DETAILED ACTION
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 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yo JP2006096572 (English translation attached) in view of Magi US Patent 4,323,090.
Regarding claim 10, Yo teaches a CO2 recovery device comprising (Figure 1 and Figure 2):
a) A reaction tank 1 (Figure 1 and details in Figure 2) comprising absorption bottle 6 wherein a mixed gas comprising CO2 gas is injected into the bottle 6 and contacts with a solution comprising an aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution of either potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide (page 3, second paragraph and page 4, 6th paragraph);
b) A CO2 gas supply unit through line 11 (Figure 1 and the line labeled CO2 in Figure 2) that supplies the CO2 gas into the reaction tank; and
c) A CO2-removed gas discharge unit (output going right from bottle 6 showing the exhaust exit) that discharges CO2-removed gas; wherein
d) CO2 has been removed, from the reaction tank from the reaction on page 7. CO2 is consumed and producing ZnCO3, thus CO2 is removed.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (opening portion)][AltContent: textbox (main body (the bubble))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (discharge unit and second opening)][AltContent: textbox (supply unit and first opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
508
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yo does not explicitly teach the CO2 gas supply unit and the CO2-removed gas discharge unit are attachable and detachable to the reaction tank.
However, Magi teaches a reactor bottle 46 containing a solution with injection tubing 44 and output tubing 52 for gases. The tubes are coupled to a connector assembly 48 with mechanical fitting that allows attaching and detaching (column 3 lines 20-27, lines 60-65 and column 4 lines 46-62).
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the supply unit and discharge units with fitting assemblies to make them attachable and detachable to the reactor (bottles) because making components separable is within ordinary skill in the art as evidenced in Magi. See MPEP2144.04 (C) and In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). It would have been obvious to make the units detachable and attachable with respect to the reactor thereby allowing easy removal of the carbonate precipitate, replenish absorption solution, cleaning and replacement.
Regarding claim 11, the reaction tank has a first opening portion at the top of the bottle to allow the CO2 input and a second opening portion on the right side in Figure 2. The combination of Yo and Magi above suggest that one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the supply unit and discharge units with fitting assemblies to make them attachable and detachable to the reactor (bottles). It would further be obvious to make the fittings attachable to their respective input/output ports.
Regarding claim 12, Yo teaches the reactor tank comprises bottles 6 and 5, and Magi teaches detachable connector assemblies. Thus, the combination teaches that the reactor can be replaceable with respect to the fittings.
Regarding claim 13, Yo teaches a main body (see Examiner’s markup of Figure 2 showing the main body is considered the bubble topper), where the supply and discharge unit are connected. The combination of Yo and Magi above teach detachable connector assemblies. Thus, the combination teaches that the reactor can be replaceable with respect to the fittings.
Regarding claim 14, the reactor 6 comprises an opening portion at the top (see Examiner’s markup of Figure 2 showing the opening portion). The supply and discharge units are attached to the main body that covers the opening portion of the reactor bottle 6.
Yo does not explicitly teach the CO2 gas supply unit and the CO2-removed gas discharge unit are configured to be inserted into the reaction tank from the opening portion, and the main body has a lid portion that covers the opening portion of the reaction tank, and the CO2 gas supply unit and the CO2-removed gas discharge unit are attached to the lid portion.
However, Magi teaches a removable bottle 46 having a neck opening into which a gas delivery tube 152 and a gas discharge passage comprising projection 160 and opening 162 are inserted. The connector assembly 48 includes a sealing member 138 (lid portion) that covers the bottle opening and supports both the gas delivery tube and discharge tubes. The CO2 gas supply unit and the CO2-removed gas discharge unit are attached to the lid portion (sealing member).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the reactor of Yo with the supply and discharge fittings in Magi because the combination would provide a stable supply and discharge, safety coverings, and detachable components.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yo JP2006096572 (English translation attached) in view of Magi US Patent 4,323,090 and in further view of Springer US Publication 2011/0121020.
Regarding claim 15, Magi in Figure 2 teaches a valve 42 on the carbon dioxide (supply) side. Magi does not explicitly teach a distal end side of the CO2 gas supply unit is provided with an opening/closing mechanism that covers the distal end side of the CO2 gas supply unit so as to be in a closed state when the CO2 gas supply unit is detached from the reaction tank, and that opens the distal end side of the CO2 gas supply unit so as to be in an open state when the CO2 gas supply unit is attached to the reaction tank.
However, Springer teaches a supply nozzle 212 (Figure 2B and 2C) having distal apertures 214. Platform 216 covers the apertures when container 202 is detached. When the container is attached, its bottom 208 displaces the platform and exposes the apertures ([0065]-[0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the supply nozzle with the opening/closing platform of Springer to prevent leakage when the reaction tank is detached.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yo JP2006096572 (English translation attached) in view of Magi US Patent 4,323,090 and in further view of Brownell US Patent 5,427,086.
Regarding claim 16, Yo teaches a flow rate thus teaches a pump for the CO2. However, Yo and Magi do not teach a thermoelectric element that is provided in a duct through which the CO2 gas flows, and that converts heat of the CO2 gas into electric power; and Preliminary Amendment a control unit that controls driving of the pump by the electric power generated by the thermoelectric element.
Brownell teaches combustion gas passing through a thermoelectric generator 40. Controller 70 supplied the generated electricity to blower motor 20 and pump 62 (Figures 1 and 2 column 3 lines 1-10, and lines 55-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the thermoelectrically generated power from Brownell to operate and control the gas pump in the system of Yo and Magi, thereby recovering the exhaust gas to use as a source of pump power. The modification would provide renewable means for the exhaust, instead of wasting/polluting it, and thereby reducing the device’s external power requirements.
Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yo JP2006096572 (English translation attached) in view of Magi US Patent 4,323,090 and in further view of Fang et al. US 7,955,490.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the aforementioned do not teach an electrolysis device that performs electrolysis of a NaCl aqueous solution stored in the reaction tank to generate a NaOH aqueous solution as the aqueous alkali metal hydroxide solution in the reaction tank; and a solar power generating device that generates electric power from sunlight, and supplies the electric power to the electrolysis device and wherein the electrolysis device includes electrodes that are provided so as to be detachably attachable to the reaction tank.
However, Fang teaches a system for the producing of sodium hydroxide, hydrogen gas, and chlorine gas which comprises an electrolysis cell 2 that contains an anode 4 and cathode 3 wherein the provided electrical current is supplied by a solar panel 1 (Figure 1, column 2 lines 1-15 and lines 35-37).
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide the system of Fang to the reaction tank of Yo and Magi to generated the required NaOH absorbent from the aqueous NaCl in situ while providing an environmental process (through solar panels) of carbon capture. It would further be obvious to include detachable means to the electrodes so they may be replaced easily.
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
Prosecution Insights