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
Claims 9 and 10 are rejoined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–3, 5–9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A system for continuous capture of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream, the system comprising:
an energy storage unit for receiving, storing and discharging energy provided by a renewable source of energy continuously; and
a direct air capture (DAC) unit;
wherein the energy provided by the renewable source of energy is in the form of electrical energy; wherein the electrical energy is converted to thermal energy and is stored in the energy storage unit; and
a steam generator, wherein the steam generator is configured to provide a supply of steam to the DAC unit, and wherein the steam generator receives energy from the energy storage unit;
wherein the steam generator is comprised within the energy storage unit; and
wherein the source of renewable energy is selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the source of renewable energy” is intended to be a positively recited element of the claimed system. This is because the “source of renewable energy” is initially introduced as a non-positively recited element as the energy storage unit receives, stores and discharges energy “provided by a renewable source of energy.” But the claim then describes the “source of renewable energy” as a positive element of the system by saying “the source of renewable energy is selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind.” See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positive recited elements).
The claim is also indefinite because it is unclear whether the “energy” that the steam generator “receives” from the energy storage unit is the “thermal energy” that is stored in the energy storage unit, or some other form of energy.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus (the “system”) and method steps of using the apparatus (in the limitations describing the energy is “provided by” and “is converted,” and where the steam generator “receives energy”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a system is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps actually be performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite).
To overcome these rejections, claim 1 could be amended to read:
1. A system for continuous capture of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream, the system comprising:
a renewable source of energy;
an energy storage unit for receiving, storing and discharging energy provided by [[a]] the renewable source of energy continuously; and
a direct air capture (DAC) unit;
wherein the renewable source of energy is configured to provide the system is configured to convert the electrical energy store the thermal energy in the energy storage unit; and
a steam generator, wherein the steam generator is configured to provide a supply of steam to the DAC unit, and wherein the steam generator is configured to receive the thermal energy stored in the energy storage unit;
wherein the steam generator is comprised within the energy storage unit; and
wherein the source of renewable energy is selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind.
Claims 2–3, 5–9 and 11 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 2 recites:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the thermal energy is provided to the energy storage unit via a heat transfer fluid. Emphasis added.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is a single claim a single claim which claims both an apparatus (the “system”) and method steps of using the apparatus (in the limitations describing the thermal energy “is provided”). See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 2 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the “heat transfer fluid” is a positively or non-positively recited structural element of the claimed “system.”
To overcome these rejections, claim 2 could be amended to read:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the system comprises a heat transfer fluid and wherein the system is configured to provide the thermal energy the heat transfer fluid.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the steam generator is further configured to provide a supply of steam, suitably low pressure and/or high pressure steam. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a supply of steam” refers to the “supply of steam to the DAC unit” of claim 1.
Claim 5 is also indefinite because “suitably” is exemplary claim language that leads to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites:
9. A process for continuous direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream, wherein the process comprises providing a source of renewable energy to a system as set out in claim 1; and
wherein the source of renewable energy is selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind. Emphasis added.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a source of renewable energy” is the same as the “source of renewable energy” of claim 1. The claim is also indefinite because claim 1 specifies that the source of renewable energy is selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind, and it is unclear how the claim 9 limitation of “the source of renewable energy is selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind” further modifies the claim. To overcome this rejection, claim 9 could be amended to read:
9. A process for continuous direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream, wherein the process comprises providing [[a]] the source of renewable energy to [[a]] the system as set out in claim 1
Claim 11 is indefinite because it depends from claim 9.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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, 5, 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 an indirect steam generation capacity (e.g., an electric resistance or heat pump) that uses electricity from photovoltaic panels or wind turbines to produce steam. See Younes Fig. 1A, [0050]. The indirect steam generation capacity reads on the “energy storage unit for receiving, storing and discharging energy provided by a renewable source of energy continuously.”
The apparatus 1000a also comprises 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.”
The energy provided by the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines (the “renewable source of energy”) is in the form of electrical energy, as claimed. See Younes [0050]–[0051]. The electrical energy is converted to thermal energy in the indirect steam generation capacity and stored (at least temporarily) in the resistance element of the electric resistance heater or in the refrigerant of the heat pump. Id. at [0050].
The portion of the indirect steam generation capacity where the steam is created reads on the “steam generator.” See Younes [0050]. The “steam generator” is configured to provide condensable gas 1030 including steam (a “supply of steam”) to the conveyor belt 1300, as claimed, to heat the carbon dioxide sorbent to facilitate desorption of carbon dioxide from the sorbent. Id. The “steam generator” receives energy from the indirect steam generation capacity and the “steam generator” is “comprised within” the steam generation capacity, 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. Id.
The source of renewable energy is selected from photovoltaic panels (“solar photovoltaic”) and/or wind, as claimed. See Younes [0050].
PNG
media_image1.png
851
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Younes teaches that the “steam generator” is configured to provide the condensable gas 1030 that includes steam (a “supply of steam”), as claimed. See Younes [0050].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Younes teaches that the apparatus comprises batteries that store electricity generated by the photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, with the reference being interpreted such that the batteries can be used to supply power to the indirect steam generation capacity. See Younes [0051], [0050]. The batteries read on the “electrical storage unit…in electrical connection with the steam generator.” Note that the batteries are also in electrical connection with the “DAC unit” because they can be used to run an electric heater 1500 used to heat the carbon dioxide sorbent. See Younes [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 a source of renewable energy to a system as set out in claim 1; and wherein the source of renewable energy is selected from photovoltaic and/or wind.”
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 3 are 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 claim 2, Younes teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Younes differs from claim 2 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, as claimed.
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.
Regarding claim 3, Younes as modified teaches that the steam producing cycle 120 (the “energy storage unit”) comprises water that is heated. See Younes Fig. 1, [0030]. The water reads on the “thermal storage medium.”
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.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/697,822 in view of Younes et al., US 2022/0212141 A1.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 7 of the ’822 application teaches a system for continuous capture of carbon from a gaseous feed stream (claim 1 of the ’822 application), which reads on the claimed “system for continuous capture of carbon dioxide from a gaseous feedstream.” The system comprises:
An energy storage unit for receiving, storing and continuously discharging energy where the energy storage unit receives a first supply of energy from an intermittent renewable source of energy (claim 1 of the ’822 application), which reads on the claimed “energy storage unit for receiving, storing and discharging energy provided by a renewable source of energy continuously”;
A DAC unit (claim 1 of the ’822 application), which reads on the claimed “direct air capture (DAC) unit”;
The energy from the renewable source of energy is interpreted as being electrical energy because claim 7 of the ’822 application says that the electrical energy is converted to thermal energy prior to storage within the energy storage unit, with claim 1 say that the energy storage unit receives a first supply of energy from the renewable energy source. This reads on “the energy provided by the renewable source of energy is in the form of electrical energy; wherein the electrical energy is converted to thermal energy and is stored in the energy storage unit”;
A steam generator configured to provide a supply of steam to the DAC unit, wherein the steam generator receives energy from the energy storage unit (claim 1 of the ’822 application), which reads on “a steam generator, wherein the steam generator is configured to provide a supply of steam to the DAC unit, and wherein the steam generator receives energy from the energy storage unit”; and
The steam generator is comprised within the energy storage unit (claim 1 of the ’822 application), which reads on “the steam generator is within the energy storage unit.”
Claim 7 of the ’822 application differs from instant claim 1 because it is silent as to the intermittent renewable source of energy being selected from solar photovoltaic and/or wind, as claimed.
But Younes teaches a carbon dioxide capture device that uses a renewable source of energy, such as wind or photovoltaic panels, to generate steam supplied to a CO2 sorbent. See Younes [0050]. It would have been obvious for the renewable source of energy in claim 7 of the ’822 application to be solar photovoltaic and/or wind because this would merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, subsection I, B.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pilebro et al., US 2015/0292810 A1 (thermal energy storage system); Meirav et al., US 2014/0020559 A1 (system and methods for regenerating indoor air scrubbing); Muthuramalingam et al., US 2011/0277981 A1 (gas treatment and solar thermal collection system).
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
Prosecution Insights