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 is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1: Applicant is respectfully advised to provide the missing article: “regenerated sorbent liquid and a CO2-containing gas.” See claim 11: “the CO2-containing gas.”
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1: The claim recites, “Method for removing carbon dioxide (C02) from a gas, for instance a flue gas.” The phrase “for instance” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For the same reason, “providing a sorbent liquid for the CO2, such as an amine solvent” is unclear since “such as” renders the claim’s scope unclear. Applicant is respectfully advised that preferences and illustrative examples are properly set forth in the specification, but not in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-17 are rejected because of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 5: The text “for instance by a road transport vehicle” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the text following “for instance” is required by the claim.
Claim 7: The claim recites, “wherein a shortest distance between the first and the second facilities is at least 3 km, more preferably at least 5 km, and most preferably at least 10 km.” 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, the claim recites the broad recitation “at least 3 km,” and the claim also recites “at least 5 km” and “at least 10 km,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) 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 9: The claim recites, “a temperature below 100*C, more preferably below 70°C, even more preferably below 40°C, and most preferably at ambient temperature.” 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).
Claim 13: The claim recites, “preferably without a reboiler and/or condenser unit.” It is unclear if the text following “preferably” is required by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 14: The claim recites, “from 100 to 10000 ppm (1 vol.%), more preferably from 200 to 5000 ppm, and most preferably from 400 ppm to 1500 ppm CO2.” 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).
Claim 15: The claim recites, “wherein at least 5 wt.% of the CO2that is present in the gas stream comprising the CO2 is absorbed in the sorbent liquid during the absorbing step a), more preferably at least 10 wt.% CO2, even more preferably at least 30 wt.% CO2, and most preferably at least 50 wt.% CO2.” 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).
Claim 16: The claim recites, “wherein at most 90 wt.% of the CO2 that is present in the gas stream comprising the CO2 is absorbed in the sorbent liquid during the absorbing step a), more preferably at most 70 wt.% CO2, and most preferably at most 50 wt.% CO2.” 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).
Claim 17: The claim recites, “enrichment of the sorbent liquid with CO2.” It is unclear if “the sorbent liquid” refers to the sorbent liquid of claim 1, step (a) or the sorbent liquid of claim 1, step (b). It is noted that claim 17 recites “second facility is used to absorb CO2” while claim 1 recites, “the stripping step b) is performed at the second facility,” so claim 17 appears to require a second facility that performs both absorption and regeneration functions, meaning that the skilled practitioner would expect that both enriched and regenerated sorbent liquids are present at the second facility.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 1-17. The concept of a method for removing carbon dioxide (C02) from a gas, for instance a flue gas, the method comprising: a) providing a sorbent liquid for the CO2, such as an amine solvent, in countercurrent flow with a gas stream comprising the CO2 and absorbing the CO2 in the sorbent liquid so as to obtain a gas with a reduced concentration of CO2, and a sorbent liquid enriched with the absorbed C02; b) stripping the absorbed C02 from the enriched sorbent liquid so as to obtain a regenerated sorbent liquid and C02-containing gas, wherein the absorbing step a) is performed at a first facility provided in a first location; the sorbent liquid enriched with the absorbed CO2 is transported from the first facility to a second facility distinct from the first facility and provided in a second location at a distance of at least 3 km from the first location; the stripping step b) is performed at the second facility and at least 24 hours later than the absorbing step a); there is no pipeline connection between the first facility and the second facility; and the second facility comprises a greenhouse (claim 1) is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Nakada (JP2021058121A), which discloses a carbon dioxide supply means A including a carbon dioxide absorption system comprising a countercurrent-flow absorption tower 3 (Fig. 1; [0020]) and a regeneration tower 4 ([0020]), wherein regenerated carbon dioxide is fed to a greenhouse 1 ([0021]). However, the absorption and regeneration towers are connected by pipes and operate concurrently and near one another to enable heat exchange between the towers ([0022]).
Related prior art is Appelman (NL1021970C2), which discloses storing CO2 from a combustion process on a solid adsorbent ([0004], [0019]) and releasing the CO2 in a space where CO2 needs to be regulated, such as a greenhouse, at a later time, by stripping the solid adsorbent with air ([0007], [0008]). However, since Appelman teaches a solid adsorbent, it would not have been obvious to modify the method of Nakada with the teachings of Appelman to regenerate a sorbent liquid at a different location, such as at a greenhouse, from where the sorbent liquid absorbed CO2.
Zink (US 2014/0275693 A1) teaches an MEA solution for absorbing carbon dioxide ([0039]), and teaches that, if it is more economical for the regeneration of a solvent to be carried out at a site remote from a gas well, rich solvent may be transported by rail or truck between an auxiliary sour gas treatment system and a remotely located solvent regeneration facility ([0026]). However, it would not have been obvious to modify Nakada to regenerate a sorbent liquid at a second location comprising a greenhouse in view of this teaching.
Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights