts with magnesium and CaCl2 to generate CaCO3 (col. 18, lines 45-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate minerals, such as HCl, CaCl2, Mg, Ca, as taught by Jones for use with the process of Skocek because these minerals can be repurposes for other uses, such as for road salt and the Mg and Ca can be recycled for further sequestration of CO2.
Jones does not specifically state that the Mg2+ used in the sequestration step is the Mg2+ derived from removed Mg2+ from silicate rocks.
Gilliam describes a process for sequestering CO2 gases (para. 2, 6) using a solution (para. 6), which uses a source of alkaline earth metals, Ca2+ and Mg2+ to facilitate this method (para. 51). The process shows that Mg2+ and Ca2+ are derived from a different source (see Fig. 200, 260) and Gilliam explains that the sources of ions may be a recycle source (para. 68, last para “Permeate comprising a concentrated source of monovalent ions may be discarded . . . or recycled for use. . “).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recycle the isolated Mg2+ in Jones for use in the Mg2+ catalysis of CO2 step of Jones because Gilliam explains that Mg2+ isolated can be recycled for reuse.
As to Claim 8, Skocek teaches that the CO2 is from exhaust gas (abstract).
As to Claims 10 and 11, Jones teaches reacting HCl with a waste material (see above), where the silicate rock can be considered a waste material. Jones does not state that the contacting step is performed at elevated pressure or temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contacting step is performed at ambient pressure and temperature.
As to Claim 12, Jones teaches that these reactions are performed in reactor 200, which can be a fluidized bed reactor, a spray tower decarbonator or decarbonation bubbler (col. 18, lines 37-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the reactors do not include mechanical agitation or abrasion of solids since these reactors do not employ these means.
As to claim 13, Jones teaches that the HCl is recirculated (col. 6, lines 22-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same process steps would have the same effectiveness of increasing the contact between the waste and HCl.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright (US Pub.: 2013/0336722).
The references describe use of removing CO2 from flue gas, but not CO2 from the atmosphere.
Wright describes a method of removing CO2 from air (title) using a sorbent (abstract). The sorbent can include magnesium hydroxide to form a carbonate (para. 58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove CO2 from air, as taught by Wright for use with the process of Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam because use of Mg(OH)2 to remove CO2 is known to be effective from either flue gas or the atmosphere.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinkerton et al. “Separation Processes”.
Jones describes use of solids separators after the digestion phase (see Fig. 15, line after rock melter), but does not describe use of a settling tank or an evaporator.
Pinkerton describes various separation processes for use in chemistry (introduction and title). Effective separation steps include sedimentation (section 9.6), Evaporation (section 9.10) and others (see table of contents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a sedimentation tank, as taught by Pinkerton for use in the solid separator of Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam because Pinkerton explains that these are effective solids separator known in the field.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pinkerton et al. “Separation Processes” and in view of Li (CN 111302418).
Jones describes use of solids separators after the digestion phase (see Fig. 15, line after rock melter), but does not describe use of a settling tank or an evaporator.
Pinkerton describes various separation processes for use in chemistry (introduction and title). Effective separation steps include sedimentation (section 9.6), Evaporation (section 9.10) and others (see table of contents).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an evaporator, as taught by Pinkerton for use with the solid separator of Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam because Pinkerton describes known solids separator in the field effective to perform solids separation.
Pinkerton describes evaporation, but not the use of an evaporation pond.
Li describes a natural evaporation device (title). The device uses an evaporation pond to evaporate salt from the liquid (abstract). The pond is designed to treat a brine-containing solution (page 2, para. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an evaporation pond, as taught by Li for use with the evaporator of Pinkerton because evaporation ponds are known types of evaporators for use as solids separators when applied to a brine-containing solution.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He (CN 207160132).
Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam do not specifically teach that the process using an evaporation pond employs solar and/or naturally occurring wind to increase evaporation.
He describes an evaporation pond device (title). The device includes fans that are connected to solar panels used with the evaporation pond (Claim 10), which are used to feed air to the pond (page 2, last two lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ fans (wind) to feed air to the pond, as taught by He for use with the solids separator of Skocek, Strandgaard, Jones, Lee and Gilliam because sending wind to an evaporator pond is known to predictable facilitate evaporation of the evaporator pond.
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights