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
A telephone requirement for an election of species was made by the Examiner; upon further review and consideration no search burden for the species was found. Claims 23-41 are examined in this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Figure 16 contains a reference character “1300” that is not defined or identified in the instant disclosure. It is implicitly relevant to systems “1100” and “1200,” but this relationship and the identity of “1300” is not made abundantly clear in the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 27 recites “a feeding and/or discharging system (1100, 1200)” but continues to recite “each system (1100, 200)”. This is interpreted by the examiner to be a typographic error that should read “each system (1100, 1200)…” Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 41 recites “the upper portion (131, 231) of the cooling zone” in limitation (d), of recirculating at least a portion of the exhaust gas. The limitation reciting an upper portion of the cooling zone is recited in the alternative, in step (c) which is recited in the alternative. This language may be corrected to read “an upper portion,” similarly recited in step (c). Appropriate correction is requested.
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 25 and 26 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. The claim recites inter alia “through which the heated additional cooling (91) is extracted;” this limitation lacks antecedent basis since (91) is identified as an additional cooling stream. Adding the word “stream” would overcome this rejection. Claim 26 is dependent upon claim 25 and does not rectify the issue and is therefore similarly rejected.
Claim 29 is 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 29 recites a Markush group consisting of carbon-containing fuel, dihydrogen-containing fuel, and “a mixture of dihydrogen-containing fuel and dihydrogen-containing fuel.” It is unclear how a mixture can be defined if it contains the same element twice. Furthermore, if this mixture is identical in composition to the previously listed dihydrogen-containing fuel, it would be unclear to one skilled in the art if this meets the limitation of the first mentioned dihydrogen-containing fuel or if it would meet the limitation of the mixture of dihydrogen-containing fuel and dihydrogen-containing fuel. Therefore this claim is indefinite in scope.
Claim 31 is 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 31 recites a percentage at the end of the claim that does not clarify to what the percentage is in relation. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to identify which volume should be used in the calculation of this percentage, therefore the bounds of the limitation are indefinite. To proceed with further examination, the interpretation will be used that the at least one comburent is comprised of an oxygen-enriched composition in at least 40% by dry volume of the total comburent, in light of the instant specification [0058].
Claim 33 is 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 33 recites “the additional cooling stream (91);” this limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if the previously recited cooling stream (91) in claim 32 constitutes this stream, or if a separate stream is meant to be indicated. Therefore the limitation is indefinite in scope.
Claims 39 and 40 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. Claims 39 and 40 each recite “the recycled exhaust gas” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims, since claim 32, upon which both claims depend, does not recite a recycled exhaust gas.
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites preheating zone “(310),” heating zone “(320),” cooling zone “(330),” and crossover “(423, 431)” channels. Claim 41 is unclear as to whether these limitations, corresponding to the third (300) shaft, are optional or are claimed in the invention, since the third (300) shaft is claimed optionally. Applicant should clarify whether the structural limitations accompanying the third shaft are also optional limitations or are part of the invention; for example, does a cross-over channel (431) exist between a first and a third shaft if the third shaft is not present? Such limitations render the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites “alternately heating carbonated materials” in line 2. It is unclear what is alternated. To proceed with further examination, in light of the specification it will be interpreted that the heating alternates between the first and second shaft and any other optionally included shafts (0008).
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites inter alia “generating an exhaust gas (40) from the combustion of the fuel (20) and the decarbonation.” The limitation of “the decarbonation” lacks antecedent basis in the claim: it is unclear whether “the decarbonation” refers to the act of carbon dioxide being released of the carbonated materials, since this act is merely claimed as a limitation to define a particular temperature range, while a step of decarbonation itself is not positively recited as a step in the process. Language along the lines of defining such a step as a decarbonation would overcome this issue.
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites “cooling the decarbonated materials (50)” in the third line. The limitation of “the decarbonated materials” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 41 is 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 41 recites “in particular by means of a collecting ring encircling said shaft (100, 200)” in limitation (d), of recirculating at least a portion of the exhaust gas. Similarly, the claim recites “in particular an electric heater, an oxyfuel burner or an indirect burner, and/or a heat exchanger transferring heat with the one or more heated cooling streams (91, 92)” and “in particular at an upper portion (131, 231) of said cooling zone (130, 230)” in limitation (f), of heating the exhaust gas. The phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 23 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. 2015, CN 105000811 A, in view of Wang et al. 2020, US 20200048146 A1, both provided on the IDS filed on 11/10/2023. Li teaches:
A decarbonation process for carbonated materials (10) with CO2 recovery, in a multi-shaft vertical kiln comprising a first and second shaft (Figure 1; co-current regenerative lime kiln production process based on CO2 enrichment, 0009), with preheating zones (0015), heating zones (combustion zones, 0013), and cooling zones (Figure 1; bottom of the kiln chambers, 0038) and a crossover channel between the shafts (connecting channel, 0015; Figure 1 arrow)
alternately (0017) heating carbonated materials (limestone raw materials, 0010) by a combustion of at least one fuel (limestone absorbs the heat generated by fuel combustion, 0013) with at least one comburent comprising less than 70% N2 dry volume, said comburent being oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen (oxygen-rich gas with an oxygen concentration >95%, 0018)
up to a temperature range in which carbon dioxide of the carbonated materials (10) is released (0013)
generating an exhaust gas from the combustion of the fuel and the decarbonation (cooling gas mixed with the CO2 gas, 0015)
and cooling the decarbonated materials in the cooling zones with one or more cooling streams (0014, 0016).
Li does not teach the cooling stream(s) comprising a water steam stream. However, Wang teaches a process for preparing lime which cools the finished lime with steam (0033), wherein the steam is fed into the cooling zone (cooling section, 0033) of the shaft (kiln, 0033). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li by using a steam stream to cool the products, as Wang teaches; one would be motivated to do so because Wang teaches that the steam cools the finished lime and is part of the recycled gas that is sent back to the furnace (0083), which is taught by Li as advantageous (“increasing product value and saving energy and reducing consumption,” 0023). Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would use the teachings of Li and Wang to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 29, Li and Wang teach the invention as applied to claim 23. Li further teaches that the fuel is pulverized coal (0029), thus meeting the claimed limitation of a carbon-containing fuel, since coal contains carbon.
Regarding claim 30, Li and Wang teach the invention as applied to claim 23. Wang further teaches that the exhaust gas exiting the shaft is recirculated (Figure 5, CO2 recycling device 60) by mixing it with at least one comburent (combustion-supporting air 22, Figure 5) in the furnace set 20 (0055) before being fed to the shafts again (CO2 arrow 70, Figure 5). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li and Wang by using this recycling method taught by Wang; one would be motivated to do so because Wang teaches that this method allows for the total recycling of CO2 (0037) and the sending of the gases to external burners before sending gas back into the kiln reduces economic cost of operation (0042). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 31, Li and Wang teach the invention as applied to claim 23 above. Li further teaches the comburent (oxygen-rich gas with an oxygen concentration >95%, 0018) is supplied in the heating zones (combustion zones, 0012); therefore Li teaches the comburent supplied in the heating zones has comprising of at least 40% by dry volume of an oxygen-enriched composition, as interpreted above for claim 31, thus meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Li and Wang, as applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Jia, CN 203229463 U.
Li and Wang teach the invention as applied above, and do not teach providing the water for the steam stream via cooling the exhaust gas extracted from at least the first, second, or third shaft in a separate condensation unit and/or an external water source, boiling the water in at least one boiler and/or heat exchangers, into the water steam stream that is fed in at least the first, second, and/or third shaft.
However, Jia teaches a Maerz kiln (abstract) for a process of providing water for a steam stream, via an external source (water supply system), boiling the water in a boiler and/or heat exchanger (“heat-extracting baffle, upper suction beam, combustion beam, and flue gas cooler heat water into steam,” 0010), into the water steam stream (steam pipe 6, Figure 1).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Li and Wang by using the teaching of Jia to provide the source of steam required for the steam inlet taught by Wang (0033), steam being injected into the kiln body; one would be motivated to do so because Jia teaches that the invention uses waste heat of the kiln to generate steam, thus increasing economic benefits (0007). It would be obvious before the filing date of the current invention that this advantage could be applied to the modification of steam kilns, outside of the mere use of the steam to power the generator as taught by Jia, because the advantage of obtaining economic benefits is general and is derived from the reusing of waste heat, rather than the specific application of the steam to generate electricity. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Wang, applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of the 2004 publication “The Maerz Parallel Flow Regenerative Lime Kiln,” referred to herein as Maerz, provided on the IDS filed on 11/10/2023.
Regarding claim 27, Li and Wang teach the invention as applied to claim 23 above. Li and Wang do not teach either a feeding and/or a discharging system comprising a lock chamber delimited by an upstream valve assembly and a downstream valve assembly.
However, Maerz, teaches a parallel flow regenerative lime kiln (title) wherein a discharging system is disclosed (Figure 15, p. 14). The discharging system comprises a lock chamber (hopper) delimited by an upstream and downstream valve assembly (airtight traps, ‘5.9’ pp. 2). The discharging system is configured to collect, store in a gas tight manner, and release the materials as dependent on the configuration of the valves (Figure 15, ‘5.9’ pp. 2).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li and Wang by using the discharging system as disclosed by Maerz; one would be motivated to do so in order to collect, store, and release the decarbonated materials as Maerz discloses (p. 14, ‘5.9’ pp. 2) which advantageously enables continuous material discharge and therefore automated operation (‘5.9’ pp. 1). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Wang, applied to claim 23 above, and in further view of Vandervorst et al. EP 3316989 B1, referred to herein as Vandervorst.
Regarding claim 28, Li and Wang teach the invention as applied to claim 23 above. Li and Wang do not disclose providing additional kilns to the MSVK forming a plurality of kilns generating an aggregated exhaust gas stream entering a CO2 purification unit, coordinating the plurality of kilns by selecting at least one cycle phasing and duration of said kilns.
However, Vandervorst teaches a CO2 purification unit or CPU (large scale CO2 gas separation unit, 0002) for the separation of CO2 from aggregated gas (Figure 9) emitted from several vertical lime kilns (p.8 line 46), preferably parallel flow regenerative lime shaft kilns (Item 22, p. 9 line 32). Additionally Vandervorst teaches that the kiln can be an alternating-cycle vertical kiln (Item 25, p. 9 line 43), thus meeting the limitation of at least one cycle phasing and duration of the kilns as recited in the instant claim.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Li and Wang by using the PFR kilns as taught by Vandervorst, wherein multiple kilns are provided and the aggregated exhaust gas is purified. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because Vandervorst teaches that this setup advantageously produces quicklime of optimized quality, allowing the production of more reactive quicklime (0035, p. 5 line 39). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claims 32-33 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Yu 2019, CN 109437608 A, provided on the IDS filed 11/10/2023.
Li teaches:
A decarbonation process for carbonated materials (10) with CO2 recovery, in a multi-shaft vertical kiln comprising a first and second shaft (Figure 1; co-current regenerative lime kiln production process based on CO2 enrichment, 0009), with preheating zones (0015), heating zones (combustion zones, 0013), and cooling zones (Figure 1; bottom of the kiln chambers, 0038) and a crossover channel between the shafts (connecting channel, 0015; Figure 1 arrow)
alternately (0017) heating carbonated materials (limestone raw materials, 0010) by a combustion of at least one fuel (limestone absorbs the heat generated by fuel combustion, 0013) with at least one comburent comprising less than 70% N2 dry volume, said comburent being oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen (oxygen-rich gas with an oxygen concentration >95%, 0018)
up to a temperature range in which carbon dioxide of the carbonated materials (10) is released (0013)
generating an exhaust gas from the combustion of the fuel and the decarbonation (cooling gas mixed with the CO2 gas, 0015)
and cooling the decarbonated materials in the cooling zones with one or more cooling streams (0014, 0016).
Li does not teach providing a heat exchanger in the cooling zones, said heat exchanger being fed by one or more cooling streams. However, Yu teaches a lime shaft kiln and calcination method (abstract) wherein a heat exchanger (3) is in the cooling zone (D), (abstract) and is provided with cooling air (0031). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Li with the heat exchanger as taught by Yu; one would be motivated to do so because this setup allows the middle and edge of the kiln to be cooled more evenly and recover waste heat (0022).
Regarding claim 33, Li and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Yu further teaches feeding the cooling zone with an additional cooling stream (cold air, 0031) and extracting the heated cooling stream at an upper portion of said cooling zone (“the air… is heated and sent to the lower part of the calcination zone,” 0031; zone C in Figure 1).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Li and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Li further teaches the comburent (oxygen-rich gas with an oxygen concentration >95%, 0018) is supplied in the heating zones (combustion zones, 0012); therefore Li teaches the comburent supplied in the heating zones has comprising of at least 40% by dry volume of an oxygen-enriched composition, as interpreted above for claim 31, thus meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Li and Yu, as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Jia, CN 203229463 U.
Regarding claim 34, Li and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Li and Yu do not teach a hopper for conditioning the carbonated materials before they are fed to at least one of the shafts and supplying the hopper with one or more of the heated cooling streams extracts from the upper portion of the cooling zones.
However, Jia teaches a Maerz kiln (abstract) wherein a hopper (feed inlet 2) is provided with the cooling stream (flue gas) obtained from the upper portion of the cooling zone (“upper part of the cooling zone is equipped with a flue gas passage 16,” which flows to preheating zone 4 and feed inlet 2, Figure 3). Therefore this structure is capable of conditioning the carbonated materials before they are fed into at least one of the shafts, thus meeting the limitation of the instant claim.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li and Yu by providing a hopper and supplying the hopped with one or more of the heated cooling streams as Jia teaches. One would be motivated to do so by Jia’s teaching that effectively utilizing this waste heat from the flue gas can reduce energy waste and increase the economic efficiency and environmental friendliness of lime kilns (0004). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Yu, applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Vandervorst.
Regarding claim 36, Li and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Li and Yu do not disclose providing additional kilns to the MSVK forming a plurality of kilns generating an aggregated exhaust gas stream entering a CO2 purification unit, coordinating the plurality of kilns by selecting at least one cycle phasing and duration of said kilns.
However, Vandervorst teaches a CO2 purification unit or CPU (large scale CO2 gas separation unit, 0002) for the separation of CO2 from aggregated gas (Figure 9) emitted from several vertical lime kilns (p.8 line 46), preferably parallel flow regenerative lime shaft kilns (Item 22, p. 9 line 32). Additionally Vandervorst teaches that the kiln can be an alternating-cycle vertical kiln (Item 25, p. 9 line 43), thus meeting the limitation of at least one cycle phasing and duration of the kilns as recited in the instant claim.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Li and Yu by using the PFR kilns as taught by Vandervorst, wherein multiple kilns are provided and the aggregated exhaust gas is purified. One skilled in the art would be motivated to do so because Vandervorst teaches that this setup advantageously produces quicklime of optimized quality, allowing the production of more reactive quicklime (0035, p. 5 line 39). Therefore one skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Li and Yu, as applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Wang.
Regarding claim 37, Li and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Li and Yu do not teach recirculating the exhaust gas and mixing with at least one comburent.
However, Wang further teaches that the exhaust gas exiting the shaft is recirculated (Figure 5, CO2 recycling device 60) by mixing it with at least one comburent (combustion-supporting air 22, Figure 5) in the furnace set 20 (0055) before being fed to the shafts again (CO2 arrow 70, Figure 5). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li and Yu by using this recycling method taught by Wang; one would be motivated to do so because Wang teaches that this method allows for the total recycling of CO2 (0037) and the sending of the gases to external burners before sending gas back into the kiln reduces economic cost of operation (0042). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Yu, applied to claim 32 above, and in further view of Maerz.
Regarding claim 35, Li and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Li and Yu do not teach either a feeding and/or a discharging system comprising a lock chamber delimited by an upstream valve assembly and a downstream valve assembly.
However, Maerz, teaches a parallel flow regenerative lime kiln (title) wherein a discharging system is disclosed (Figure 15, p. 14). The discharging system comprises a lock chamber (hopper) delimited by an upstream and downstream valve assembly (airtight traps, ‘5.9’ pp. 2). The discharging system is configured to collect, store in a gas tight manner, and release the materials as dependent on the configuration of the valves (Figure 15, ‘5.9’ pp. 2).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Li and Yu by using the discharging system as disclosed by Maerz; one would be motivated to do so in order to collect, store, and release the decarbonated materials as Maerz discloses (p. 14, ‘5.9’ pp. 2) which advantageously enables continuous material discharge and therefore automated operation (‘5.9’ pp. 1). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 40, Li, and Yu teach the invention as applied to claim 32 above. Li and Yu do not teach the mixing of the oxygen-enriched composition with another comburent such as air and optionally the recycled exhaust gas before feeding said mixture in the preheating and/or heating zones.
However, Maerz teaches the use of air as a comburent (“combustion air,” p. 5 ‘The operating principle of the Maerz PFR-Kiln’). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Li (oxygen-rich gas, 0018) and Maerz (air, p. 5) and thus arrive at the claimed invention; the courts have held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions known for the same purpose each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.I. Maerz and Li therefore discloses that air and oxygen are known equivalents useful for functioning as a comburent by supporting combustion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the decarbonation process by using a comburent further comprising either oxygen, air, or a combination as disclosed by Li and Maerz as the mere combination of equivalents known for the same purpose.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. 2015, CN 105000811 A, provided on the IDS filed on 11/10/2023.
Regarding claim 41, Li teaches:
A decarbonation process for carbonated materials (10) with CO2 recovery, in a multi-shaft vertical kiln comprising a first and second shaft (Figure 1; co-current regenerative lime kiln production process based on CO2 enrichment, 0009), with preheating zones (0015), heating zones (combustion zones, 0013), and cooling zones (Figure 1; bottom of the kiln chambers, 0038) and a crossover channel between the shafts (connecting channel, 0015; Figure 1 arrow)
Alternately (0017) heating carbonated materials (limestone raw materials, 0010) by a combustion of at least one fuel (limestone absorbs the heat generated by fuel combustion, 0013) with at least one comburent comprising less than 70% N2 dry volume, said comburent being oxygen-enriched air or substantially pure oxygen (oxygen-rich gas with an oxygen concentration >95%, 0018)
up to a temperature range in which carbon dioxide of the carbonated materials (10) is released (0013)
generating an exhaust gas from the combustion of the fuel and the decarbonation (cooling gas mixed with the CO2 gas, 0015)
and cooling the decarbonated materials in the cooling zones with one or more cooling streams (0014, 0016); said process further comprising
(d) recirculating at least a portion of the exhaust gas alternately exiting the second or the first shaft, injecting the recirculated exhaust gas in a lower portion of the preheating zone of the second shaft or the first shaft, respectively (the cooling gas mixed with the CO2 gas generated by the decomposition is sent back to the preheating zone, 0038), feeding the cooling zone of at least one of the first and/or the second shaft with the one or more cooling streams (0038), and heating the recirculated exhaust gas with the one or more heated cooling streams extracted from an upper portion of the cooling zone of the at least one of the first and/or the second shaft (rises, 0039).
Li does not explicitly disclose that the >95% content of oxygen is by dry volume. However, Li teaches that the method eliminates circulation of N2 gas within the system (0023). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art that the content of the oxygen supplied by Li, at a concentration of >95%, would not contain more than a negligible amount of N2 gas, thus falling within the claimed range of less than 70% of N2 by dry volume. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would use the teaching of Li to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23 and 41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of co-pending Application No. 18/560357, with the publication US 20240254043 A1, cited herein as ‘357, in view of claim 9 of ‘357. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 requires each of the limitations of claim 1 of ‘357, which therefore meets all of the recited limitations of the instant claim 23, except the limitation of a water steam stream, and recites all of non-alternatively recited limitations of the instant claim 41, except any one of the limitations listed in the alternative. However, claim 9 of ‘357 recites a step of cooling the decarbonated materials (50) with the one or more cooling streams (90) comprising water steam, said stream being fed in the cooling zones (130, 230) of the first, second, and/or third shaft. It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of claim 6 of ‘357 by incorporating the limitations of claim 9 of ‘357, and arrive at the claimed invention of claims 23 and 41.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights