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 .
This action is in response to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 07/13/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-11 and 13-14 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 15-21 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-21 and 24 are pending. Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are being examined. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 15-21 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Claims 5, 12, and 22-23 are canceled.
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.
Claim 14 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.
Considering claim 14, it is unclear whether the carbon capture system is the same carbon capture system of claim 8 or whether the system comprises two carbon capture systems (iii and v). It is also unclear whether the flue gas of (iv) is the same flue gas of claim 8 wherein the flue gas is cooled prior to the carbon capture system. In other words, it is unclear as to how the system of claim 8 and the system of claim 14 are integrated with each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 8-9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hooper et al. (US 2008/0317651 A1).
Considering claim 8, Hooper teaches a system for capturing carbon dioxide from flue gases comprising an indirect contact cooler (HX1A) for cooling a flue gas comprising carbon dioxide, a cooler (DCC) for indirectly or directly further cooling the cooled flue gas, and a carbon capture system (ASBORBER) for contacting the further cooled flue gas with a carbon capture solvent (Hooper, abstract, Figure 3, [0122]).
The claim is directed to a system and the operating temperatures do not impart any structural limitations to the system. Hooper teaches a system comprising an indirect contact cooler and a cooler for indirectly or directly further cooling the cooled flue gas; Hoopers coolers would be capable of cooling the temperature of the flue gas to the claimed temperatures.
Nonetheless, Hooper teaches the flue gas having a starting temperature of 170°C/185°C (FGAS1/FGAS2), the indirect contact cooler cooling the flue gas to 92.5°C (FGAS3) and the direct cooler further cooling the flue gas to 50°C FGAS4) (Hooper, Figure 4).
Considering claim 9, Hooper teaches the indirect contact cooler is a heat exchanger (Hooper, [0039]-[0040]).
Considering claim 11, Hooper teaches the cooler (ii) is a heat exchanger by teaching a direct contact cooler (DCC) (Hooper, [0122]).
Considering claim 13, Hooper teaches the cooler (ii) is a direct contact cooling tower (DCC) (Hooper, [0033], [0122]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper et al. (US 2008/0317651 A1) in view of Dube et al. (US 2012/0195816 A1).
Considering claim 10, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 8 limitations except for the indirect contact is one of the claimed types of heat exchangers.
Although Hooper teaches indirect heat transfer in a heat exchanger from the flue gas to the lean absorbing medium (HX1A) (Hooper, Figure 3 and [0039]-[0040]), he is silent regarding the type of heat exchanger.
However, Dube teaches indirect heat transfer from one medium to another medium can take place in a shell and tube heat exchanger (Dube, [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the indirect contact cooler to be a shell and tube heat exchanger. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such an exchanger is known to be suitable for indirect heat transfer from one medium to another medium.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hooper et al. (US 2008/0317651 A1) in view of LeFebvre et al. (US 2020/0368679 A1).
Considering claim 14, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 8 limitations except for the system further comprising an impurities removal tower.
Hooper teaches when the flue gas includes nitrogen containing compounds (i.e. NOx) and sulfur containing compounds (i.e., SOx) and the absorbing medium is in the form of an alkali carbonate, the nitrogen containing compounds and sulfur containing compounds can be extracted from the gas in the absorber (Hooper, [0051] and [0093]). Hooper does not explicitly teach an impurities removal tower for removal of SO2 and NO2 to form a scrubbed flue gas prior to a carbon capture system for contacting the scrubbed flue gas with a carbon capture solvent to absorb carbon dioxide.
However, LeFebvre teaches for post-combustion CO2 capture processes, when the flue gas to be treated contains SOx in addition to CO2, the flue gas is first to be treated to reduce its SOx concentration below a threshold value to avoid adverse impact which may occur in contact with the absorption solution which would result in a decrease of the absorption solution capacity (LeFebvre, [0005]). LeFebvre teaches to avoid efficiency losses or precipitation, the SOx and NOx contaminants are removed from the flue gas before the main absorption process (LeFebvre, [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the system to comprise an impurities tower comprising a scrubbing solution for contacting a flue gas with a scrubbing agent, thereby removing SOx and NOx from the flue gas to form a scrubbed flue gas; prior to a carbon capture system for contacting the scrubbed flue gas with a carbon capture solvent such that the carbon capture solvent absorbs carbon dioxide from the scrubbed flue gas. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to remove SOx and NOx contaminants from the flue gas before the main absorption process and avoid efficiency losses or precipitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
It should be noted that the claims are directed to a system and the manner in which the system is operated (i.e., scrubbing agent comprising sodium carbonate/bicarbonate) does not impart any structural limitations to the system. The system of Hooper/LeFebvre is capable of being operated with any scrubbing agent include one comprising sodium carbonate/bicarbonate. Nonetheless, both Hooper and LeFebvre teach the scrubbing agent is sodium carbonate (Hooper, [0049]; LeFebvre, [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights