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, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20160017730) and in view of Zhang (CN 20892131) and in view of JP 2011524242 and in view of Allam (WO 2018/042336) and in view of Wormser (US Pub.: 2018/0201849) and in view of Younes (US Pub.: 2020/0386155) and in view of Zhou (CN 209210737).
Park describes a supercritical CO2 power generation system (title). The power generator comprises a supercritical CO2 turbine used to generate power (page 2, para. 8), which uses CO2 to generate that power in the turbine (page 2, para. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this CO2 can be considered a drive fluid.
The CO2 that leaves the turbine (see Fig. 100, 120/130) goes into a separator unit 140 that also cools (141) and supplies CO2 to the liquefaction unit (from 145). Prior to supplying the CO2 to the liquefaction unit, the CO2 is fed to a compression mechanism (151) (see page 4, para. 8). This compression mechanism is after the power generation turbine (see Fig. 100).
Park does not teach that following this, a heat exchanger is used to heat the compressed CO2.
After compression, Park teaches that the CO2 that is compressed is then sent to either a storage device (Fig. 100, 160) or to a combustor 110 (Fig. 100, 110). The combustor is heated using a feed stream of methane and oxygen (page 3, para. 3). The oxygen fed may be pure oxygen (page 3, para. 3). The methane and oxygen are combusted in a combustion section (page 3, para. 3). The combustion product is then fed to the power generator (120) and the generator (page 3, para. 4).
Park does not state that the pure oxygen is made by an air separation unit.
After feeding the stream to the turbine, the exhaust gas is then fed to a separator unit 140, used to separate CO2 from the rest of the stream (page 4, para. 2, 4, 5). This can be considered the CO2 recovery unit of Claim 1.
CO2 from the exhaust gas and that has been processed in a separator unit 140 and a recovery unit 150 is then fed to a CO2 storage unit (160). This can be considered a CO2 reception unit. Park describes that CO2 from the CO2 recovery unit are supplied to a CO2 reception unit, but Park does not state that CO2 from the power generation unit are directly sent to the CO2 storage unit too.
As to storing CO2 from the power generation unit, Zhang describes a supercritical CO2 gasification power generation system (title). The system performs CO2 capture and sequestration (abstract). Zhang explains that their process results in zero CO2 discharge (abstract). One method used to reduce CO2 discharge is to provide a CO2 storage tank 7 that feeds CO2 from a number of sources, to include the gasification furnace 3 (page 3, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a line from the gasification furnace to the CO2 storage unit, as taught by Zhang for use with Park because Zhang explains this prevents CO2 from being discharged.
The references do not teach that the energy obtained by the CO2 cycle power generation unit is supplied to the CO2 recovery unit and that energy is in the form of electric energy.
JP ‘242 describes a power plant system (title). ‘242 explains that electric power is required to drive the CO2 recovery unit equipment 2 and electric power is required to drive the CO2 compressor 9 (page 3, second to last para). Therefore, ‘242 explains that the net power output made in the power plant system is reduced by the power required in the equipment, specifically the total output power used is decreased by the power needed for both the CO2 compression unit and the CO2 recovery unit (page 3, second to last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use some of the electric energy made in the power plant system to fuel the CO2 recovery unit, as taught by “242 for use with the process of Park because energy made by the system is known to be used by some of the energetic needs of the CO2 processing equipment.
As to the use of a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2, Allam teaches a power production process that uses CO2 as s working fluid (abstract). The system explains in Fig. 1 that a high-pressure heat exchanger can be used to heat a CO2 stream that has an elevated pressure (page 13, lines 18-22). The high-pressure heat exchanger heats the CO2 stream, which is beneficial because it transfers approximately 80% of the adiabatic heat of compression from an air compressor to the power cycle, which then boosts the efficiency of the power cycle and recovers heat converted in the combustion cycle for power production (page 13, lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2, as taught by Allam for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormer because use of a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2 because it transfers approximately 80% of the adiabatic heat of compression from an air compressor to the power cycle.
The references describe a CO2 recovery unit from the turbine but does not describe a CO2 recovery unit from the combustion unit that comprises a CO2 recovery unit with includes a first acid gas removal unit recovering CO2, a first acid gas pressurizing unit that pressurizes CO2 from the acid gas removal unit.
Wormser describes a supercritical CO2 energy-generating electrical device (title). The system employs a gasifier (106) (para. 28) that feeds into a product of combustion system (POC) that can include a CO2 stream that is processed (para. 47) in a ALC system used to remove CO2 from the stream (para. 48). After the POC-ALC system may be pressurized at a pressure of 3-28 psi and then fed to the supercritical CO2 power cycle (para. 52). Wormser explains that this system provides a relatively high plant efficiency, high carbon-capture efficiency (para. 50), facilitates converting high temperature gas into power (para. 52).
Wormser discusses feeding the CO2 stream to a supercritical CO2 power cycle, but does not show that this feed is fed between the power generation turbine and the first CO2 compression device and mixed with the CO2 fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a CO2 recovery device positioned after a combustion device, followed by a CO2 pressurizing device, as taught by Wormser for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242 and Allam because this process is known to provided a relatively high plant efficiency, high carbon-capture efficiency (para. 50), facilitates converting high temperature gas into power.
As to an additional combustion unit being an external one, Younes describes use of a supercritical CO2 stream used with a turbine (para. 16) for generating power (Claim 1). Younes explains that CO2 can derive from one or more than one external CO2 sources, which can include a boiler, a gas turbine or other CO2-generating means (para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ more than one CO2 combustion means to generate CO2, as taught by Younes for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because it is known to use one CO2 combustion source or several to operate an supercritical CO2-based power generating system.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one combustor by its functional equivalent several combustion sources in the process of Park with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to the last feature, the CO2 pressurized by the pressurizing unit being supplied between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, this is taught by Zhou. Also, as to the pure oxygen being from an air separator, the other references describe a pure oxygen, but does not disclose that this is made from an air separator.
Zhou describes a supercritical CO2 electricity-generating system (title). The system employs a system that feeds a tail gas from waste heat boiler 24, which is then fed to a gas-water separator (26) (which can be considered a type of acid gas separator), followed by a CO2 compressor (27), which then combines the compressed CO2 with used CO2 from the CO2 turbine at 23 (see Figure 1, where CO2 from turbine at 22 is combined with CO2 from 29). The combination of both CO2 gases is then fed to 21, which is positioned between the compressor at 20 and the CO2 turbine at 22 (see Fig. 1 and see description at page 4, lines 19-23).
As to the air separator, Zhou teaches that oxygen is made using an air separation unit and some of that oxygen is fed to the furnace (see Claim 4).
As to the CO2 pressurized by the pressurizing unit being supplied between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed pressurized CO2 between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because feeding pressurized CO2 between these two units is known to lead to predictable and expected CO2 power generating effectiveness.
As to the pure oxygen of Park being made from an air separator, since Park describes employing pure oxygen to the combustor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the pure oxygen using an air separator, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because Zhou describes feeding purifying oxygen using an air separator to the combustion device.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (WO 2020085668).
The references do not teach that in addition to the energy supplied from the power generator to the CO2 recovery unit, that heat is also transferred to the CO2 fluid.
Lee describes a supercritical CO2 power generation system (title). Fig. 1 shows a heat exchanger at 4 that exchanges heat from the turbine using stream 13 with a stream that comes from 6, which is a separator. Lee explains that the combustion gas, which is a CO2 gas, is what passes through the separator 6 and is then pressurized at 7 and then passed through a heat exchanger at 4 (page 4, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange heat with a CO2-containing gas in addition to feeding energy from the power unit to the CO2 recovery unit, as taught by Lee for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because this is a known method to recover heat in a CO2 power generation unit.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allam (CN 105209732), Allam II.
The references do not teach use of supplemental power made from a mechanical power supplied from combustion gas obtained by a combustor.
Allam II describes a CO2 power generator using a CO2 working fluid (title). Allam II explains that their system employs one or more turbines used to provide mechanical power from the turbine to one or more additional components, which includes an air separation unit (page 33, para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ additional mechanical power, as taught by Allam II for use with the CO2 power generation system of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because use of mechanical power to supplement needed energy is a known means to power a CO2 power generation system, to include a CO2 recovery unit in a CO2 power generation system.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes, Zhou and Lee as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (WO 2020085668), Lee II.
The references do not teach that heat from the CO2 fluid is supplied to the first acid gas removal unit by heat exchange.
Lee II teaches that supplying heat to the air separator has disadvantages (see Background, para. 6). As a solution to this, Lee II teaches that a portion of the combustion gas that drives and discharges the turbine is branched and then enters a heat exchanger and then supplied to the air separation device (Claim 1). The heat exchanger that is heated by the CO2 flue gas (page 4, para. 7) is then used to heat the air separation device (page 4, para. 8). This method is used to cool the combustion liner (page 4, para. 7) and increase the efficiency of the air separation device (page 4, second to last para from bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heat exchanger to remove some heat from the exhaust gas and sent to the air separation device, as taught by Lee for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes, Zhou and Lee because this cools the combustion liner as well as increases the efficiency of the air separation device.
As to Claim 7, the features of Lee applied to Claim 6 is reiterated here. Additionally, JP ‘242 describes a power plant system (title). ‘242 explains that electric power is required to drive the CO2 recovery unit equipment 2 and electric power is required to drive the CO2 compressor 9 (page 3, second to last para). Therefore, ‘242 explains that the net power output made in the power plant system is reduced by the power required in the equipment, specifically the total output power used is decreased by the power needed for both the CO2 compression unit and the CO2 recovery unit (page 3, second to last para).
The obviousness statement used for ‘242 above is re-iterated here.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes, Zhou, Lee and Lee II as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 2016/0059730).
As to Claim 8, JP ‘242 teaches that the absorbent is regenerated (see Claim 12).
As to the use of a heat exchanger to perform this regeneration, Cho teaches a supercritical CO2 power plant system (title). The system explains that an absorption tower consumes heat and is used for absorbing CO2 from the exhaust gas system for separating CO2 from the exhaust gas (see Claims, lines 11-13). As a heat source, the system provides a heat recovery system that retains some heat from the supercritical CO2 (Claims, lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to regenerate the CO2 absorbent using some heat from the CO2 working fluid using a heat exchanger, as taught by Cho for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes, Zhou, Lee and Lee II because this is a known method of regenerating the Co2 absorbent.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes, and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho (KR 2016/0059730).
The references describe all the features of Claim 10, but do not describe use of a second adsorbent.
The features of Cho recited in Claim 10 are reiterated here. Additionally, Cho describes use of a first adsorbent that is then regenerated using a heat exchanger and also includes a second adsorbent (page 4, para. 4 from the bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employs a second absorbent, as taught by Cho along with the first absorbent of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because Cho explains that the first adsorbent can be regenerated and use of a second adsorbent can be used to facilitate CO2 removal in these instances.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20200075602), Lee III.
The references do not disclose that the heat of exhaust from the combustion unit is supplied to the CO2 working fluid in the power generation unit and has a temperature lower than the exhaust gas by heat exchange.
Lee III describes a method of generating electricity using supercritical CO2 (see “Technical Field”, para. 1). In the system, there is a waste heat exchanger, which exchanges high temperature gas discharged as exhaust gas from the plant and heat exchanges it with the CO2 working fluid (page 3, para. 3 from the bottom). Lee III explains that this method improves pressurization efficiency (see “technical field” on page 2, para. 1).
Although Lee III does not state that the temperature of the CO2 working fluid is lower than the temperature of the exhaust gas, since waste heat from the exhaust gas is transferred to the CO2 working fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature of the working fluid is lower than the temperature of the exhaust gas stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange heat between exhaust gas from the combustion unit and the CO2 working fluid, as taught by Lee III for use with the system of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because this is a known means to improves pressurization efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Younes (US Pub.: 2019/0390578), Younes II.
The reference does not disclose that the heat of the CO2 is supplied from the CO2 cycle power generation unit to the outside of the CO2 power generation unit.
Younes II describes a supercritical CO2 cycle coupled to a chemical looping arrangement (title). In this system, a CO2 stream is coupled to a chemical looping cycle (para. 77). The CO2 system is used to provide heat to the chemical looping cycle (para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed at least some of the heated CO2 to a system outside of the CO2 power cycle, as taught by Younes II for use with the system of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because it is known to recover some of the heat from the supercritical CO2 for use in other systems, such as a chemical looping cycle, which can reduce energy use.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20160017730) and in view of Zhang (CN 20892131) and in view of JP 2011524242 and in view of Allam (WO 2018/042336) and in view of Wormser (US Pub.: 2018/0201849) and in view of Younes (US Pub.:2020/0386155) and in view of Zhou (CN 209210737) and further in view of Lee (WO 2020085668) and further in view of Lee (WO 2020085668), Lee II.
Park describes a supercritical CO2 power generation system (title). The power generator comprises a supercritical CO2 turbine used to generate power (page 2, para. 8), which uses CO2 to generate that power in the turbine (page 2, para. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this CO2 can be considered a drive fluid.
The CO2 that leaves the turbine (see Fig. 100, 120/130) goes into a separator unit 140 that also cools (141) and supplies CO2 to the liquefaction unit (from 145). Prior to supplying the CO2 to the liquefaction unit, the CO2 is fed to a compression mechanism (151) (see page 4, para. 8). This compression mechanism is after the power generation turbine (see Fig. 100).
Park does not teach that following this, a heat exchanger is used to heat the compressed CO2.
After compression, Park teaches that the CO2 that is compressed is then sent to either a storage device (Fig. 100, 160) or to a combustor 110 (Fig. 100, 110). The combustor is heated using a feed stream of methane and oxygen (page 3, para. 3). The oxygen fed may be pure oxygen (page 3, para. 3). The methane and oxygen are combusted in a combustion section (page 3, para. 3). The combustion product is then fed to the power generator (120) and the generator (page 3, para. 4).
Park does not state that the pure oxygen is made by an air separation unit.
After feeding the stream to the turbine, the exhaust gas is then fed to a separator unit 140, used to separate CO2 from the rest of the stream (page 4, para. 2, 4, 5). This can be considered the CO2 recovery unit of the claims.
CO2 from the exhaust gas and that has been processed in a separator unit 140 and a recovery unit 150 is then fed to a CO2 storage unit (160). This can be considered a CO2 reception unit. Park describes that CO2 from the CO2 recovery unit are supplied to a CO2 reception unit, but Park does not state that CO2 from the power generation unit are directly sent to the CO2 storage unit too.
As to storing CO2 from the power generation unit, Zhang describes a supercritical CO2 gasification power generation system (title). The system performs CO2 capture and sequestration (abstract). Zhang explains that their process results in zero CO2 discharge (abstract). One method used to reduce CO2 discharge is to provide a CO2 storage tank 7 that feeds CO2 from a number of sources, to include the gasification furnace 3 (page 3, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a line from the gasification furnace to the CO2 storage unit, as taught by Zhang for use with Park because Zhang explains this prevents CO2 from being discharged.
The references do not teach that the energy obtained by the CO2 cycle power generation unit is supplied to the CO2 recovery unit and that energy is in the form of electric energy.
JP ‘242 describes a power plant system (title). ‘242 explains that electric power is required to drive the CO2 recovery unit equipment 2 and electric power is required to drive the CO2 compressor 9 (page 3, second to last para). Therefore, ‘242 explains that the net power output made in the power plant system is reduced by the power required in the equipment, specifically the total output power used is decreased by the power needed for both the CO2 compression unit and the CO2 recovery unit (page 3, second to last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use some of the electric energy made in the power plant system to fuel the CO2 recovery unit, as taught by “242 for use with the process of Park because energy made by the system is known to be used by some of the energetic needs of the CO2 processing equipment.
As to the use of a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2, Allam teaches a power production process that uses CO2 as s working fluid (abstract). The system explains in Fig. 1 that a high-pressure heat exchanger can be used to heat a CO2 stream that has an elevated pressure (page 13, lines 18-22). The high-pressure heat exchanger heats the CO2 stream, which is beneficial because it transfers approximately 80% of the adiabatic heat of compression from an air compressor to the power cycle, which then boosts the efficiency of the power cycle and recovers heat converted in the combustion cycle for power production (page 13, lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2, as taught by Allam for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormer because use of a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2 because it transfers approximately 80% of the adiabatic heat of compression from an air compressor to the power cycle.
The references describe a CO2 recovery unit from the turbine but does not describe a CO2 recovery unit from the combustion unit that comprises a CO2 recovery unit with includes a first acid gas removal unit recovering CO2, a first acid gas pressurizing unit that pressurizes CO2 from the acid gas removal unit.
Wormser describes a supercritical CO2 energy-generating electrical device (title). The system employs a gasifier (106) (para. 28) that feeds into a product of combustion system (POC) that can include a CO2 stream that is processed (para. 47) in a ALC system used to remove CO2 from the stream (para. 48). After the POC-ALC system may be pressurized at a pressure of 3-28 psi and then fed to the supercritical CO2 power cycle (para. 52). Wormser explains that this system provides a relatively high plant efficiency, high carbon-capture efficiency (para. 50), facilitates converting high temperature gas into power (para. 52).
Wormser discusses feeding the CO2 stream to a supercritical CO2 power cycle, but does not show that this feed is fed between the power generation turbine and the first CO2 compression device and mixed with the CO2 fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a CO2 recovery device positioned after a combustion device, followed by a CO2 pressurizing device, as taught by Wormser for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242 and Allam because this process is known to provided a relatively high plant efficiency, high carbon-capture efficiency (para. 50), facilitates converting high temperature gas into power.
As to the combustion unit being an external one, As to an additional combustion unit being an external one, Younes describes use of a supercritical CO2 stream used with a turbine (para. 16) for generating power (Claim 1). Younes explains that CO2 can derive from one or more than one external CO2 sources, which can include a boiler, a gas turbine or other CO2-generating means (para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ more than one CO2 combustion means to generate CO2, as taught by Younes for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because it is known to use one CO2 combustion source or several to operate an supercritical CO2-based power generating system.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one combustor by its functional equivalent several combustion sources in the process of Park with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to the last feature, the CO2 pressurized by the pressurizing unit being supplied between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, this is taught by Zhou. Also, as to the pure oxygen being from an air separator, the other references describe a pure oxygen, but does not disclose that this is made from an air separator.
Zhou describes a supercritical CO2 electricity-generating system (title). The system employs a system that feeds a tail gas from waste heat boiler 24, which is then fed to a gas-water separator (26) (which can be considered a type of acid gas separator), followed by a CO2 compressor (27), which then combines the compressed CO2 with used CO2 from the CO2 turbine at 23 (see Figure 1, where CO2 from turbine at 22 is combined with CO2 from 29). The combination of both CO2 gases is then fed to 21, which is positioned between the compressor at 20 and the CO2 turbine at 22 (see Fig. 1 and see description at page 4, lines 19-23).
As to the air separator, Zhou teaches that oxygen is made using an air separation unit and some of that oxygen is fed to the furnace (see Claim 4).
As to the CO2 pressurized by the pressurizing unit being supplied between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed pressurized CO2 between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because feeding pressurized CO2 between these two units is known to lead to predictable and expected CO2 power generating effectiveness.
As to the pure oxygen of Park being made from an air separator, since Park describes employing pure oxygen to the combustor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the pure oxygen using an air separator, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser and Younes because Zhou describes feeding purifying oxygen using an air separator to the combustion device.
The references do not teach that in addition to the energy supplied from the power generator to the CO2 recovery unit, that heat is also transferred to the CO2 fluid.
Lee describes a supercritical CO2 power generation system (title). Fig. 1 shows a heat exchanger at 4 that exchanges heat from the turbine using stream 13 with a stream that comes from 6, which is a separator. Lee explains that the combustion gas, which is a CO2 gas, is what passes through the separator 6 and is then pressurized at 7 and then passed through a heat exchanger at 4 (page 4, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange heat with a CO2-containing gas in addition to feeding energy from the power unit to the CO2 recovery unit, as taught by Lee for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because this is a known method to recover heat in a CO2 power generation unit.
The references do not teach that heat from the CO2 fluid is supplied to the first acid gas removal unit by heat exchange.
Lee II teaches that supplying heat to the air separator has disadvantages (see Background, para. 6). As a solution to this, Lee II teaches that a portion of the combustion gas that drives and discharges the turbine is branched and then enters a heat exchanger and then supplied to the air separation device (Claim 1). The heat exchanger that is heated by the CO2 flue gas (page 4, para. 7) is then used to heat the air separation device (page 4, para. 8). This method is used to cool the combustion liner (page 4, para. 7) and increase the efficiency of the air separation device (page 4, second to last para from bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heat exchanger to remove some heat from the exhaust gas and sent to the air separation device, as taught by Lee for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes, Zhou and Lee because this cools the combustion liner as well as increases the efficiency of the air separation device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20160017730) and in view of Zhang (CN 20892131) and in view of JP 2011524242 and in view of Allam (WO 2018/042336) and in view of Wormser (US Pub.: 2018/0201849) and in view of Younes (US Pub.: 2020/0386155) and in view of Zhou (CN 209210737) and further in view of Lee (KR 20200075602), Lee III.
Park describes a supercritical CO2 power generation system (title). The power generator comprises a supercritical CO2 turbine used to generate power (page 2, para. 8), which uses CO2 to generate that power in the turbine (page 2, para. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this CO2 can be considered a drive fluid.
The CO2 that leaves the turbine (see Fig. 100, 120/130) goes into a separator unit 140 that also cools (141) and supplies CO2 to the liquefaction unit (from 145). Prior to supplying the CO2 to the liquefaction unit, the CO2 is fed to a compression mechanism (151) (see page 4, para. 8). This compression mechanism is after the power generation turbine (see Fig. 100).
Park does not teach that following this, a heat exchanger is used to heat the compressed CO2.
After compression, Park teaches that the CO2 that is compressed is then sent to either a storage device (Fig. 100, 160) or to a combustor 110 (Fig. 100, 110). The combustor is heated using a feed stream of methane and oxygen (page 3, para. 3). The oxygen fed may be pure oxygen (page 3, para. 3). The methane and oxygen are combusted in a combustion section (page 3, para. 3). The combustion product is then fed to the power generator (120) and the generator (page 3, para. 4).
Park does not state that the pure oxygen is made by an air separation unit.
After feeding the stream to the turbine, the exhaust gas is then fed to a separator unit 140, used to separate CO2 from the rest of the stream (page 4, para. 2, 4, 5). This can be considered the CO2 recovery unit of the claim.
CO2 from the exhaust gas and that has been processed in a separator unit 140 and a recovery unit 150 is then fed to a CO2 storage unit (160). This can be considered a CO2 reception unit. Park describes that CO2 from the CO2 recovery unit are supplied to a CO2 reception unit, but Park does not state that CO2 from the power generation unit are directly sent to the CO2 storage unit too.
As to storing CO2 from the power generation unit, Zhang describes a supercritical CO2 gasification power generation system (title). The system performs CO2 capture and sequestration (abstract). Zhang explains that their process results in zero CO2 discharge (abstract). One method used to reduce CO2 discharge is to provide a CO2 storage tank 7 that feeds CO2 from a number of sources, to include the gasification furnace 3 (page 3, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a line from the gasification furnace to the CO2 storage unit, as taught by Zhang for use with Park because Zhang explains this prevents CO2 from being discharged.
The references do not teach that the energy obtained by the CO2 cycle power generation unit is supplied to the CO2 recovery unit and that energy is in the form of electric energy.
JP ‘242 describes a power plant system (title). ‘242 explains that electric power is required to drive the CO2 recovery unit equipment 2 and electric power is required to drive the CO2 compressor 9 (page 3, second to last para). Therefore, ‘242 explains that the net power output made in the power plant system is reduced by the power required in the equipment, specifically the total output power used is decreased by the power needed for both the CO2 compression unit and the CO2 recovery unit (page 3, second to last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use some of the electric energy made in the power plant system to fuel the CO2 recovery unit, as taught by “242 for use with the process of Park because energy made by the system is known to be used by some of the energetic needs of the CO2 processing equipment.
As to the use of a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2, Allam teaches a power production process that uses CO2 as s working fluid (abstract). The system explains in Fig. 1 that a high-pressure heat exchanger can be used to heat a CO2 stream that has an elevated pressure (page 13, lines 18-22). The high-pressure heat exchanger heats the CO2 stream, which is beneficial because it transfers approximately 80% of the adiabatic heat of compression from an air compressor to the power cycle, which then boosts the efficiency of the power cycle and recovers heat converted in the combustion cycle for power production (page 13, lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2, as taught by Allam for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormer because use of a heat exchanger to heat the compressed CO2 because it transfers approximately 80% of the adiabatic heat of compression from an air compressor to the power cycle.
The references describe a CO2 recovery unit from the turbine but does not describe a CO2 recovery unit from the combustion unit that comprises a CO2 recovery unit with includes a first acid gas removal unit recovering CO2, a first acid gas pressurizing unit that pressurizes CO2 from the acid gas removal unit.
Wormser describes a supercritical CO2 energy-generating electrical device (title). The system employs a gasifier (106) (para. 28) that feeds into a product of combustion system (POC) that can include a CO2 stream that is processed (para. 47) in a ALC system used to remove CO2 from the stream (para. 48). After the POC-ALC system may be pressurized at a pressure of 3-28 psi and then fed to the supercritical CO2 power cycle (para. 52). Wormser explains that this system provides a relatively high plant efficiency, high carbon-capture efficiency (para. 50), facilitates converting high temperature gas into power (para. 52).
Wormser discusses feeding the CO2 stream to a supercritical CO2 power cycle, but does not show that this feed is fed between the power generation turbine and the first CO2 compression device and mixed with the CO2 fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a CO2 recovery device positioned after a combustion device, followed by a CO2 pressurizing device, as taught by Wormser for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242 and Allam because this process is known to provided a relatively high plant efficiency, high carbon-capture efficiency (para. 50), facilitates converting high temperature gas into power.
As to the combustion unit being an external one, As to an additional combustion unit being an external one, Younes describes use of a supercritical CO2 stream used with a turbine (para. 16) for generating power (Claim 1). Younes explains that CO2 can derive from one or more than one external CO2 sources, which can include a boiler, a gas turbine or other CO2-generating means (para. 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ more than one CO2 combustion means to generate CO2, as taught by Younes for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because it is known to use one CO2 combustion source or several to operate an supercritical CO2-based power generating system.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one combustor by its functional equivalent several combustion sources in the process of Park with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to the last feature, the CO2 pressurized by the pressurizing unit being supplied between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, this is taught by Zhou. Also, as to the pure oxygen being from an air separator, the other references describe a pure oxygen, but does not disclose that this is made from an air separator.
Zhou describes a supercritical CO2 electricity-generating system (title). The system employs a system that feeds a tail gas from waste heat boiler 24, which is then fed to a gas-water separator (26) (which can be considered a type of acid gas separator), followed by a CO2 compressor (27), which then combines the compressed CO2 with used CO2 from the CO2 turbine at 23 (see Figure 1, where CO2 from turbine at 22 is combined with CO2 from 29). The combination of both CO2 gases is then fed to 21, which is positioned between the compressor at 20 and the CO2 turbine at 22 (see Fig. 1 and see description at page 4, lines 19-23).
As to the air separator, Zhou teaches that oxygen is made using an air separation unit and some of that oxygen is fed to the furnace (see Claim 4).
As to the CO2 pressurized by the pressurizing unit being supplied between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed pressurized CO2 between the power generation turbine and the CO2 first compression device, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser because feeding pressurized CO2 between these two units is known to lead to predictable and expected CO2 power generating effectiveness.
As to the pure oxygen of Park being made from an air separator, since Park describes employing pure oxygen to the combustor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate the pure oxygen using an air separator, as taught by Zhou for use with the process of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam and Wormser, Younes because Zhou describes feeding purifying oxygen using an air separator to the combustion device.
The references do not disclose that the heat of exhaust from the combustion unit is supplied to the CO2 working fluid in the power generation unit and has a temperature lower than the exhaust gas by heat exchange.
Lee III describes a method of generating electricity using supercritical CO2 (see “Technical Field”, para. 1). In the system, there is a waste heat exchanger, which exchanges high temperature gas discharged as exhaust gas from the plant and heat exchanges it with the CO2 working fluid (page 3, para. 3 from the bottom). Lee III explains that this method improves pressurization efficiency (see “technical field” on page 2, para. 1).
Although Lee III does not state that the temperature of the CO2 working fluid is lower than the temperature of the exhaust gas, since waste heat from the exhaust gas is transferred to the CO2 working fluid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature of the working fluid is lower than the temperature of the exhaust gas stream.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to exchange heat between exhaust gas from the combustion unit and the CO2 working fluid, as taught by Lee III for use with the system of Park, Zhang, JP ‘242, Allam, Wormser, Younes and Zhou because this is a known means to improves pressurization efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights