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 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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartner et al (US 2013/0284073) and in further view of Fan et al (WO-2007/002792).
Regarding claim 1, Gartner teaches a process for reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in a gas including carbon dioxide and water vapor, the process comprises:
Contacting a flue gas with a particulate solid, which solid is a waste material which includes an alkaline earth metal oxide or hydroxide where the alkaline earth metal oxide is carbonated ([0005] and [0023]);
The gas to be treated may also comprise nitrogen oxides and/or sulphur oxides and a secondary benefit is the partial removal of these gases (see [0027]);
The gas comprising not more than 50% of carbon dioxide (see [0015]);
The relative humidity of the gas is generally greater than 40% (see [0023]).
Gartner further teaches an example where the particulate solid comprises CaO and MgO (See [0039] and Table 1).
Gartner therefore teaches a process for capturing CO2 by providing a particle containing magnesium oxide and calcium oxide, providing a mixture gas to contact the particle, the mixture gas comprises water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxide, and the particle captures the carbon dioxide to form a carbonated particle and a treated gas, wherein the relative humidity is in a range overlapping with claim 1, and the carbon dioxide is in a range overlapping with claim 1.
Regarding the relative humidity, as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process as taught by Gartner where the relative humidity is any range overlapping with greater than 40% including the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process as taught by Gartner where the carbon dioxide concentration is any range overlapping with not more than 50% including the claimed range.
Gartner does not teach the nitrogen oxide concentration is in a range of 20 ppm to 2000 ppm.
Fan teaches a method for separation of carbon dioxide from gas mixtures by calcium-based reaction separation, the method comprising reaction with metal oxides (such as calcium oxide), the method comprising contacting a CO2 laden flue gas with solid metal oxide such that the metal oxide captures CO2 by formation of metal carbonate (see [0008]). Fan teaches that numerous metal oxides exhibit the carbonation reaction including Ca and Mg (see [0009]). Fan teaches the flue gas comprising 10-15% carbon dioxide, 5-7% H2O, 150-500 ppm NOx and 500-3000 ppm SO2 (see [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Gartner where the flue gas contains NOx in any amount overlapping with 150-500 ppm as taught in Fan including the claimed range since the presence of NOx in flue gas in such ranges is typical as suggested by Fan. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Gartner on a flue gas containing NOx gases in any range overlapping with 150-500 as taught by Fan since removing NOx gases is a secondary benefit as taught by Gartner.
Regarding claim 2, the process of the invention is conducted at a temperature of 5 to 100°C, preferably from 30 to 80°C; and carried out a pressure of 1 to 2 bar, generally about 1 bar (See [0021-0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process as taught by Gartner where the pressure is any range overlapping with 1 to 2 bar including the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Gartner teaches the carbonation of the alkaline earth metal oxide particles (see [0023]). Gartner further teaches the particles comprising alkaline earth metal hydroxides (see [0004]).
Regarding magnesium nitrate, calcium nitrate, or combinations thereof, if the flue gas contains NOx and is reacted with MgO and/or CaO, then the person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the MgO and/or CaO in Gartner to react with the NOx to form magnesium nitrates and/or calcium nitrates in the reaction product since both reactants are present under conditions including humidity, temperature, and pressure that are the same as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Fan teaches the flue gas comprising 10-15% carbon dioxide, 5-7% H2O, 150-500 ppm NOx and 500-3000 ppm SO2 (see [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Gartner where the flue gas contains SO2 in any amount overlapping with 150-500 ppm as taught in Fan including the claimed range since the presence of SO2 in flue gas in such ranges is typical as suggested by Fan. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as taught by Gartner on a flue gas containing SO2 gases in any range overlapping with 500-3000 ppm as taught by Fan since removing NOx gases is a secondary benefit as taught by Gartner.
Regarding claim 5, if the flue gas contains SO2 and is reacted with MgO and/or CaO, then the person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the MgO and/or CaO in Gartner to react with the NOx to form magnesium sulfite hydrate and/or calcium sulfite hydrate in the reaction product since both reactants are present under conditions including humidity, temperature, and pressure that are the same as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, Gartner teaches a method where the gas mixture is a flue gas from a cement plant (i.e., a factory exhaust gas) (see [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Gartner teaches an example where the particle comprises 3.68% by weight MgO and 36.92% by weight CaO (see Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Gartner teaches that the source of the particulate solid is from steel slag (see [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Gartner further teaches using the carbonated particle as a cementious additive in concrete or direct inclusion in concrete (see [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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 A 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights