DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “effected” should read “affected”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, “the laden absorption medium stream” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “a carbon dioxide laden absorption medium stream.” Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 1, “the carbon dioxide stream” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in light of “a carbon dioxide total stream.” Examiner suggests using consistent language for the sake of clarity.
Regarding claim 13, “the absorption medium removal apparatus has a further compression stage for compression….arranged downstream of it” is contradictory. If the further compression stage is downstream of the absorption medium removal apparatus, then it cannot be part of the absorption medium removal apparatus itself. For the purpose of this examination the claim is interpreted to read as follows: “The process according to claim 1, where in a further compression stage for the compression of the carbon dioxide product stream is arranged downstream of the absorption medium removal apparatus.”
Claims 2-12 and 14-16 are rejected due to being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lechnick et al. US 20100132553 A1 in view of Schmidt US 20230321588 A1 and in further view of Kester US 3659400 A and in further view of Sherwood US 20150217266 A1 and in further view of Wang et al. 20240279480 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lechnick et al. teaches a process for separating carbon dioxide from a raw hydrogen product stream represented by “a system to treat a single synthesis gas stream” (Fig. 1, [0019]). The system to treat a single synthesis gas stream comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
A raw hydrogen product stream comprising at least hydrogen and carbon dioxide represented by “feed stream 2 of syngas” (Fig. 1, [0019]). It is well known in the art that syngas primarily consists of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and other gasses.
Removing carbon dioxide from the raw hydrogen product stream by absorption in an absorption medium in an absorption stage at absorption pressure to obtain a carbon dioxide-laden absorption medium stream and a hydrogen product stream and wherein the absorption pressure has an absorption pressure value pA represented by absorber 4 “in which the syngas travels…producing a treated syngas 62” (hydrogen product stream) and a loaded solvent 14 (carbon dioxide laden absorption medium stream) (Fig. 1, [0019]). The reference fails to define the type of absorber, however regardless of the type of absorber, the vessel would inherently have an absorption pressure value pA.
Removing the carbon dioxide-laden absorption medium stream and the hydrogen product stream from the absorption stage represented by “treated syngas 62 that is shown exiting a top portion of carbon dioxide absorber 4” and “the loaded solvent 14 is shown exiting the bottom of carbon dioxide absorber 4” (Fig. 1, [0019]).
Removing carbon dioxide from the laden absorption medium stream by desorption of the carbon dioxide from the laden absorption medium in a plurality of serially arranged decompression stages at desorption pressure, thus withdrawing a carbon dioxide substream from each of the decompression stages, and wherein each of the decompression stages has a desorption pressure with a desorption pressure value pD represented by flash drums 20, 34, and 40 wherein “cooled loaded solvent stream 18 is sent to a carbon dioxide removal section that has a series of flash drums and compressors” (Fig. 1, [0019]). The carbon dioxide sub streams are represented by solvent stream 22, carbon dioxide stream 36, and carbon dioxide stream 42 which are shown exiting flash drums 20, 34, and 40, respectively. The reference fails to define a pressure value at which the series of flash drums operates, however they would inherently have a desorption pressure value pD.
Compressing the carbon dioxide sub streams withdrawn from the decompression stages in a plurality of serially arranged compression stages represented by “solvent stream 22 is flashed to a carbon dioxide recycle compressor 24” The reference is silent as to multiple compressors being serially arranged however, the reference does state “the carbon dioxide removal section has a series of flash drums and compressors” [0019]. Therefore, arranging the compressors in this manner is simply a design choice. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Each of the compression stages having a suction pressure with a suction pressure value pS represented by compressor 24. The reference fails to define a pressure value at which the compressors operate, however they would inherently have a suction pressure pS.
Each compression stage is assigned at least one decompression stage for desorption of carbon dioxide, with the result that the number of decompression for the desorption of carbon dioxide at least corresponds to the number of assigned compression stages, wherein the gas outlet of a decompression stage is fluidically connected to the suction side of a compression stage assigned thereto and wherein the suction pressure value pS of a compression stage corresponds to the desorption pressure value pD of a decompression stage assigned thereto represented by flash drums 20 and compressors 24. The reference is silent as to each decompression stage having a corresponding compression stage, however the reference shows all but one of the decompression stages having a corresponding compression stage and the reference states “the carbon dioxide removal section has a series of flash drums and compressors” [0019]. Therefore, each compression stage being assigned to at least one decompression stage and the number of decompression stages corresponding with the number of compression stages is merely duplication of parts. The courts have previously stated that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, the reference teaches the gas outlet of a decompression stage being fluidically connected to the suction side of a compression stage represented by solvent stream 22 which is shown leaving flash drums 20 to compressor 24. The reference is silent as to the suction pressure values pS of a compression stage corresponding to the desorption pressure value pD of its assigned decompression stage. However, the reference shows the compression stage being fluidically connected with its assigned decompression stage with no other elements between them. Therefore, the suction pressure value pS inherently corresponds with the desorption pressure value pD.
The reference is silent as to the carbon dioxide sub streams being combined into a carbon dioxide total stream, thus affording a carbon dioxide total stream. However, the reference teaches sub streams can be combined as shown by “loaded solvent stream 168 and second loaded solvent stream 120 are combined” (Fig. 4, [0024]). Combining the carbon dioxide sub streams into one carbon dioxide total stream would not yield a new or unexpected result and is merely a design choice. The courts have previously stated obvious matters of design choice, such as rearrangement of parts, are valid rejections in re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP 2144.04). It would be beneficial for simplification of the process to have one final product stream.
Lechnick et al. fails to teach the following components of the current invention:
Desorption pressure value pD being lower than the absorption pressure value pA
The desorption pressure value pD decreases from decompression stage to decompression stage in the flow direction of the absorption medium;
The suction pressure value pS increasing from compression stage to compression stage in the flow direction of the carbon dioxide stream;
the carbon dioxide total stream is treated in an absorption medium removal apparatus arranged downstream of the compression stages and configured for removal of absorption medium residues from the carbon dioxide total stream to afford a carbon dioxide product stream
Schmidt teaches the desorption pressure value pD being lower than the absorption pressure value pA represented by “pressure reduction (flashing) relative to the absorption pressure is used for desorption of the carbon dioxide” [0050]. This is beneficial to have a “no hot regeneration step for regenerating the laden absorption medium” [0049]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lechnick et al. with the teachings of Schmidt to incorporate the desorption pressure value pD being lower than the absorption pressure value pA to have a no hot regeneration step for regenerating the laden absorption medium.
Kester is silent as to the desorption pressure value pD decreasing from decompression stage to decompression stage in the flow direction of the absorption medium. However, the reference teaches “decreasing the desorption pressure may thus be seen to increase the potential carbon dioxide capture capacity” (Pg. 4). Therefore, decreasing the desorption pressure value pD in each decompression stage in the flow direction of the absorption media would be beneficial to maximize the carbon dioxide recovery. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt with the teachings of Kester to incorporate the desorption pressure value pD decreasing in each decompression stage in the flow direction of the absorption media to maximize the carbon dioxide recovery.
Sherwood teaches the suction pressure value pS increasing from compression stage to compression stage in the flow direction of the carbon dioxide stream represented by “ the compressor system can include two compressors configured such that the producer gas can be compressed to an intermediate pressure in the first compressor, and compressed to a higher pressure of a desired magnitude in the second compressor” wherein “the compressor system can include one or more compressors….configured to work in series” [0022]. Increasing the suction pressure value pS in each stage in the flow direction of the carbon dioxide stream is beneficial to achieve a desired final pressure of the product. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester with the teachings of Sherwood to incorporate the suction pressure value pS increasing in each compression stage in the flow direction of the carbon dioxide stream to achieve the desired pressure of the stream.
Wang et al. teaches an absorption medium removal apparatus arranged downstream of the compression stages represented by scrubber 47 and gas dryer 49 which are shown to be downstream of compressor 82. The scrubber and gas dryer are beneficial to separate carbon dioxide from the absorption medium or any other byproducts. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further of Sherwood with the teachings of Wang et al. to incorporate an absorption medium removal apparatus to separate carbon dioxide from the absorption medium or any other byproducts.
Regarding claim 3, Lechnick et al. teaches the number of decompression stages for the desorption of carbon dioxide corresponding to the number of assigned compression stages represented by flash drums 20 and compressor 24 (Figure 1, [0019]). The reference is silent as to the number of decompression stages corresponding to the number of assigned compression stages, however the reference shows all but one of the decompression stages having a corresponding compression stage and the reference states “the carbon dioxide removal section has a series of flash drums and compressors” [0019]. Therefore, the number of decompression stages corresponding to the number of compression stages is merely duplication of parts. The courts have previously stated that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 4, Lechnick et al. teaches the desorption pressure value pD being specified on the basis of the suction pressure value pS of the compression stage to which it is assigned represented by flash drums 20 and compressors 24 (Figure 1, [0019]). The reference is silent as to the pressure values being dependent or specified based on one another. However, the reference teaches the gas outlet of a decompression stage being fluidically connected to the suction side of a compression stage represented by solvent stream 22 which is shown leaving flash drums 20 to compressor 24, with no other elements between them. Therefore, the suction pressure value pS inherently must be based on the desorption pressure value pD of which it is assigned.
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt teaches no heating of the laden absorption medium is affected in the decompression stages represented by “the process comprises no hot regeneration step for regenerating the laden absorption medium” wherein “the carbon dioxide is thus desorbed from the laden absorption medium exclusively by pressure reduction (flashing)” [0004,0049]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. teaches the absorption medium removal apparatus comprises a gas scrubber and a drying apparatus arranged downstream of the gas scrubber represented by scrubber 47 and gas dryer 49 wherein the scrubber may “include wet scrubbing with seawater” and the gas dryer 49 is clearly shown to be downstream of scrubber 47 (Figure. 1, [0038, 0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. teaches the absorption medium removal apparatus comprising an adsorption medium bed represented by “any apparatus known to those of skill in the art for operating a scrubber may be employed, including a spray tower, a tray or plate tower, or a bed of packing material such as a ceramic or stainless steel that enhances contact between the scrubbing chemicals and the gas being scrubbed” (Fig. 1, [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Lechnick et al. teaches the process comprising three decompression stages represented by flash drums 20, 34, and 40 (Fig. 1, [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt teaches the desorption process values pD ranging from 0.1 to 6 bar represented by “it is preferable when such a low-pressure flash stage has a pressure of 1 to 5 bar…an intermediate flash stage is alternatively a flash stage operated at a pressure of 5 to 12 bar” [0037, 0042].
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt teaches a further decompression stage for desorption of at least hydrogen and recycling the hydrogen to the raw hydrogen product stream represented by “one embodiment of the process according to the invention is characterized in that value gas coabsorbed in the absorption apparatus, in particular hydrogen, is desorbed in the first flash stage of the plurality of serially arranged flash stages and the value gas is withdrawn from this first flash stage and recompressed to absorption pressure and the recompressed value gas is supplied to the synthesis gas” [0039]. The further decompression stage is beneficial to recover hydrogen from the product
Regarding claim 13, Lechnick et al. teaches a further compression stage for compression of the carbon dioxide product stream represented by compressor 44 (Fig. 1, [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Lechnick et al. teaches the absorption medium comprises methanol represented by “among the solvents that can be used are… a methanol… and mixtures thereof” (Fig. 1, [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. teaches a post compression stage upstream of the absorption medium removal apparatus that is fluidically connected to the absorption medium removal apparatus represented by compressor 82 which is shown to be upstream of the scrubber 47 and gas dryer 49 (Fig. 1, [0044]). The post compression stage would be beneficial to ensure the product is at the desired pressure before entering the scrubber.
Regarding claim 16, the references are silent as to an intermediate compression stage, however, Lechnick et al. teaches the process comprising of multiple compressors and further states “the carbon dioxide removal section has a series of flash drums and compressors” [0019]. Therefore, the incorporation of an additional intermediate compression stage is merely duplication of parts. The courts have previously stated that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lechnick et al. US 20100132553 A1 in view of Schmidt US 20230321588 A1 and in further view of Kester US 3659400 A and in further view of Sherwood US 20150217266 A1 and in further view of Wang et al. 20240279480 A1 and in further view of Lefebvre et al. US 20210220771 A1.
Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further view of Sherwood and in further view of Wang et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further view of Sherwood and in further view of Wang et al. does not teach the compression stages having a compression ration of 2.0 to 4.0
Lefebvre et al. teaches the compression stages having a compression ratio of 2.0 to 4.0 represented by “a compression ratio of 3 was adopted for the overhead compression stage” [0077]. This is beneficial because it is well known in the art that compression rations generally around 3 need only a single stage of compression. Higher compression ratios need additional stages with intercoolers. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further view of Sherwood and in further view of Wang et al. with the teachings of Lefebvre et al. to incorporate the compression stages having a compression ratio of 2.0 to 4.0 to ensure only a single stage of compression is needed.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lechnick et al. US 20100132553 A1 in view of Schmidt US 20230321588 A1 and in further view of Kester US 3659400 A and in further view of Sherwood US 20150217266 A1 and in further view of Wang et al. 20240279480 A1 and in further view of Lefebvre et al. US 20210220771 A1 and in further view of Bellisio et al. US 3738086 A.
Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further view of Sherwood and in further view of Wang et al. and in further view of Lefebvre et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further view of Sherwood and in further view of Wang et al. and in further view of Lefebvre et al. does not teach the water mixture obtained in the gas scrubber being recycled to the absorption stage.
Bellisio et al. teaches the water mixture obtained in the gas scrubber being recycled to the absorption stage represented by “lactam recovered in the scrubber zone is fed either directly to the absorption zone or the distillation zone for recycle to the absorption zone” (Fig. 1, pg. 5). This is beneficial to save cost and energy. The reference is silent as to there being a methanol water mixture, however, Wang et al. teaches its carbon capture system can contain methanol as an absorption method [0048], therefore there would inherently be a methanol-water mixture in the scrubber. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lechnick et al. in view of Schmidt and in further view of Kester and in further view of Sherwood and in further view of Wang et al. and in further view of Lefebvre et al. with the teachings of Bellisio et al. to incorporate the water from the gas scrubber being recycled to the absorption stage to help reduce cost and energy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be allowable as the prior art fails to trach the suction pressure value pS of a compression stage and desorption pressure value pD of an assigned decompression stage have the same value wit a maximum divergence of 25%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights