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 § 112
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 1-6 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. In Line 10 of claim 1, it is unclear what percentage or composition would be classified as “high-purity hydrogen gas”.
In claim 3, in regards to “wherein the carbonation reactor uses a pressure in the steam methane reforming process”, it is unclear how one would use the pressure in a separate steam reforming process in the method.
As claims 2 and 4-6 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the indefiniteness, claims 2 and 4-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on claim 1. For the purposes, of examination, “high-purity hydrogen gas” is considered to be any hydrogen gas where impurities have been removed in the method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fry (US20140217017A1).
In regards to claim 1, Fry teaches obtaining a mixed gas containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide by performing a water gas shift reaction with a product obtained through a steam methane reforming process using natural gas and steam [0035-0036] by using aqueous sodium hydroxide in a thin film reactor to produce a high purity hydrogen and sodium bicarbonate product [0089-0091].
In regards to claim 3, Fry does not teach increasing or decreasing the pressure in the carbonation reactor. Therefore, there would not be a separate pressure increase and fulfills the claim limitation.
In regards to claim 6, Fry teaches that the CO2 is captured in order to be used in bioreactors [0089], which would indicate an amount of 0% being released into the atmosphere, fulfilling the claim limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fry (US20140217017A1).
In regards to claim 4, Fry does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the aqueous sodium hydroxide solution is controlled to be 10 weight % or less than 30 weight %. However, as both Fry and the instant application use the NaOH to capture CO2 and produce a sodium bicarbonate solution, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the proper concentration amount of sodium hydroxide in the process to maximize the amount of sodium bicarbonate produced for future processing, such as algae conversion [0089].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Fry (US20140217017A1) is considered to be the closest prior art to the claimed invention in the instant application.
In regards to claim 2. Fry does not teach or suggest using a pressure swing adsorption process, a thermal swing adsorption process, or a membrane separation method in order to obtain the hydrogen gas in the carbonation reactor.
In regards to claim 5, Fry does not teach or suggest that the method further comprises dehydrating the downstream sodium bicarbonate, separating into a powder and filtrate, and recycling the filtrate for use in the method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
