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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 is unclear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12-27 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 12 recites “hydroxide ions as a heat source” in line 1.
It is unclear that what constitutes the claimed “heat source,” and whether any conventional hydroxide-based CO2 absorption process would fall within the scope.
Hydroxide ions are reactive chemical reactions, not a recognized heat-generating structure or energy source. Any heat observed in such system arises from the ‘exothermic reaction’ between CO2 and OH-, not from OH- itself acting as a “source” of heat.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the concentration of hydroxide ions is up to 30 mol%” in lines 1-2.
Mol% is a relative term requiring a clearly defined denominator; however, the claim does not indicate whether the hydroxide ion concentration is measured relative to: total solution, total solute, total ionic species, or any other defined composition. As such, it would not be able to determine, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claimed concentration range.
Further, the claim fails to specify: the medium or composition in which the hydroxide ions are present, and any measurement conditions or conventions.
Claim 16 recites “wherein said process produces up to 50% more heat, relative to an identical process wherein hydroxide ions are absent” in lines 1-2.
It is unclear that whether “heat” refers to total heat released, heat per unit time, or heat per mole of CO2 absorbed.
It is also unclear what constitutes an “identical process” when a fundamental component (hydroxide ions) is removed.
The phrase “up o 50% more” fails to provide clear boundaries.
Claim 18 recites “said process employs an aqueous hydroxide solution as a sorbent” in line 1.
It is unclear whether the “aqueous hydroxide solution”, which is used as sorbent in the (CO2 absorption) process is the same as or it is distinct from the “hydroxide ions” of claim 12.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the CO2 absorption process is part of a decoupled CO2 absorption and desorption system” in lines 1-2.
It is unclear whether the feature “decoupled CO2 absorption and desorption system” difference with a known “CO2 absorption and desorption system”.
To expedite examination, Examiner interprets as a known “CO2 absorption and desorption system”.
Other dependent claims depend on claim 12; and hence are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 12-14, 17-18, 20-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2008113061 (hereinafter WO ‘061).
The abstract, [0068]-[0069], [0078], [0086]-[0091], figs. 4, 8A of WO ‘061 discloses a use of hydroxide ions as a heat source in a CO2 absorption process as recited in claims 12-14, 17-18, 20-22, and 25-27.
CO2-containing gas stream (e.g., exhaust gas 128) is contacted in a CO2 capture reactor (168, 250) with an aqueous solution of KOH or NaOH, thereby providing hydroxide ions (OH-) as the absorbent. The reaction between CO2 and KOH (or NaOH) is exothermic, producing heat (QP2, Q). The generated heat is recovered and utilized, including: generation of electric power and/or regeneration of the absorbent solution. CO2 absorption occurs in a capture reactor, while regeneration occurs in separate downstream units (including carbonate processing and calcination). These steps are performed under different conditions and in different units, indicating a decoupled absorption-desorption system.
Claim(s) 12-14, 17-18, 20-22, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torres et al (US 2020338498; hereinafter Torres).
The abstract, [0055], figs. 2 and 7 of Torres discloses a use of hydroxide ions as a heat source in a CO2 absorption process as recited in claims 12-14, 17-18, 20-22, 25-27.
The absorption of CO2 in the hydroxide solution is exothermic, inherently generating heat ([0055]). Torres further teaches that the generated heat is transferred and utilized within the system, including use in electrochemical cells configured to regenerate the absorbent solution (fig. 7). The regenerated KOH solution is recycled back to the CO2 capture step (fig. 2). Additionally, Torres discloses separate absorption and regeneration units (figs. 2 and 7), wherein regeneration is performed in an electrochemical reactor distinct from the absorption unit, thereby teaching a decoupled CO2 absorption and desorption system.
Claim(s) 12-15, 18-19, 21, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101709859 (hereinafter KR ‘859).
The abstract, [0031]-[0038], [0046]-[0048], figs. 2-3 of KR ‘859 discloses a use of hydroxide ions as a heat source in a CO2 absorption process as recited in claims 12-15, 18-19, 21, and 25-27.
The CO2 absorption process in which a CO2-containing gas stream is contacted in a second reactor (contactor 12) with an aqueous NaOH solution (15-20 wt%). The CO2-NaOH reaction is conducted at elevated temperature (about 50-65oC) and is inherently exothermic, thereby generating heat during CO2 absorption. KR ‘859 further teaches that the generated heat is extracted via a heat exchanger and unitized within the CO2 absorption system, including supply to a first reactor (10) ([0046]-[0048]; fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008113061 (hereinafter WO ‘061) {or Torres et al (US 2020338498; hereinafter Torres) and KR 101709859 (hereinafter KR ‘859)} as applied supra, and further in view of Lackner et al (US 20110226006; herein after Lackner) and Jeong et al (US 2012015322; hereinafter Jeong).
As regarding claim 16, WO ‘061 (or Torres, KR ‘859) discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘061 (or Torres, KR ‘859) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein said process produces up to 50% more heat, relative to an identical process wherein hydroxide ions are absent. Lackner teaches wherein said process produces up to 50% more heat, relative to an identical process wherein hydroxide ions are absent (Lackner - [0084], reaction (1); Jeong – table 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein said process produces up to 50% more heat, relative to an identical process wherein hydroxide ions are absent as taught by Lackner in order to enhance CO2 absorption performance.
Lackner and Jeong demonstrate that the enthalpy of CO2 reaction with hydroxide systems is significantly higher that with amine absorbents (e.g., MEA, DEA: Jeong – table 1), such that the claimed “up to 50% more heat” is inherently met.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008113061 (hereinafter WO ‘061) {or Torres et al (US 2020338498; hereinafter Torres) and KR 101709859 (hereinafter KR ‘859)} as applied supra, and further in view of Equinox Energy AS and Gelein De Koeijer: “CO2 Capture from Small and/or Mobile sources”, Research Disclosure, vol. 679, no. 72 (2020-10-13) (hereinafter Equinox).
As regarding claim 20, WO ‘061 (or Torres, KR ‘859) discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘061 (or Torres, KR ‘859) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the CO2 absorption process is part of a decoupled CO2 absorption and desorption system. Equinox teaches wherein the CO2 absorption process is part of a decoupled CO2 absorption and desorption system (p 2 ln 1-10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the CO2 absorption process is part of a decoupled CO2 absorption and desorption system as taught by Equinox in order to enhance CO2 absorption performance.
Claim(s) 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2008113061 (hereinafter WO ‘061) {or Torres et al (US 2020338498; hereinafter Torres) and KR 101709859 (hereinafter KR ‘859)} as applied supra.
As regarding claim 20, WO ‘061 (or Torres, KR ‘859) discloses all of limitations as set forth above. WO ‘061 (or Torres, KR ‘859) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the concentration of hydroxide ions is 2 to 30 mol%, 5 to 20 mol%; and wherein said CO2 absorption process occurs at a temperature of 40oC to 80oC. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the concentration of hydroxide ions is 2 to 30 mol%, 5 to 20 mol%; and wherein said CO2 absorption process occurs at a temperature of 40oC to 80oC in order to enhance CO absorption process efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights