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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 6-7 read “(ii) electrochemically adjusting … electrochemically …”, one of the recitations of “electrochemically” should be removed to be grammatically correct;
Claim 1 line 7 reads “7 to, thereby”, but should read “7 [[to]], thereby” to be grammatically correct.
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.
Claims 2, 9, 26, 32, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation "the anionic complex" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 recites “an amine-CO2 complex” in line 5, but does not recite “an anionic complex”. It is therefore unclear if the term “the anionic complex” in lines 1-2 is intended to refer to the “amine-CO2 complex” recited in claim 1, or is intended to refer to a different anionic complex formed or introduced during the method.
Claim 2 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends from claim 8, but claim 8 has been cancelled. It is therefore unclear which claim claim 9 is intended to further limit.
Claim 9 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites the limitation "the electroactive mesh" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 does not recite “an electroactive mesh”. It is therefore unclear if claim 26 is intended to further require “an electroactive mesh”, or if claim 26 is intended to depend from a different claim.
Claim 26 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites the limitation "the electroactive mesh" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 does not recite “an electroactive mesh”. It is therefore unclear if claim 32 is intended to further require “an electroactive mesh”, or if claim 32 is intended to depend from a different claim.
Claim 32 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites the limitation “the solution or the surface of the electroactive mesh” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 does not recite “a solution” or “an electroactive mesh”, but rather recites “an aqueous sequestration solution” and “an electroactive surface”. It is therefore unclear to what the term “the solution or the surface of the electroactive mesh” is intended to refer to.
Claim 36 is therefore indefinite.
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 1-4, 9, 14, 21, 25-26, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0058857 A1) and Oloye et al. (“Electrochemical Capture and Storage of CO2 as Calcium Carbonate” ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 1767–1775).1
Regarding claim 1, Stern teaches a method of capturing CO2 from a gas source (e.g., abstract), comprising:
(a) concentrating CO2 from the gas source in a concentration step comprising:
(i) contacting the gas source with an absorption solution (“A feed gas comprising CO2 and other gaseous materials (e.g., N2) is provided by inlet 200 and is flowed through column 202” para. 52 and Fig. 6) having a solvent (“In some cases, the solution comprises mixtures of solvents, such as water, organic solvents, amines, and the like.” para. 54) and a solute (“the complexation agent may be provided in a solution (e.g., is soluble in the solution)” para. 38, see also para. 42), wherein the solvent (“column 202 which comprises a primary amine” para. 52 and Fig. 6) and/or solute (“amine solution (40 mL) containing one molar ethylenediamine” para. 80) comprises an amine, thereby forming a solution comprising an amine-CO2 complex (“the CO2 and the amine can associate to form an amine-CO2 complex (e.g., a carbamate)” para. 50);
(ii) electrochemically adjusting the pH of the absorption solution to about 6, a value within the claimed range (“A plot of pH versus time based on the 5 mL fractionation of the two outputs can be seen in FIG. 7. Open squares represent the outlets from the CuO side (cathode) and open circles represent the outlet from the Cu side (anode).” para. 72 and Figs. 6-7) thereby releasing the CO2 as a concentrated vapor (“This system may find application for use the conversion of CO2 (e.g., for capturing CO2 from a gaseous stream containing a mixture of gases)” para. 73 and Fig. 6, see also para. 52);
(iii) collecting the concentrated vapor (“flash tank 208 [sic] wherein the CO2 rich gas may be collected (e.g., via outlet 210)” para. 52 and Fig. 6).
Stern does not teach a step (b) of sequestering CO2 from the concentrated vapor in a sequestration step.
Oloye teaches a method of capturing CO2 from a gas source (title) comprising: (b) sequestering CO2 from a CO2 source in a sequestration step comprising:
(iv) contacting a gaseous CO2 source with an aqueous sequestration solution comprising ions capable of forming an insoluble carbonate salt (“three distinct aqueous solutions containing metal chloride salts at 1 M concentration (SrCl2, CaCl2 and MnCl2) were purged for 30 min with CO2 at room temperature and pressure” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1), such that the aqueous sequestration solution comprises CO2 (“the experiment is performed on a CO2 saturated solution” Id.);
(v) contacting the aqueous sequestration solution comprising CO2 with an electroactive surface to basify the aqueous sequestration solution comprising CO2 (“an alternative electrochemical method for the in situ production of OH- ions to facilitate Equations (2)-(4)” p. 1768 col. 2 para. 1 and “electrochemical reduction of water to produce OH- ions at the electrode/solution interface” 1769 col. 1 para. 1), thereby precipitating a carbonate solid (“electrolyzed at different potentials to synthesize SrCO3, CaCO3 and MnCO3,” and “metal carbonate deposited on the electrode surface (as well as dispersed into solution during the reaction and collected)” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1); and
(vi) separating the carbonate solids from the aqueous sequestration solution or the electroactive surface (“the precipitate was collected, washed with water, and then dried at 70°C for 1 h and finally weighed” p. 1774 col. 1 para. 1 and “metal carbonate deposited on the electrode surface (as well as dispersed into solution during the reaction and collected)” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1),
which provides the predictable benefit of sequestering the CO2 as a useful starting material in the production of cement (“coupling a mineralization process to produce CaCO3 from the emitted CO2 during the clinking step would create a closed loop system, thereby mitigating a significant percentage of the CO2 footprint involved in cement production” para. bridging p. 1767-1768).
As Stern and Oloye each teach methods of electrochemically capturing CO2, Stern and Oloye are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stern, by adding the steps of Oloye i.e., such that the pure CO2 stream produced by Stern is used as the input to the method of Oloye. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of sequestering the concentrated CO2 produced by the method of Stern as a carbonate mineral, as taught by Oloye. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing an impure CO2 feed i.e., the “feed gas comprising CO2 and other gaseous materials” of Stern, to be used in the method of Oloye. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been interpreted as “the amine-CO2 complex”.
Stern further teaches the amine-CO2 complex comprises carbamate ions (“the CO2 and the amine can associate to form an amine-CO2 complex (e.g., a carbamate)” para. 50).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Stern further teaches the solvent comprises an amine (“column 202 which comprises a primary amine” para. 52, “the solution comprises mixtures of solvents, such as water, organic solvents, amines, and the like.” para. 54, and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Stern further teaches the solute comprises an amine (“containing one molar ethylenediamine” para. 80).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been interpreted as depending from claim 1.
The limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Stern further teaches the amine is ethylenediamine (“containing one molar ethylenediamine” para. 80).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Stern further teaches step (ii) is performed at 65 °C, a value within the claimed range (“The electrochemical system may be operated at a suitable temperature (e.g., an average temperature of about 65° C.).” para. 82).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Oloye further teaches the ions capable of forming an insoluble carbonate salt are ions of Ca, Sr, and Mn (“metal chloride salts at 1 M concentration (SrCl2, CaCl2 and MnCl2)” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1).
Regarding claim 25, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Oloye further teaches the electroactive surface comprises a cathode comprising a metallic composition (“a higher surface area stainless steel electrode (sponge material)” p. 1770 bridging para., see also Table 1).
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 has been interpreted as “wherein the electroactive surface …”.
The limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Oloye further teaches the electroactive surface increases basicity, in situ, of the aqueous sequestration solution within a distance of about 2 to 20000 µm from the electroactive surface (“which decreased the pH at the electrode/solution interface, facilitating the formation of CO32- ions in solution” conclusion § and see below).
Oloye indicates the entirety of the solution has its basicity increased by the electroactive surface, and further shows the diameter of the vial used to hold the solution is greater than 2 µm (see e.g., Fig. 1d). Therefore, the electroactive surface used in method of Oloye (and modified Stern) must necessarily increase the basicity of the solution within at least 2 µm from the electroactive surface (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 35, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Oloye further teaches precipitating the carbonate solid comprises precipitating a carbonate comprising an ion of Ca, Sr, or Mn (“electrolyzed at different potentials to synthesize SrCO3, CaCO3 and MnCO3,” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1).
Regarding claim 37, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Stern further teaches step (a) further comprises (iv) regenerating the solvent and solute (“In cathode container 212, application of an electric potential can cause [Cu.(RNH2)2]+2 to dissociate, thereby reforming Cu(0) and regenerating the primary amine (e.g., via Equation 14).” para. 52, Fig. 6, and eq. 14).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern and Oloye, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (“Removal of heat stable salts from N-methyldiethanolamine wastewater by anion exchange resin coupled three-compartment electrodialysis.” Separation and Purification Technology 242 (2020) 116777).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Stern does not teach the absorption solution is regenerated using a strong base anion exchange resin.
However, Chen teaches that an amine solution used for carbon dioxide capture (§ 1 para. 2 and § 2.1.) may be suitably regenerated by passing it through an electrodialysis system comprising a strong base anion exchange resin (“a gel-type strong basic anion exchange resin” § 2.1.) in the diluting chamber (“When spent MDEA wastewater enters the dilute compartment, HSS first contacted the anion exchange resin and diffuses on the surface of the resin, as shown in Fig. 5(a).” § 3.3. para. 2 and Figs. 1c and 5), which enhances the removal of heat-stable salts (HSS) that form in the absorption solution (“Through adding anion exchange resin and NaOH compartments in ED, RTED [anion exchange resin coupled three-compartment electrodialysis] is able to effectively improve HSS removal efficiency and reduce the loss of MDEA” § 4 and Fig. 5).
As Chen teaches a method for regenerating amine solutions used in the capture of CO2, Chen is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Stern (and therefore the combined methods of Stern and Oloye), by adding a step of regenerating the absorption solution using an ED system comprising a strong base anion exchange resin, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the removal of heat-stable salts produced as byproducts in the absorption solution, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 29-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern and Oloye, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorimachi (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0308623 A1) as evidenced by, in the case of claim 32, TANAKA PRECIOUS METAL GROUP (“Precious Metal Plating Electrodes (PEM Water Electrolysis GDL / Insoluble Electrodes)” 2026 https://tanaka-preciousmetals.com/en/products/plating_electrode.html).
Regarding claim 29, The limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by Stern and Oloye, as described above.
Oloye does not teach the electroactive surface is an electroactive mesh.
However, Sorimachi teaches an electroactive mesh is suitable as a high surface area cathode (“The anode 121A and the cathode 121B are not particularly limited and platinum-coated titanium mesh electrodes (manufactured by TANAKA Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K.) can be used, for example” para. 137) for generating hydroxide ions in an electrochemical carbon dioxide mineralization process (e.g., abstract).
Furthermore, Oloye teaches higher surface areas lead to more rapid carbon dioxide mineralization (“another strategy was employed to increase efficiency by using a higher surface area stainless steel electrode (sponge material), which resulted in an increased CaCO3 yield of 14.4% – an approximately fourfold increase – in only half the electrolysis time compared to the flat plate electrode (Table 1).” p. 1770 bridging para. and Table 1).
As Sorimachi teaches a method for the electrochemical mineralization of carbon dioxide, Sorimachi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Oloye, such that the electroactive surface is a platinum-coated titanium mesh electrode, as taught by Sorimachi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the efficiency of the carbon dioxide mineralization, as taught by Oloye. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 30, modified Oloye further teaches, via Sorimachi, the electroactive mesh is a metallic mesh (“platinum-coated titanium mesh electrodes (manufactured by TANAKA Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K.) can be used, for example” para. 137).
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 has been interpreted as depending from claim 30.
Modified Oloye further teaches, via Sorimachi, the electroactive mesh comprises pores having a diameter of about 2000 µm, a value within the claimed range (“platinum-coated titanium mesh electrodes (manufactured by TANAKA Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K.) can be used, for example” para. 137).2
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 1-2, 4, 9, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25-26, 35, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, or 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12042765 B2 (the reference patent) in view of Oloye (“Electrochemical Capture and Storage of CO2 as Calcium Carbonate” ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 1767–1775).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference patent recites a method of capturing CO2 from a gas source (line 1), comprising:
(a) Concentrating CO2 from the gas source in a concentration step comprising:
(i) contacting the gas source with an absorption solution having a solvent and a solute, wherein the solute comprises an amine, thereby forming a solution comprising an amine-CO2 complex (lines 2-5);
(ii) electrochemically adjusting the pH of the absorption solution to less than about 7, thereby releasing the CO2 as a concentrated vapor (lines 6-10); and
(iii) collecting the concentrated vapor (line 11).
Claim 1 of the reference patent does not recite a step (b) of sequestering CO2 from the concentrated vapor in a sequestration step.
However, Oloye teaches a method of capturing CO2 from a gas source (title) comprising: (b) sequestering CO2 from a CO2 source in a sequestration step comprising:
(iv) contacting a gaseous CO2 source with an aqueous sequestration solution comprising ions capable of forming an insoluble carbonate salt (“three distinct aqueous solutions containing metal chloride salts at 1 M concentration (SrCl2, CaCl2 and MnCl2) were purged for 30 min with CO2 at room temperature and pressure” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1), such that the aqueous sequestration solution comprises CO2 (“the experiment is performed on a CO2 saturated solution” Id.);
(v) contacting the aqueous sequestration solution comprising CO2 with an electroactive surface to basify the aqueous sequestration solution comprising CO2 (“an alternative electrochemical method for the in situ production of OH- ions to facilitate Equations (2)–(4)” p. 1768 col. 2 para. 1 and “electrochemical reduction of water to produce OH- ions at the electrode/solution interface” 1769 col. 1 para. 1), thereby precipitating a carbonate solid (“electrolyzed at different potentials to synthesize SrCO3, CaCO3 and MnCO3,” and “metal carbonate deposited on the electrode surface (as well as dispersed into solution during the reaction and collected)” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1); and
(vi) separating the carbonate solids from the aqueous sequestration solution or the electroactive surface (“the precipitate was collected, washed with water, and then dried at 70°C for 1 h and finally weighed” p. 1774 col. 1 para. 1 and “metal carbonate deposited on the electrode surface (as well as dispersed into solution during the reaction and collected)” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1),
which provides the predictable benefit of sequestering the CO2 as a useful starting material in the production of cement (“coupling a mineralization process to produce CaCO3 from the emitted CO2 during the clinking step would create a closed loop system, thereby mitigating a significant percentage of the CO2 footprint involved in cement production” para. bridging p. 1767-1768).
As Oloye teaches a method of electrochemically mineralizing CO2 gas, Oloye is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of claim 1 of the reference patent, by adding the steps of Oloye i.e., such that the concentrated CO2 vapor produced by the method of the reference patent is used as the input to the method of Oloye. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of sequestering the concentrated CO2 vapor as a carbonate mineral, as taught by Oloye. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Thus, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the reference patent further recites the amine-CO2 complex comprises carbamate ions (lines 1-2).
Thus, the limitations of claim 2 are rendered obvious by claim 2 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference patent further recites the solute comprises an amine (lines 2-4).
Thus, the limitations of claim 4 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been interpreted as depending from claim 1.
The limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Claim 14 of the reference patent further recites the limitations of claim 9.
Thus, the limitations of claim 9 are rendered obvious by claim 14 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Claim 3 of the reference patent further recites step (ii) comprises water electrolysis (lines 1-3).
Thus, the limitations of claim 11 are rendered obvious by claim 3 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference patent further recites step (ii) is performed at a temperature of -10 °C to 50 °C, a range within the claimed range (lines 7-8).
Thus, the limitations of claim 14 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference patent further recites the absorption solution is regenerated using a strong base anion exchange resin (lines 12-14)3.
Thus, the limitations of claim 18 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Modified claim 1 of the reference patent further recites, via Oloye, the ions capable of forming an insoluble carbonate salt are chosen from Ca, Sr, and Mn (“metal chloride salts at 1 M concentration (SrCl2, CaCl2 and MnCl2)” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1).
Thus, the limitations of claim 21 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Modified claim 1 of the reference patent further recites, via Oloye, the electroactive surface comprises a cathode comprising a metallic composition (“a higher surface area stainless steel electrode (sponge material)” p. 1770 bridging para., see also Table 1).
Thus, the limitations of claim 25 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Modified claim 1 of the reference patent further recites, via Oloye, the electroactive surface increases basicity, in situ, of the aqueous sequestration solution within a distance of about 2 to 20000 µm from the electroactive surface (“which decreased the pH at the electrode/solution interface, facilitating the formation of CO32- ions in solution” conclusion § and see below).
Oloye indicates the entirety of the solution has its basicity increased by the electroactive surface, and further shows the diameter of the vial used to hold the solution is greater than 2 µm (see e.g., Fig. 1d). Therefore, the electroactive surface used in method of Oloye (and modified Stern) must necessarily increase the basicity of the solution within at least 2 micron from the electroactive surface (MPEP § 2112).
Thus, the limitations of claim 26 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 35, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Modified claim 1 of the reference patent further recites, via Oloye, precipitating the carbonate solid comprises precipitating a carbonate comprising an ion of Ca, Sr, or Mn (“electrolyzed at different potentials to synthesize SrCO3, CaCO3 and MnCO3,” p. 1769 col. 1 para. 1).
Thus, the limitations of claim 35 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Regarding claim 37, the limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye, as described above.
Claim 1 of the reference patent further recites step (a) comprises (iv) regenerating the solute (lines 12-15).
Thus, the limitations of claim 37 are rendered obvious by claim 1 of the reference patent in view of Oloye. A rejection on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting is therefore warranted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Furthermore, claim 11 would be allowable if the rejection(s) on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting set forth in this Office action are addressed and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Furthermore, claim 36 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 11, with an emphasis on the combination of the limitations “wherein the solvent and/or the solute comprises an amine” (claim 1), “(ii) electrochemically adjusting the pH of the absorption solution to less than about 7, thereby releasing the CO2 as a concentrated vapor” (claim 1), and “wherein step (ii) comprises water electrolysis” (claim 11).
The closest prior art is considered to be Stern (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0058857 A1), Aziz (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0060484 A1), and Torres (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0338498 A1).
Stern teaches the pH of the solution is reduced to less than about 6, as described in the rejection of claim 1, above, but explicitly teaches the use of the complexation agent prevents the electrolysis of water, leading to the benefits of the invention (para. 30). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably have considered modifying the method of Stern to comprise water electrolysis.
Aziz teaches a method of capturing CO2 comprising absorbing CO2 in an absorption solution (abstract and Fig. 1), wherein the pH of the absorption solution is reduced to about 4 to release the CO2 as a concentrated vapor (e.g., Fig. 7). However, Aziz does not teach the CO2 release step comprises water electrolysis, but rather is electrochemical reduction of a quinone (e.g., para. 60).
Torres teaches a method of capturing CO2 comprising absorbing CO2 in an aqueous absorption solution (abstract), wherein the CO2 is released by adjusting the pH of the solution to about 6 (Fig. 5), and the CO2 release step comprises water electrolysis (e.g., Fig. 1). However, the method of Torres does not use an amine as a solvent or solute.
No prior art using an amine as a solute and adjusting the pH to a value below 7 by a process comprising water electrolysis could be identified.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 11 are patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if amended in independent form and the rejections on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting were addressed.
Regarding claim 36, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 36, with an emphasis on the limitation “rotating a rotating disc cathode … past a scraper”. In other words, the prior art of record does not render obvious a step of regenerating an amine used in CO2 adsorption by raising the pH of a solution used in a mineralization step.
The closest prior art is considered to be Stern (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0058857 A1), Oloye (“Electrochemical Capture and Storage of CO2 as Calcium Carbonate” ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 1767–1775), and Sorimachi (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0308623 A1).
The teachings of Stern, Oloye, and Sorimachi are described in the rejections above.
None of Stern, Oloye, and Sorimachi reasonably use of a rotating disc cathode.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 36 are patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Regarding claim 38, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 38, with an emphasis on the limitation “regenerating the solvent and/or the solute comprises adjusting the pH of the aqueous sequestration solution to greater than about 8”. In other words, the prior art of record does not render obvious a step of regenerating an amine used in CO2 adsorption by raising the pH of a solution used in a mineralization step.
The closest prior art is considered to be Stern (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0058857 A1), Oloye et al. (“Electrochemical Capture and Storage of CO2 as Calcium Carbonate” ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 1767–1775), and Sorimachi (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0308623 A1).
The teachings of Stern, Oloye, and Sorimachi are described in the rejections above.
None of Stern, Oloye, and Sorimachi reasonably suggest performing the method such that the aqueous solution used in the mineralization step i.e., step (b) in the claims, would affect the solvent and/or solute used in the CO2 capture step i.e., step (a) in the claims.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 38 are patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Regarding claims 39 and 40, claims 39 and 40 depend from claim 38, and therefore incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 38. Claims 39 and 40 are therefore patentably distinguished over the prior art for at least the reasons enumerated for claim 38 above.
Claims 39 and 40 would therefore be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base and intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1 It will be understood that rejections can be established over Oloye in view of Stern or Stern in view of Oloye, mutatis mutandis. For the purposes of concision and clarity, only the rejection considering modifying Stern has been enumerated.
2 As evidenced by TANAKA, the titanium mesh has openings of 2.0 mm by 1.0 mm (see § titled “Titanium Expanded” on p. 2).
3 The recitation “thereby increasing the pH of the third aqueous solution” in claim 1 of the reference patent requires the use of a strong base anion exchange resin as the anion exchange resin in the anion exchange column.
Prosecution Insights