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 .
Drawings
The 10-31-23 drawings are provisionally accepted. Due to their complexity and/or numerosity, applicant’s assistance is requested to ensure that all component labels therein are correctly identified in the specification and vice versa. 37 CFR 1.3 (courtesy required).
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s 6-14-26 election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) is acknowledged. Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1’s 3rd-to-last step’s (beginning with “a separation between the CaO-based sorbent material”) “and which is collected” recitation is considered to grammatically favor referring to the “CO2-concentrated gas stream which is comprised of said second combustion fumes and of the CO2 released during said decarbonation of CaCO3” rather than to the “CaO-based sorbent material”, i.e. the gas stream is what is considered to be that “which is collected”. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the gas stream immediately precedes the “and which is collected” phrase, as well as the fact that the “CaO-based sorbent material” is recycled for further use in the subsequent “a recycling of…” step (such recycling being different than collecting).
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as 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’s “the gaseous fuels” and “the solid and liquid fuels” lack sufficient antecedent bases, rendering claim 1 rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par.
Applicant is hereby advised that, as independent claim 1 is rejected for deficiencies under 35 USC 112(b)/2nd par., all claims depending therefrom also contain such deficiencies and are likewise rejected (unless the deficiencies are resolved by the dependent claim’s own limitations) - cure thereof is required for any and all claims affected even if any such claim were otherwise found allowable. See, e.g., In re Jolly, 172 F.2d 566, 567 (CCPA 1949) (holding that dependent claims of indefinite claims are thusly indefinite), and Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702-04 (BPAI 1989) (same); 35 USC 112(d)/4th par.
Claim 5’s phrase “said first, second and/or third heat recoveries” lacks sufficient antecedent bases, as neither claim 2 nor claim 1 recite a second and/or a third heat recovery; claim 5 is thus rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par.
Claims 6-7’s “[said/the] calcination step” renders claims 6-7 rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as it is unclear which calcination step the quoted phrase refers to within claim 1 (either the “calcination of a downward moving…” or “calcination of the separated…”), causing confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof. MPEP 2173.02.
Claim 7’s “said combustion” renders claim 7 rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd par. as it is unclear which combustion step the quoted phrase refers to within claim 1 (either the “combustion of fuel in the presence…” or “combustion of a fuel chosen…”), causing confusion as to the claimed scope and how to avoid infringement thereof. MPEP 2173.02.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering the obviousness rejections below, the applicant should note that the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention has the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the claimed invention. The references of record in the application reasonably reflect this level of skill.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez Vera, US 2009/0255444 (2009) (“MV”) as illustrated by the 2003 Westberg et al. article (“Westberg”)1. Regarding claims 1 and 6, MV teaches a method comprising (1) calcining a limestone-comprising raw meal (see MV at, e.g., par. 21-22) sent from mixer 10 via pre-heating section 20 to calciner 28/34 by contacting the raw meal with exhaust fumes from combusting a fuel 30/32/36/38 with an oxidizing gas 31/35 (see id. at, e.g., par. 24, 27, and 29; Fig. 1), (2) collecting calcined clinker product (i.e. CaO/lime-comprising product) 40 from the bottom of calciner 34 (thus necessarily cooling it as claimed on removal therefrom), (3) releasing a CO2-comprising flue gas (see id. at, e.g., par. 29; Fig. 1) from atop calciners 28/34 where it proceeds upwards via lines 20/42 via dust filter 44 and lines 52/54 (see id. at, e.g., par. 29 and 33; Fig. 1), (4) feeding the dedusted flue gas to a reactor 60 where it is passed through a CaO-comprising sorbent 62 to be captured thereby as stream 74 that comprises “mainly CaCO3” and thus some unreacted CaO as well (see id. at, e.g., par. 33-39; Fig. 1), (5) separating the “mainly CaCO3” stream 74 from the resulting CO2-depleted gaseous effluent 70 (see id. at, e.g., par. 38; Fig. 1), (6) calcining the “mainly CaCO3” stream 74 in calciner 642 (see id. at, e.g., par. 39-40 and 46; Fig. 1) with exhaust fumes from combusting a fuel 76 with dioxygen 77 (see id.) in the presence of CO2 driven off via the calcination reaction (see id. at, e.g., par. 39-40; Fig. 1), thus forming a solids stream 62 of “mainly CaO” and a gaseous stream 78 of “mainly CO2” (see id. at, e.g., par. 41-43; Fig. 1), (7) separating stream 62 from stream 78 in cyclone 82 and collecting stream 78 for further use (see id.)3, (8) sending/recycling the “mainly CaO” solids stream 62 to reactor 60 for capturing CO2 therein (see id. at, e.g., par. 33-39 and esp. 43-44; Fig. 1), and (9) introducing fresh, >95wt% CaCO3-comprising, limestone 88 into calciner 64 (see id. at, e.g., par. 39-40 and 46; Fig. 1).
As to the ash and S contents of MV’s fuel 76, note that MV teaches that said fuel can be an alternative fuel such as wood chips (biomass as in claim 6), rendering it prima facie obvious to employ such a fuel (MPEP 2143 I.(E) & 2144.07). See MV at, e.g., par. 7, 24, and 40. While MV is silent as to its wood chips’ ash and S contents, Westberg teaches that wood chips comprise 0.4 wt% ash & 0.014 wt% S, within the claimed ranges. See Westberg at, e.g., Table 2.
While MV does not teach that some of its CaCO3-and-CaO-comprising stream 74 is removed prior to entry into calciner 64 as an auxiliary value product, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so for reasons that follow. MV teaches the introduction of raw meal (a homogenized mixture of finely ground limestone, clay, and iron ore) to its process as detailed above, which undergoes calcination/decarbonation and eventually forms a stream of clinker product 40 that is “mixed with gypsum and transformed into cement”, a valuable commodity. See MV at, e.g., par. 21-28; Fig. 1. Since i) forming MV’s raw meal requires the addition of limestone, ii) the limestone is calcined/decarbonated to eventually form clinker 40 (which is understood to be or at least comprise CaO due to the calcination/decarbonation of the limestone via the equation CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2), and iii) MV’s stream 74 comprises both CaCO3 and CaO, modifying MV’s overall methodology to remove a portion of its CaCO3-and-CaO-comprising stream 74 prior to entering calciner 64 -and employ said portion as at least part of its raw meal’s limestone component- would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as doing so would desirably reduce the amount (and cost) of limestone to be added to mixer 10 to form MV’s raw meal. MPEP 2143 I.(G). Doing so would also not undesirably affect the throughput or effectiveness of MV’s calciner 64, as MV already teaches adding fresh, >95wt% CaCO3-comprising, limestone 88 into its calciner 64 as detailed above (see MV at, e.g., par. 39-40 and 46; Fig. 1). Further, as MV already teaches the addition of cement kiln dust (“CKD”) 45 from its filter 44 back into raw meal mixer 10, amounting to 5-10 wt% of the total raw meal fed to mixer 10 (see id. at, e.g., 29 and 31; Fig. 1), making the prima facie obvious modification detailed above to arrive at the claimed limitation would not involve a material alteration of MV’s mode of operation and/or equipment.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, MV’s step (4) is conducted at 600-700oC (650oC being preferred), with heat being removed by a water-based heat recovery system 66; the recovered heat is used to make electricity. See MV at, e.g., par. 33-36; Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, MV recovers heat from the its CO2-depleted gaseous effluent 70 via heat exchanger 72. See id. at, e.g., par. 38; Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, MV’s step (6) calcination is conducted at 850-950oC, with heat being recovered from the resulting “mainly CO2” stream 78 by heat exchanger 84. See id. at, e.g., par. 39-41; Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, as MV teaches the appropriateness of adding CKD 45 from its filter 44 back into raw meal mixer 10, amounting to 5-10 wt% of the total raw meal fed to mixer 10 (see id. at, e.g., 29 and 31; Fig. 1), given the obviousness of extracting a portion of MV’s CaCO3-and-CaO-comprising stream 74 prior to entering its calciner 64 and routing the extracted portion to its raw meal mixer 10 to serve as part of the limestone supplied thereto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so extract, route, and utilize a similar amount of stream 74 (i.e. 5-10 wt% thereof) as the amount of CKD routed to mixer 10 as well. MPEP 2143 I.(G). This is especially so in view of MV’s teaching that CaO4 fed to mixer 10 from other portions of its methodology/equipment preferably amounts to 4-10 wt% of the overall CaO5 fed to mixer 10. See MV at, e.g., par. 48-49; Fig. 3; MPEP 2143 I.(G). Additionally and/or alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain and employ a desired/optimal extracted/routed % of its stream 74, such as within the claimed range, via routine experimentation, considering factors such as mixer 10 supply, and/or calciner 64 throughput, costs and requirements; it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, MV’s teaching that its stream 74 comprises “mainly CaCO3” (and thus some unreacted CaO as well) is reasonably considered/inferred to meet the claim. See MV at, e.g., par. 33-39; Fig. 1; MPEP 2144.01. This is especially so in view of MV’s teaching that ~80-90% of its CO2 stream 52/54 is converted in reactor 60 to CaCO3. See MV at, e.g., par. 34-37; Fig. 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ August 26, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
1 Note: Westberg is not meant to be combined with MV, but is merely cited to illustrate the ash and S content of MV’s wood chips alternative fuel.
2 It matters not whether MV terms its unit 64 a second reactor, decarbonator, or a calciner, so long as it performs a calcination reaction (which it does as shown in the cited portions thereof); nomenclature differences, without more, do not give rise to non-obviousness. See Ex parte Stanley, 121 USPQ 621, 625 (BPAI 1958) (holding that mere nomenclature differences do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art), and Sellers v. Cofrode 35 F. 131 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1888) (per curiam) (stating that a difference in naming “does not tend to distinguish”). See also In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA 1975) (reaching conclusion so as to prevent “the allowance of claims drawn to unpatentable subject matter merely through the employment of descriptive language not chosen by the prior art”).
3 Collection of stream 78, as claimed, is inferred from MV’s teaching that stream 78 can be used for EOR or other sequestering methods, since such uses would necessarily involve a collection of stream 78 as a prefatory step to such further use(s). See MV at, e.g., par. 42; MPEP 2144.01 (stating that reasonable inferences from prior art teachings may properly be used in 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections). Additionally and/or alternatively, given MV’s teaching of the appropriateness of employing stream 78 in EOR or other sequestration methods (either of which would necessarily require stream 78 to be collected and transported to the desired further use site), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so, and thereby necessarily collect stream 78 as a prefatory step to such further use(s). MPEP 2143 I.(G) & 2144.01.
4 Here, the CaO is expressed as “in the form of limestone, raw meal, or CKD” (see id. at, e.g., par. 48-49; Fig. 3).
5 See fn. 4, above.
Prosecution Insights