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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Younes et al., US 2022/0212141 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Younes teaches an apparatus 1000a for carbon dioxide capture from a fluid 1010 such as air. See Younes Fig. 1A, [0002], [0038]. The apparatus 1000a reads on the claimed “system for continuous capture of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream.” The apparatus 1000a comprises:
Photovoltaic panels or wind turbines. See See Younes [0050].
The photovoltaic panels or wind turbines read on “a renewable source of energy selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind.” See Younes [0050].
Batteries for storing energy from the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, and an indirect steam generation capacity (e.g., an electric resistance or heat pump) that uses electricity from the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines to produce steam. See Younes Fig. 1A, [0050]–[0051].
The batteries and the indirect steam generation capacity collectively reads on the “energy storage unit for receiving, storing and discharging continuously energy provided by the renewable source of energy.” Note that the batteries are capable of receiving, storing, and discharging energy provided by the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines continuously.
The “energy storage unit” comprises a “thermal storage medium,” as claimed, which is the mechanism of the electric resistance heater or heat pump that gets hot to create steam.
A conveyor belt 1300 that includes carbon dioxide sorbent for capturing carbon dioxide directly from the fluid 1010. See Younes Fig. 1A, [0038].
The conveyor belt 1300 reads on the “direct air capture (DAC) unit comprising a sorbent material for capturing carbon dioxide from the gaseous feedstream.”
A “steam generator comprised within the energy storage unit,” as claimed, which is the portion of the indirect steam generation capacity where the steam is created. See Younes [0050].
The photovoltaic panels or wind turbines are configured to provide energy in the form of electricity, as claimed. See Younes [0050]–[0051].
The system is configured to convert the electrical energy to thermal energy and store the thermal energy (at least temporarily) in the mechanism of the electric resistance heater or heat pump that gets hot to create steam, as claimed. See Younes [0050].
The “steam generator,” is configured to receive the thermal energy stored in the “energy storage unit” and with the “steam generator” being configured to provide a supply of steam to the conveyor belt 1300, as claimed, because the “steam generator” is the portion of the indirect steam generation capacity that produces steam with the steam being produced either from the electrical resistance element or the refrigerant of the heat pump. See Younes [0050].
PNG
media_image1.png
851
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Younes teaches that the “energy storage unit” comprises the batteries (the “electrical storage unit”) in electrical connection with the indirect steam power capacity and heater 1500 used to heat the conveyor belt 1300 (the “DAC unit”). See Younes [0050]–[0051].
Regarding claim 9, Younes teaches a process for using the apparatus 1000a for continuously capturing carbon dioxide from a carbon-dioxide fluid 1010, such as air, where the process comprising providing the energy from the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines to the apparatus 1000a. See Younes Fig. 1A, [0002], [0038], [0050]. The process reads on the claimed “process for continuous direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream, wherein the process comprises providing the source of renewable energy to the system as set out in claim 1.”
Regarding claim 11, Younes teaches that the carbon-dioxide fluid 1010 comprises air (interpreted as atmospheric air) or emissions (interpreted as carbon dioxide containing exhaust gas). See Younes [0002].
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.
Claims 2 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younes et al., US 2022/0212141 A1 in view of Lee et al., US 2019/0323704 A1, and in further view of Kanamaru et al., US 2014/0013786 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Younes teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Younes differs from claims 2 and 12 because it is silent as to the full structure of the heat pump of the indirect steam generation capacity. See Younes [0050]. Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach that the electrical energy is converted to thermal energy and is provided to the energy storage unit via a heat transfer fluid (claim 2), or wherein the thermal storage medium comprises a heat transfer fluid (claim 11).
But Lee teaches a heat pump system for producing steam where energy is converted to thermal energy by heating a refrigerant in evaporator 114 in refrigerant cycle 110 (utilizing a compressor 111), with the thermal energy from the refrigerant being provided to a steam producing cycle 120 (an energy storage unit) by the refrigerant (a heat transfer fluid) at condenser 112. See Lee Fig. 1, [0026], [0031]–[0032]. While Lee is silent as to the refrigerant cycle 110 using electrical energy to add heat to the refrigerant, Kanamaru teaches a steam generation system comprising a compressor 4 that uses electric power. See Kanamaru Fig. 1, [0125]. It would have been obvious for the refrigerant cycle 110 to run on electricity because it is conventional for a heat pump to use electricity to produce heat. The heat pump system of Lee is beneficial because the refrigerant can be supercooled and the quality of the refrigerant can be minimized while temperatures at an inlet and air outlet of the compressor 111 can be elevated and condensed heat of the condenser can be increased. See Lee [0007]. It would have been obvious to use the heat pump system of Lee (as modified) as the indirect steam generation capacity (heat pump) of Younes to provide these benefits.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younes et al., US 2022/0212141 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Younes teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Younes differs from claim 5 because it is silent as to the pressure of the steam supplied to the conveyor belt 1300 (the “DAC unit”). Therefore, the reference fails to provide enough information to teach the supply of steam being a low pressure steam or a high pressure steam.
But Younes teaches that the pressure in the third zone 1001c (where the steam is supplied to the conveyor belt 1300) is result effective because decreasing the pressure allows for increased carbon dioxide desorption capacity. See Younes [0046]. It would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal pressure of the steam supplied to the conveyor belt 1300 to optimize desorption capacity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the steam being low pressure steam, because Younes teaches that the pressure in the third zone 1001c should be decreased to increase desorption capacity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Younes et al., US 2022/0212141 A1 in view of Wibberley, US 2010/0005966 A1 and in further view of El Safty, US 2015/0233248 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Younes teaches the limitations of claim 5, as explained above.
Younes differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to an electrical generator that is configured to receive a supply of high pressure steam from the “steam generator” of the indirect steam generation capacity.
But Wibberley teaches a CO2 capture system comprising a source of steam that is used to drive a turbine to generate electricity with the steam exhausted from the turbine being used for desorption. See Wibberley [0067]. The configuration of Wibberley is beneficial because the steam can be utilized more effectively by producing electricity and for desorption, as opposed to desorption alone. Also, El Safty teaches a turbine assembly that uses relatively high pressure steam to generate electricity where the steam can be produced using various sources, including an electric boiler. See El Safty [0002], [0032], [0038]. The turbine of El Safty is beneficial because it has relatively low noise and maintenance requirements. Id. at [0009].
It would have been obvious to use the steam generated by the indirect steam generation capacity of Younes to drive a turbine to generate electricity with the steam then being used for desorption to improve utilization of the steam (to produce electricity instead of merely being used for desorption). It would have been obvious for the turbine to be the steam turbine of El Safty to utilize a turbine with relatively low noise and maintenance requirements. With this modification, the steam produced by the indirect steam generation capacity would be “high pressure steam,” as claimed, because El Safty uses steam that is at a high pressure (relative to the low pressure side of the turbine) to generate electricity. See El Safty [0032]. Note that the claim fails to provide a specific numerical value for the pressure considered to be “high pressure.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 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.
Claim 13 is allowable over Younes because the reference fails to teach that the “energy storage unit” comprises an electrode layer comprising a powder bed of a semiconductor material having an electrical resistivity of in the range of 500 to 50,000 ohm-meters. Instead, Younes teaches that the “energy storage unit” comprises the batteries and the indirect steam generation capacity.
Claim 14 is allowable over Younes because it depends from claim 13.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments.
Double Patenting
The Examiner withdraws the previous double patenting rejections because the Terminal Disclaimer filed September 02, 2026 is accepted.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant argues that Younes fails to teach an energy storage unit for receiving, storing, and discharging “continuously” energy provided by the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines. See Applicant Rem. filed September 02, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) 7. Instead, it is argued that the renewable energy sources are intermittent, and will only operate when a source of renewable energy is available. Id.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Younes teaches that the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines can be coupled to batteries, which would enable continuous receiving, storing, and discharging energy. See Younes [0051].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
