Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/687,004

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ABSORBING, CAPTURING, AND DESORBING CARBON DIOXIDE USING SOLID AMINES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 27, 2024
Priority
Aug 30, 2021 — CN 202111007181.7 +1 more
Examiner
PREGLER, SHARON
Art Unit
1772
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BEIJING DERUNCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
694 granted / 887 resolved
+13.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
916
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
75.0%
+35.0% vs TC avg
§102
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§112
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 887 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 5/11/26 is acknowledged. 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. CN 104162341 in view of Amte et al. US Patent 9,931,593. Regarding claim 1, Li teaches an apparatus for absorbing, capturing and desorbing CO2 using solid amine comprising (Figure, [0006]-[0015], [0032]): a) a catcher (Figure) for capturing CO2 in flue gas ([0006]) and comprising: a treatment reactor chamber 1 for the introduction of a flue gas containing CO2 and solid amine adsorbent particles, where the CO2 are absorbed onto the amine particles ([0010]) and a delivery riser pipe 6 communicated with the treatment reactor chamber 1, [AltContent: textbox (third amine outlet)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (solid amine inlet)] PNG media_image1.png 260 293 media_image1.png Greyscale a first solid amine inlet (bottom of riser 6 and driven by blower 7, see labeled Figure below); b) a desorber D for heating and desorbing CO2 adsorbed by the solid amine adsorbent ([0011]), a second solid amine inlet of the desorber being communicated with a first solid amine outlet of the catcher; and c) a cooler 4 ([0036]) for cooling the solid amine adsorbent treated by the desorber, a third solid amine inlet of the cooler 2b extending from the bottom right of cooler 4 being communicated with a second solid amine outlet of the desorber 2b, and a third solid amine outlet of the cooler being communicated with the first solid amine inlet of the catcher extending to the feeder 5 ([0034]). Li teaches flue gas inlet A is at the bottom of the reaction chamber 1 and does not explicitly teach the flue gas inlet is provided at a bottom end of the delivery riser pipe 6 then into the inlet at the bottom of the riser. However, Li does teach that the solid amines (through riser 6) and the flue gas (through inlet A) are in contact and thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to move the flue gas inlet to the bottom of the delivery pipe together with the solid amine to increase the contact time and increase adsorption. Li does not explicitly teach an adsorbent inlet, and an adsorbent outlet of the treatment chamber being communicated with the adsorbent inlet. However, Amte teaches and adsorber A comprising an outlet at C1 for the adsorber to recycle to an inlet near the bottom of the adsorber tower A. This reduces the thermal load while increasing adsorption (column 7 lines 20-40). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Li to include an adsorbent inlet, and an adsorbent outlet of the treatment chamber being communicated with the adsorbent inlet similar to Amte in order to provide an efficient adsorption apparatus. Regarding claim 2, the limitations of “a temperature is 30 °C to 40 a pressure is 70 kPa(a) to 120 kPa(a), a solid-gas ratio is 2 to 30, a gas flow rate is 2 m/s to 20 m/s, and a contact time of the flue gas being mixed with the solid amine adsorbent is 3 s to 20 s” is considered method limitations and do not give patentable weight to a claim directed to the apparatus. See MPEP 2114. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With regards to claim 3, the prior art fails to teach or suggest recited catcher configuration in the dependent claim. Specifically, the prior art does not teach a treatment chamber having a lower collecting dense phase section equipped with a circumferential distribution loop pipe, an upper settling section, and a separate flue gas cyclone separator located within the settling section. Li uses a countercurrent downflow adsorption reactor with a separate outlet gas-solid separator while Amte uses an adsorber and cyclone. Neither teach the claimed combination of the structural elements in claims 1 and 3, particularly the combination of a delivery pipe primary separator discharging into an upper settling section, a separate cyclone within that section and a fluidized dense phase collection section having the recited distributor and solids outlet. Janke of US Patent 4,220,623 discloses a reactor vessel 2 including a riser discharge head 3, a dense-phase catalyst bed 4, steam ring 5, and internal cyclones 17 and 21. However, Janke’s apparatus would be incompatible with Li and Amte since there is no motivation to use Janke’s vessel in the system for carbon capture with amine adsorbents as with Li and Amte. Doing so would require wholesale reconstruction of the adsorption vessel and gas-solid flow paths, effectively importing substantially the entire structural arrangement of claim 3 with an adsorbtion system without obvious connection or compatibility. Janke teaches a riser entrance 1 and an outlet 12 and would require further construction to address all the components required by claims 1 and 3. Moreover, Li selected its downflow reactor to avoid fluidized bed problems including moisture-induced amine agglomeration and unstable solids circulation. Thus, Li teaches away from any modification with an FCC chamber. A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore lack a clear motivation and reasonable expectation of success for modifying Li and Amte with Janke without impermissible hindsight. Specifically, the prior art lacks the following in combination: a delivery pipe communicated with the treatment chamber, a bottom end of the delivery pipe being provided with a flue gas inlet, a first solid amine inlet and an adsorbent inlet, and an adsorbent outlet of the treatment chamber being communicated with the adsorbent inlet; and wherein the treatment chamber comprises the follow sections along the delivery direction of materials in the delivery pipe in sequence: a collecting dense phase section provided with an air inlet for fluidizing air to enter and a distribution loop pipe communicated with the air inlet, the distribution loop pipe being uniformly provided with air outlets in a circumferential direction, and the first solid amine outlet and the adsorbent outlet being provided on the collecting dense phase section and below the distribution loop pipe and the air inlet; a settling section communicated with the collecting dense phase section and used for settling the solid amine adsorbent for capturing C02; a top end of the delivery pipe being provided with a primary separator for separating the flue gas from the solid amine adsorbent, an outlet of the primary separator being located at the settling section, and the settling section being provided with a flue gas cyclone separator for separating flue gas treated by the primary separator, and a top of the settling section being provided with an exhaust port for discharging the treated flue gas. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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. /SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 19, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680755
SOLVENT INJECTION FOR SOLIDS PREVENTION IN AN LNG PLANT
3y 12m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678801
ELECTROSTATIC DUST SEPARATOR FOR PURIFYING AIR AND OTHER DIELECTRIC FLUIDS
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673896
Method and System for Processing Concrete Granules
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12673907
RADIAL FLOW REACTOR FOR AN ETHANOL DEHYDRATION PROCESS
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12673302
GAS SEPARATION MEMBRANE AND METHOD OF PRODUCING GAS SEPARATION MEMBRANE
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 6m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 887 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month