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 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 3 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner is treating claim 3 as requiring “the material comprising alkali metal ions is selected from the group consisting of dusts collected during cement and clinker production” as claimed.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 17 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 20130195747 A1) (“Kendall” hereinafter), as evidenced by Hills et al. (US 2009/0104349 A1) (“Hills” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kendall teaches a method for sequestering carbon dioxide (see Kendall at [0003] teaching a method of making a composition, comprising a) contacting an industrial waste gas stream comprising carbon dioxide) comprising
providing a starting material comprising calcium ions… sulfate, and alkali metal ions (see Kendall at [0006] teaching a method, comprising: a) preparing a first composition comprising Na2CO3, NaHCO3, or a mixture thereof; b) adding calcium sulfate to the first composition). The first composition comprising Na2CO3, NaHCO3, or a mixture thereof is taken to meet the claimed alkali metal ions, and calcium sulfate is taken to meet the claimed calcium ions and sulfate,
with a molar ratio [Symbol font/0x53] Alk : [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 > 2.00 (specification at [0013] discloses that [Symbol font/0x53] Alk is the sum of soluble alkali metal ions, and [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 is the sum of sulfate or sulfite ions, see Kendall at [0028]-[0029] teaching calcium sulfate source may include, but is not limited to… flue gas desulfurization… for example, in some embodiments, SO2 may be absorbed in a solution as sulfite, see Kendall at [0006] teaching in some embodiments, the calcium sulfate is a powder). Flue gas desulfurization is taken to meet the claimed recitation as evidenced by Hill (see Hill at [0035] evidencing the CO2-reactive component used… flue dusts… can also be used, see Hill at Table 2 evidencing 9.05 SO3… 1.39 Na2O). The molar ratio of Na2O (or [Symbol font/0x53] Alk) to SO3 (or [Symbol font/0x53] SO3) is 3 ( or (9.05 ÷ (1.39 x 2)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
reacting the starting material with carbon dioxide at… ambient pressure… and at a temperature in the range from 10 to 145 oC either… in an aqueous liquid (see Kendall at [0037] teaching contact protocols for absorbing CO2, include, but not limited to: direct contacting protocols, e.g., bubbling the gas through the volume of water, concurrent contacting means… contact may be accomplished through use of infusers, bubblers… as may be convenient, see Kendall at [0059] teaching temperature of the aqueous solution… temperature to between 0o C and 100o C) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Direct contact protocols for absorbing CO2 is taken to meet the claimed “ambient pressure” because direct contact protocols do not require an overpressure,
at a water : solids weight ratio from 1 to 100 (see Kendall at [0082] teaching in some embodiments, the ratio of the aqueous medium to the dry components… is 0.1-10) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
obtaining a carbonated product comprising finely precipitated calcium carbonate and alkali sulfate (see Kendall at [0006] teaching c) allowing the first composition to react with calcium sulfate to form a second composition comprising CaCO3 and Na2SO4, see Kendall at [0068] teaching the above described processes result in the production of a slurry of a carbonate containing precipitate and a mother liquor, see Kendall at [0062] teaching the nature of the precipitate may be affected by the pH of the precipitation process… in some embodiments, the high pH may lead to rapid precipitation and agglomeration of the particles whereas lower pH or slow raise in the pH may lead to finer particles).
Regarding claim 2, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the starting is reacted with carbon dioxide… at ambient pressure (see Kendall at [0037] teaching contact protocols for absorbing CO2, include, but not limited to: direct contacting protocols). Direct contact protocols for absorbing CO2 is taken to meet the claimed ambient pressure.
Regarding claim 3, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the starting material is provided by mixing a material comprising calcium sulfate, wherein the material comprising calcium sulfate is selected from the group consisting of… gypsum… to provide calcium sulfate (see Kendall at [0030] teaching in some embodiments, the methods… are integrated with the FGD process that produces gypsum), and
a material comprising alkali metal ions selected from the group consisting of dusts collected during cement and clinker production… to provide alkali metal ions (see Kendall [0044] teaching in addition to comprising cations… and other suitable metal forms… waste streams from various industrial processes… may provide proton-removing agents… such waste streams include, but are not limited to, mining wastes… cement kiln waste (e.g., cement kiln dust (CKD)).
Regarding claim 4, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the molar ratio [Symbol font/0x53] Alk : [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 in the starting material ranges from 2.00 to 5.00 (specification at [0013] discloses that [Symbol font/0x53] Alk is the sum of soluble alkali metal ions, and [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 is the sum of sulfate or sulfite ions, see Kendall at [0028]-[0029] teaching calcium sulfate source may include, but is not limited to… flue gas desulfurization… for example, in some embodiments, SO2 may be absorbed in a solution as sulfite, see Kendall at [0006] teaching in some embodiments, the calcium sulfate is a powder). Flue gas desulfurization is taken to meet the claimed recitation as evidenced by Hill (see Hill at [0035] evidencing the CO2-reactive component used… flue dusts… can also be used, see Hill at Table 2 evidencing 9.05 SO3… 1.39 Na2O). The molar ratio of Na2O (or [Symbol font/0x53] Alk) to SO3 (or [Symbol font/0x53] SO3) is 3 ( or (9.05 ÷ (1.39 x 2)).
Regarding claim 5, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein… sulfite… present in the… starting material is oxidized to sulfate prior to carbonation (see Kendall at [0029] teaching in some embodiments, SO2 may be absorbed in a solution as sulfite, which, in turn, may be converted to sulfate by oxidation through aeration).
Regarding claim 6, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein a particle size of… the starting material… used to provide the starting material is optimized by… grinding (see Kendall at [0031] teaching depending upon the particle size of the sourced calcium sulfate, the calcium sulfate may be… ground).
Regarding claim 7, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein exhaust gas from… coal fired power plant… is used as the carbon dioxide (see Kendall at [0031]-[0032] teaching in certain embodiments, the CO2 source is a gaseous CO2 source… this gaseous CO2 is… a waste stream or product from an industrial plant… in some embodiments, a waste stream suitable for systems and methods… is sourced from… a coal-fired power plant).
Regarding claim 8, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the reaction time ranges from 1 to 100 minutes (see Kendall at [0060] teaching the residence time of the precipitate in the reactor before the precipitate is removed from the solution, may vary… in some embodiments, the residence time of the precipitate in the solution is more than 5 seconds… without being limited by any theory, it is contemplated that the residence time of the precipitate may affect the size of the particle) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 9-10, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein carbonation is carried out in aqueous suspension by bubbling the carbon dioxide in gaseous form through the aqueous suspension (claim 9), wherein a solid product comprising calcium carbonate is separated from the aqueous suspension by precipitation (claim 10) (see Kendall at [0003] teaching a method of making a composition, comprising a) contacting an industrial waste gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with an alkaline solution to form a carbon dioxide with an alkaline solution to form a carbon dioxide charged water; and b) contacting the carbon dioxide charged water with calcium sulfate to form a composition comprising a metastable component selected from the group consisting of vaterite, amorphous calcium carbonate, and combination thereof… in the some embodiments, the method further comprises removing water, sodium sulfate, or both from the composition, see Kendall at [0037] teaching contact protocols for absorbing CO2, include, but not limited to: direct contacting protocols, e.g., bubbling the gas through the volume of water, concurrent contacting means… contact may be accomplished through use of infusers, bubblers… as may be convenient).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 19, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein carbonation is carried out in a gas-solid reactor (claim 11), wherein calcium carbonate is separated from alkali sulfate by suspending the carbonated product in water and precipitating the calcium carbonate (claim 12), and wherein the gas-solid reactor is a mill and calcium carbonate is separated from alkali sulfate by suspending the carbonated product in water and precipitating the calcium carbonate (claim 19) (see claim 1 rejection, wherein the claimed “gas-solid reactor” is met by “aqueous liquid” as taught by Kendall (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 13, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the obtained carbonated product comprising calcium carbonate and alkali sulfate is used… as cement component (see Kendall at [0008]-[0009] teaching also provided is composition, comprising CaCO3 and Na2SO4, wherein the composition is self-cementing… in some embodiments, CaCO3 and Na2SO4 form a composite… also provided is a composition, comprising a concrete mixture comprising a binder and an aggregate, wherein the binder comprises a composition in accordance with foregoing compositions, see Kendall at [0087] teaching the methods… form the compositions comprising metastable components selected from the group consisting of vaterite, amorphous calcium carbonate, and combination thereof… the “cementitious composition”… includes calcium carbonate containing compositions).
Regarding claims 14-15, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the starting material contains at least 15 wt.%... sulfate… calculated as calcium sulfate to provide… the cement component being an activator (claim 14), and the starting material contains from 0.1 to 25 wt.%... sulfate… calculated as calcium sulfate (claim 15) (see Kendall at [0018] teaching calcium sulfate (gypsum), see Kendall at [0055] teaching in some embodiments, the gypsum powder or gypsum containing water is added is added to the reactor containing… less than 20%... of the CO2 gaseous stream or the solution containing the partially or fully dissolved CO2) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Calcium sulfate (gypsum) is expected to be capable of the claimed “the cement component being an activator” in claim 14.
Regarding claims 16-17, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1-3, respectively above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the molar ratio [Symbol font/0x53] Alk : [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 in the starting material ranges from 2.00 to 4.00 (claim 16), and wherein the molar ratio [Symbol font/0x53] Alk : [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 in the starting material ranges from 2.00 to 3.00 (claim 17) (specification at [0013] discloses that [Symbol font/0x53] Alk is the sum of soluble alkali metal ions, and [Symbol font/0x53] SO3 is the sum of sulfate or sulfite ions, see Kendall at [0028]-[0029] teaching calcium sulfate source may include, but is not limited to… flue gas desulfurization… for example, in some embodiments, SO2 may be absorbed in a solution as sulfite, see Kendall at [0006] teaching in some embodiments, the calcium sulfate is a powder). Flue gas desulfurization is taken to meet the claimed recitation as evidenced by Hill (see Hill at [0035] evidencing the CO2-reactive component used… flue dusts… can also be used, see Hill at Table 2 evidencing 9.05 SO3… 1.39 Na2O). The molar ratio of Na2O (or [Symbol font/0x53] Alk) to SO3 (or [Symbol font/0x53] SO3) is 3 ( or (9.05 ÷ (1.39 x 2)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 18, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the particle size is adjusted to range from 0.1 µm to 200 µm (see Kendall at [0006] teaching the calcium sulfate comprises particles less than about 150 microns) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 20, Kendall teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and Kendall further teaches wherein the starting material contains at least 50 wt.%... sulfate… calculated as calcium sulfate (Kendall teaches this limitation as outlined below).
Kendall teaches the source of calcium sulfate… when combined with an aqueous solution of sodium carbonate… from electrochemical system… may react in accordance with the following equation to produce calcium carbonate (see Kendall at [0053]):
PNG
media_image1.png
39
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 1 mole of sodium carbonate reacts with 1 mole of calcium sulfate to produce 1 mole of calcium carbonate, as outlined in the equation above.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount of calcium sulfate is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide the desired calcium carbonate product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of calcium sulfate as taught by Kendall to provide the desired calcium carbonate product so as to arrive at the claimed “wherein the starting material contains at least 50 wt.%... sulfate… calculated as calcium sulfate”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights