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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 19 December 2023 and 17 November 2025 have been received and considered by the Examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendments to the claims and specification filed on 19 December 2023 have been entered and considered for this action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the specification appropriate superscripts and subscripts should be used. For example, “CO2” should be replaced with “CO2”, “CaCO3 with CaCO3”, “m3” with “m3”, etc. Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of missing subscripts, the inclusion of implied information (“The present disclosure relates to”), and because the structure/formatting of the abstract utilizes sentence fragments (with capital letters and periods) to denote steps of a process, which is unclear.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 19, 20, 22-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of the claims that recite “CO2” (claims 1, 8, 9, 19, and 22-24) should use proper subscript notation, i.e. “CO2”
Claim 8 should be amended to recite “the supplying of the gas”
Claim 15 should be amended to replace “weighting” with “weighing”
Claim 20 should be amended to replace “ph” with “pH”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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 1, 2 and 4 each recite the phrase “in particular” followed by additional limitations. 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).
Claims 3-24 depend upon claim 1 without resolving the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Further regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 5-60 minutes, and the claim also recites 15-25 minutes which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15, which depends upon claims 14, 13, and ultimately claim 1, recites the limitation “drying of the calcium carbonate solids.” However, it is unclear if the drying step is required to be performed on “the calcium carbonate solids” of claim 1, the separated calcium carbonate solids of claim 13, or the separated and washed calcium carbonate solids of claim 14. For the purposes of further examination, any of these interpretations may be used.
Claim 19 is rejected as it is unclear what is required to meet the limitation of “keeping an essentially constant ratio of A to B.” In particular, it is unclear over what conditions this ratio must remain constant. Because the ratio of two numbers that are each a single measurement will always be constant, it is unclear what is additionally required by the claim. If the claim is instead requiring multiple measurements over the course of the reaction it should specify so. However, it is unclear exactly how the ratio of calcium in the liquid phase or suspension to the consumed CO2 will remain constant over the course of the reaction, as the latter is necessarily increasing while the former should decrease or stay the same.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of “performing an ion selective electrode or chromatography of the liquid phase”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation as there is no action or step being recited.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Yogo discloses a method for producing calcium carbonate solids from alkaline minerals the method comprising the following method steps:
supplying the alkaline minerals into a reactor tank, supplying an extraction agent of aqueous ammonium chloride into the reactor tank, and stirring the alkaline minerals and the extraction agent in the reactor tank such that a first suspension is formed ([0039]); draining of the first suspension from the reactor tank and separating a liquid phase comprising calcium from the first suspension ( After 30 minutes of reaction, the suspension was quickly filtered through a 0.2 μm membrane filter to obtain the filtrate; [0039]); transferring the liquid phase into a carbonation tank ( All of the filtrate collected above was added to a 300 ml Erlenmeyer flask; [0040]); supplying a gas comprising CO2 into the carbonation tank, wherein the consumption of CO2 results in the precipitation of calcium carbonate solids thereby generating a second suspension (CO2 gas was blown in…after the reaction, the suspension was quickly filtered; [0040]);
determining a measure of the consumed CO2 in the carbonation tank by at least one sensor (the weight increase of each reaction vessel was checked using a balance; [0040]); nucleating and growing of the calcium carbonate solids (if calcium carbonate solids are formed, they must have been nucleated and grown).
Regarding claim 2, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the extraction agent is aqueous ammonium chloride (120 ml of distilled water and 6.6132 g of NH4Cl; [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the first suspension remains in the reactor tank for an average extraction time of 30 minutes (After 30 minutes of reaction, the suspension was quickly filtered; [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1 where the separation of the liquid phase from the first suspension is performed by guiding the first suspension through a filter system (the suspension was quickly filtered through a 0.2 μm membrane filter to obtain the filtrate; [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the supplying of the gas comprising CO2 in the carbonation tank is performed while stirring ([0042]), which will generate fluidic vortices.
Regarding claim 9, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the gas comprising CO2 is supplied in the carbonation tank by means of at least one gas disperser (A glass tube equipped with a glass filter at its tip was introduced into the solution; [0036] and [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the method further comprises separating the calcium carbonate solids from the second suspension (the suspension was quickly filtered; [0040]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Yogo discloses the method of claim 13, where the separated calcium carbonate is washed, dried, and weighed ([0036] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Yogo discloses the method of claim 13, where the filtrate obtained after the removal of calcium carbonate is used again in an extraction step ([0041]), which shows that the separation of the calcium carbonate solids from the second suspension results in a recyclable extraction agent.
Regarding claim 17, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses using the CaCO3 obtained by their method as a raw material for producing cement (The CaCO3 and SiO2 produced as a result of carbon dioxide fixation according to this invention are harmless and stable substances that can be reused in various applications. Specifically, CaCO3 is used in large quantities as … a raw material for cement; [0025]), where it would serve as supplementary cementitious material.
Regarding claim 19, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the ratio of the calcium concentration in the liquid phase (filtrate) obtained at the end of [0039] is a fixed value relative to the measure of the amount of consumed CO2 at the end of the steps recited in [0040]. This is interpreted as meeting the limitation requiring a constant ratio (see Claim Rejections – 35 US § 112).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Järvinen et al. (WO 2020/115369 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, but does not teach pre-wetting the alkaline minerals before supplying them into the reactor tank.
However, Järvinen discloses a similar process for treating calcium-containing slag material with an extraction solvent followed by carbonation (abstract), and Järvinen further discloses that the extraction step can be preceded by a step of wet milling ([0035]), which will require a pre-wetting of the alkaline minerals (slag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pre-wet the alkaline minerals before supplying them into the reactor tank in the method of Yogo, as taught by Järvinen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to be able to wet mill them, as suggested by Järvinen for a very analogous process.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hagris et al. (Materials 2021, 14, 2709, DOI:10.3390/ ma14112709) and Meyer (“Concrete”, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 10th Ed., Vol. 4, pp 599-604, 2007).
Regarding claim 6, Yogo discloses the method of claim 5, and also teaches that the alkaline minerals may be in the form of a concrete aggregate ([0014] and [0044]-[0046]). While Yogo does not explicitly say that their concrete contains sand, it would be obvious to use concrete that does contain sand, as it is largely understood to be one of the primary components of concrete, as taught by Meyer (p.1, ¶ 1 and 8). Yogo also teaches that SiO2 is separated, but does not teach separating sand for use as a supplementary cementitious material.
However, Hargis also teaches a method of converting alkaline minerals (carbide lime sludge) into calcium carbonate through ammonium chloride extraction (Section 2.2). Hargis further teaches that the insoluble impurities are collected after extraction by a filter system (leaf filter) and that these collected solids could be used in industrial application, including as supplementary cementitious materials (The insoluble impurities … could be used in industrial ecology applications, e.g., raw materials for Portland cement production or as supplementary cementitious materials; Section 2.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of Yogo concrete aggregates that contain sand and to separate the sand with the filter system for use as a supplementary cementitious material, as taught by Hagris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Meyer teaches that concrete commonly comprises sand and becasue Hagris teaches that materials recovered from their similar system could be used reused as supplementary cementitious materials. Additionally, by reusing the recovered sand one would be valorizing a product that is otherwise destined as waste.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Mohamed et al. (WO 2021/244728 A1) and Meyer (“Concrete”, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 10th Ed., Vol. 4, pp 599-604, 2007).
Regarding claim 6, Yogo discloses the method of claim 5, and also teaches that the alkaline minerals may be in the form of a concrete aggregate ([0014] and [0044]-[0046]). While Yogo does not explicitly say that their concrete contains sand, it would be obvious to use concrete that does contain sand, as it is largely understood to be one of the primary components of concrete, as taught as taught by Meyer (p.1, ¶ 1 and 8). Yogo also teaches that SiO2 is separated, but does not teach separating sand for use as a supplementary cementitious material.
However, Mohamed also teaches a method of converting alkaline minerals (waste or by-products bearing calcium compounds) into calcium carbonate through ammonium chloride extraction (abstract). Mohamed further teaches that the residues collected after exhaustive two-stage calcium extraction, which will include the sand if present in the original alkaline materials, can be utilized in cement and/or concrete production (p. 9, ¶ 9), where it would serve as a supplementary cementitious material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of Yogo concrete aggregates that contain sand and to separate the sand with the filter system for use as a supplementary cementitious material, as taught by Mohamed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Meyer teaches that the concrete aggregates suggested by Yogo would likely contain sand, and because Mohamed teaches that materials recovered from their similar system could be used for this purpose. Additionally, by reusing the recovered sand one would be valorizing a product that is otherwise destined as waste.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023) in view of Mohamed et al. (WO 2021/244728 A1) and Meyer (“Concrete”, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 10th Ed., Vol. 4, pp 599-604, 2007), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sparks et al. (“Solid-Liquid Filtration” in Filters and Filtration Handbook, Butterworth-Heinmann, 2016, pp. 199-295)
Regarding claim 7, modified Yogo teaches the method of claim 6, but Yogo does not teach using a second filter stage for separating a fine fraction.
However, Mohamed teaches that the methods that can be used to separate the calcium-containing solution from the solids residues will depend upon the grain size and grain distribution of the solids and can be selected from any one or combination of sedimentation, centrifugation, decanting, filtration, and reverse osmosis (p. 6, Step 2 and p. 8, Step 6).
Moreover, Sparks teaches that is possible to include screens or strainers in order to remove larger particles such as sand (Wire mesh strainers are normally used to provide filtration down to about 40 µm; Section 4.3.3) before a fine filtration (Many filtration installations are preceded by a pre-filtration step; Section 4.3, ¶ 1). Sparks further teaches that such a pre-filtration can prevent damage to the media used in finer filtration (Section 4.3, ¶ 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of modified Yogo using a filter system with a coarse first filter stage for removing large grains, such as sand, and a fine second filter stage for separating the fines fraction, as taught by Sparks. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Mohamad teaches that the separation method chosen will depend upon the grain size and distribution, and that multiple separation techniques can be utilized, and because Sparks teaches that such pre-filtration can prevent damage to finer filter process media.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nover et al. (US 2002/0172636 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, but Yogo does not teach transferring the second suspension into a growth tank wherein the nucleating and growing of calcium carbonate solids is performed in the growth tank.
However, Nover teaches a similar process for precipitating calcium carbonate by introduction of carbon dioxide to a mixture containing calcium ions ([0007]-[0008]). Nover further teaches that the suspension formed in the carbonation tank can be drained from the carbonation tank and transferred into a growth tank where the growing of the calcium carbonate solids is performed (Once nucleation has occurred, the suspension is introduced into at least one subsequent reactor, where the calcium carbonate crystals grow in the presence of CO2; [0009]). It is interpreted that under the conditions of the growth tank at least some additional nucleation will occur, as it does for the instant invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drain the second suspension from the carbonation tank in the method of Yogo and transfer it into a growth tank where the nucleating and growing of calcium carbonate solids is performed in the growth tank, as taught by Nover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Nover teaches that such a process is able to produce calcium carbonate particles of controllable size ([0007] and [0012]) and/or because such a method allows for one to store the suspension for growth at a later time or different location (Nover, [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yogo teaches the process of claim 10, where Nover teaches that the growth tank should be substantially larger in order to obtain very fine small particles of calcium carbonate ([0012]). In one example, Nover teaches that the carbonation tank (stage 1 reactor) has a size of 2.5 L and the growth tank (stage 2 reactor) has a size of 10 L, or 4 times the size, and that the particles obtained therefrom are suitable for paper coatings ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of modified Yogo a growth tank of at least 2 times the size of the carbonation tank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to control the particle size for applications, such as paper coatings, that require fine particles, as taught by Nover.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yogo teaches the method of claim 10, where Nover also teaches that the growth of the calcium carbonate solids can be monitored continuously ([0028]) and that the particle size can be controlled depending upon the residence time ([0013]), as well as that it is desirable to control particle diameters ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Yogo to continuously monitor the growth of the calcium carbonate solids and adjust the residence time of the second suspension in the growth tank such that the calcium carbonate solids remain in the predefined size range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have control over the particle sizes, as suggested by Nover.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kodama et al. (Energy 2008, 22, 776-784).
Regarding claim 18, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose adjusting the supply of the extraction agent and alkaline minerals into the reactor tank to achieve a target measure of calcium concentration of the first suspension.
However, Kodama describes a nearly identical process as Yogo (Yogo is a co-author on the Kodama disclosure) and further teaches adjusting the supply of the extraction agent (ammonium chloride) and the alkaline minerals to establish a stoichiometric ratio of the two reagents (Section 3.2). By performing the reaction on given amount of starting reagent and volume of extractant, Kodama is implicitly utilizing a target measure of calcium concentration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the supply of the extraction agent and the alkaline mineral into the reactor tank to achieve a target measure of a calcium concentration of the first suspension in the method of Yogo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kodama teaches that it is appropriate to adjust the amounts of these reagents and because it is common place in the art to select the amount of starting materials used in a reaction based upon the amount of product desired.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023) in view of Kodama et al. (Energy 2008, 22, 776-784), as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Wen et al. (Mater. Lett. 2003, 47, 2565-2571).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yogo teaches the method of claim 18, but neither Yogo nor Kodama teach determining the measure of the calcium concentration of the liquid phase or the first suspension by measuring a pH value and a temperature or a conductivity and the temperature.
However, Wen teaches a similar process for carbonation of calcium-containing solutions to produce calcium carbonate (abstract). Wen further teaches that the concentration of calcium in the suspension is correlated with the pH and temperature (Table 2), and that the reaction progress can be monitored by measuring the conductivity, with conductivity decreasing as the concentration of Ca2+ decreases (decrease of electrical conductivity in the initial carbonation stage may be attributed to the consumption of Ca2+ and OH- concentrations; p. 2567, col. 2, ¶ 2). Wen further teaches that the concentration of calcium and temperature of the reaction affect the morphology of the calcium carbonate produced (p. 2570, Conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure a pH value, a conductivity value, and a temperature, as taught by Wen, to determine a measure of the calcium concentration in the method of modified Yogo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wen teaches that these parameters can be used to monitor reaction progress and control product morphology.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023) in view of Kodama et al. (Energy 2008, 22, 776-784), as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Mettler-Toledo (“Calcium ISE: Day-to-Day Measurement Practice”, March 2015).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yogo teaches the method of claim 18, where Yogo ([0029]) and Kodama (Section 3.2) each teach using ICP to determine the measure of the calcium ion concentration. Neither Yogo nor Kodama teach using an ion-selective electrode or chromatography of the liquid phase and/or the first suspension and determining therefrom a measure of the calcium concentration.
However, Mettler-Toledo teaches that ion-selective electrodes are relatively inexpensive and simple to use with an extremely wide range of use for measuring calcium ion concentrations in aqueous solution (p. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ICP technique used by Yogo and Kodama with an ion-selective electrode, as taught by Mettler-Toledo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because such a technique for measuring calcium concentrations is inexpensive and simple to use.
Claims 22-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuwana et al. (JP 2013193911 A).
Regarding claim 22, Yogo discloses the method claim 1, where the measure of consumed CO2 is arrived at by measuring the weight increase of the reaction vessel ([0040]). Yogo does not teach measuring the consumed CO2 by determining a mass balance over the gas phase of the CO2, where this is interpreted as requiring measurements of CO2 in the gas phase.
However, Kuwana also is in the field of preparing carbonate/bicarbonate salts by precipitation from aqueous solution using carbon dioxide ([0001] and [0003]). Kuwana teaches that the rate of CO2 consumption (q1) can be calculated by measuring the flow rate into the reactor (Q), the concentration of the inflowing gas (y), the flow rate out of the reactor (Q’) and the concentration of the CO2 in the outflowing gas (y’) by q1 = Qy-Q’y’ ([0026]). Furthermore, the conversion from rate of CO2 consumption to overall consumption by considering the time of the reaction is a simple calculation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the intermittent weighing used in the method of Yogo with the continuous gas phase mass balance measurements of CO2 consumption taught by Kuwana, wherein the measure of consumed CO2 is determined by performing a mass balance over a gas phase of the CO2 using the measured values of flow and concentration, which are supplied by sensors. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because such a continuous measurement system would allow monitoring reaction progress without the stopping and weighing required by the method of Yogo. One of ordinary skill would have been additionally motivated to do so in order to incorporate the cost-reducing gas reuse methods of Kuwana’s invention ([0014]) to the similar calcium carbonation system of Yogo.
Regarding claim 23, Yogo discloses the method claim 1, where the measure of consumed CO2 is arrived at by measuring the weight increase of the reaction vessel ([0040]). Yogo does not teach measuring the consumed CO2 by using the three sensors recited in the instant claim.
However, Kuwana also is in the field of preparing carbonate/bicarbonate salts by precipitation from aqueous solution using carbon dioxide ([0001] and [0003]). Kuwana teaches that the rate of CO2 consumption (q1) can be calculated by measuring the flow rate into the reactor (Q), the concentration of the inflowing gas (y), the flow rate out of the reactor (Q’) and the concentration of the CO2 in the outflowing gas (y’) by q1 = Qy-Q’y’ ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the intermittent weighing used in the method of Yogo with the continuous gas phase mass balance measurements of CO2 consumption taught by Kuwana, where the measure of consumed CO2 is determined by at least three sensors, the sensors being a first flow sensor measuring a volumetric inflow of the supplied gas comprising CO2 into the carbonation tank (for measuring Q), a second flow sensor measuring a volumetric outflow of the remaining gas comprising CO2 out of the carbonation tank (for measuring Q’), and a concentration sensor measuring the CO2 concentration in the volumetric outflow of the remaining gas (for measuring y’).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because such a continuous measurement system would allow monitoring reaction progress without the stopping and weighing required by the method of Yogo, and such a system requires data from these three sensors. One of ordinary skill would have been additionally motivated to do so in order to incorporate the cost-reducing gas reuse methods of Kuwana invention ([0014]) to the similar the calcium carbonate system of Yogo.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yogo et al. (JP 2005 097072 A; Foreign patent document #1 on the IDS filed 19 December 2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ji et al. (Fuel Processing Technology, 2019, 188, 79-88).
Regarding claim 24, Yogo discloses the method of claim 1, where the gas comprises 99.999% CO2 ([0040]) but does not tech the measure of the consumed gas being determined by a pressure sensor measuring the pressure in the carbonation tank.
However, Ji teaches a similar process for the mineralization of CO2 by the carbonation of alkaline minerals (p. 80, ¶ 2 and Section 2.2), and further teaches that the measure of consumed CO2 can be determined by a pressure sensor measuring the pressure in the carbonation tank (the pressure drop inside the vessel as a function of time was monitored by a pressure sensor…the quantity of CO2 consumed by the carbonation process can be calculated by [Eq 2]; Section 2.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the measure of the consumed CO2 in the method of Yogo using at least one sensor in the form of a pressure sensor measuring the pressure in the carbonation tank, as taught by Ji. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because such a method could be performed continuously during the reaction and would not require measuring the weight increase every 5 min, as required by the method of Yogo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights