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
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170165633A1, hereinafter ‘Harada’, in view of Dos Reis et al. (Coupling of attrition and accelerated carbonation for CO2 sequestration in recycled concrete aggregates, Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 2021), hereinafter ‘Dos Reis’.
Regarding Claim 1, Harada discloses a process for fixation of carbon dioxide, comprising:
reacting a gaseous carbon dioxide (CO2(g)) feedstock with a solid particulate reactant comprising magnesium oxide (MgO) and/or magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2), to form composite MgO/Mg(OH)2 particles laminated with a surface layer of magnesium carbonate (MgCO3) ([0008]: According to one or more embodiments, methods of removing CO2 from a gas stream are generally described. The method may comprise introducing the gas stream comprising CO2 to a plurality of coated nanoclusters, each of which comprises a core comprising MgO and a shell surrounding the core, the shell comprising alkali metal salt in a molten state, wherein the alkali metal salt comprises alkali metal cations and at least one of nitrate anions and nitrite anions. The method may further comprise adsorbing a portion of CO2 from the gas stream onto the plurality of coated nanoclusters to produce a CO2-reduced gas stream; [0045]: this process yields MgCO3).
Further regarding Claim 1, Harada does not disclose attriting the composite MgO/Mg(OH)2/MgCO3 particles to delaminate surface MgCO3 from the composite MgO/Mg(OH)2/MgCO3 particles, to yield delaminated MgO/Mg(OH)2 particles and a MgCO3 product; or reacting the CO2 (g) feedstock with the delaminated MgO/Mg(OH)2 particles to form an additional MgCO3 product.
Dos Reis discloses a process for improving the carbon dioxide sequestration of recycled concrete aggregates (title). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Dos Reis as analogous to Harada, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, mineralization to sequester said CO2 - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Dos Reis discloses carbonation tests carried out in a laboratory-scale air-proof rotating drums equipped with a CO2 feeding system. Performing carbonation in a rotating drum promotes selective attrition of concrete aggregates. The process accelerates carbonation by removing the carbonated zones on the surface of coarse aggregates and then facilitating the access of CO2 to un-carbonated zones. The most efficient rotating carbonation condition was reached at 100 rpm, aggregate moisture around 8%, and 500 g of aggregates in a 5 L reactor at any partial pressure. The dynamic process highly increased the carbonation kinetics compared with static carbonation of the same duration. The CO2 sequestered was up 80 mg/g of aggregate, estimated to be around 60% of the potential of CO2 capture of the tested recycled concrete aggregate. (Abstract). By this process in the rotating drum, surface carbonate is delaminated from the composite, allowing the carbonization of un-carbonized zones beneath these surfaces, thereby improving the sequestration potential of the aggregates.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to perform the carbonization process of Harada within a rotating drum in order to achieve selective attrition of the coated nanoclusters. Such a process would provide increased access of CO2 to un-carbonized zones in the nanoclusters, thereby improving the capacity for CO2 sequestration of the nanoclusters. Performing the process of Harada in this way would attrition the composite MgO/Mg(OH)2/MgCO3 particles to delaminate surface MgCO3 from the composite MgO/Mg(OH)2/MgCO3 particles, to yield delaminated MgO/Mg(OH)2 particles and a MgCO3 product; and react the CO2 (g) feedstock with the delaminated MgO/Mg(OH)2 particles to form an additional MgCO3 product.
Regarding Claim 2, Harada discloses that MgO is a valid candidate for future advanced solid CO2 adsorbents in part because of its lower energy cost for regeneration (MgCO3 (s)→MgO (s)+CO2 (g); αH0 r (MgO)=97.2 kJ mol−1 at 450° C). This exposure of the MgCO3 product to temperatures of 450°C is considered calcination. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to calcine the MgCO3 product and the additional MgCO3 product in order to regenerate MgO sorbent that is ready to sorbate more CO2, thereby reducing process costs by reuse of the same materials.
Regarding Claim 3, the process of Harada as modified above is considered continuous, as CO2 is fed to the rotating drum during rotation without pausing the feed.
Regarding Claim 4, the process of Harada as modified above performs the reacting and attriting steps simultaneously, as the CO2 is fed into the rotating drum in which attrition takes place, and is considered an attriting carbon capture reactor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights