DETAILED ACTION
The present application is a 371 national stage entry of PCT/US2022/051623.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed June 3, 2024, has been fully considered.
Claims 3, 13-14, 16, and 25-26 have been cancelled by the Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “providing a single stage absorption column” in line 3.
Claim 1 recites “flowing flue gas through the single stage absorption” in line 7.
The Examiner recommends the following amendment to Claim 1:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for the simultaneous capture of CO2, NOX and SOX from flue gas to generate a clean gas, the method comprising:
providing a single stage absorption column;
flowing a scrubbing solution through the single stage absorption column from a scrubbing solution inlet to a scrubbing solution outlet, wherein the scrubbing solution comprises sodium carbonate and at least one oxidizer; and
flowing flue gas through the single stage absorption column from a flue gas inlet to a flue gas outlet;
wherein the scrubbing solution is capable of removing CO2, NOX and SOX from the flue gas, such that the scrubbing solution has an absorbance of CO2 of at least 95%, NO of at least 25%, and SO2 of at least 90%.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error. Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the single stage absorption column further comprising a packing material” in lines 1-2. Appropriate correction is required.
The Examiner recommends the following amendment to Claim 21:
21. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the single stage absorption column further comprises a packing material.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the sodium carbonate solution" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner recommends the following amendment to Claim 10:
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the scrubbing solution comprises a sodium carbonate solution having a concentration between about 0.1 mol/L and about 0.4 mol/L.
Claim 24 is 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 24 recites the limitation “wherein the scrubbing solution is essentially devoid of a rate-enhancing agent” in lines 1-3. The term “essentially” in Claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear to what extent a rate-enhancing agent may be present within the scrubbing solution and still meet the claimed invention. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-2, 4-12, 15, 17-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeker et al. (US 2015/0037231).
Claim 1. Seeker discloses A method for the simultaneous capture of CO2, NOX and SOX from flue gas (waste gas stream) to generate a clean gas (processed waste gas stream) ([0006] “…the contacting and processing are carried out simultaneously”; [0084] “the invention provides a method of treating a waste gas stream comprising CO2 and SOX, NOX, and/or Hg in a processer to produce a processed waste gas stream (e.g., a clean gas stream suitable for release into the environment…)”; [0119]; [0161]), the method comprising:
providing a single stage absorption column ([0011] “the processor comprises a gas-liquid contactor, a gas-liquid-solid contactor, a reactor, a settling tank, or a combination thereof”; [0129]; [0161] “nearly 100% of the NOx, SOx, and/or CO2 contained in a flue gas from a power plant is sequestered in a stable mineral; this may be done in a single precipitation step (e.g., in a single processor)”);
flowing a scrubbing solution (aqueous solution) through the single stage absorption column (processor) from a scrubbing solution inlet to a scrubbing solution outlet, wherein the scrubbing solution comprises sodium carbonate (proton-removing agent (e.g., sodium carbonate)) and at least one oxidizer (oxidant (e.g., e.g., hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or a H2O2/CH3OH mixture)) ([0019] “the proton-removing agent is added to the aqueous solution for processing the industrial waste gas stream”; [0064]; [0100] “Aqueous absorption of NOX may be enhanced by forced oxidation of NO to NO2, which NO2 is more soluble in solutions of the invention, which include solutions comprising proton-removing agents, divalent cations, or both proton-removing agent and divalent cations.”; [0105]; [0109]; [0129]; [0161]; [0166] “oxidation of components in the waste gas stream comprises subjecting the waste gas stream to hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or a H2O2/CH3OH mixture”); and
flowing flue gas through the single stage absorption column from a flue gas inlet to a flue gas outlet (See claim objection; Figs. 1A; 2A; [0011] “the processor comprises a gas-liquid contactor, a gas-liquid-solid contactor, a reactor, a settling tank, or a combination thereof”; [0020]; [0050]; [0084]; [0122]; [0129]; [0259]; [0261]);
wherein the scrubbing solution is capable of removing CO2, NOX and SOX from the flue gas, such that the scrubbing solution has an absorbance of CO2 of at least 95%, NO of at least 25%, and SO2 of at least 90% ([0021] “the invention provides a process for treating a waste gas stream comprising carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides, comprising removing at least 50% of the carbon dioxide and at least 50% of the sulfur oxides from the waste gas stream by precipitating in a single step”; [0161] “nearly 100% of the NOx, SOx, and/or CO2 contained in a flue gas from a power plant is sequestered in a stable mineral; this may be done in a single precipitation step (e.g., in a single processor)”).
Seeker discloses a method for removing carbon dioxide and additional components (SOX; NOX; a metal; a non-carbon dioxide acid gas; an organic; and particulate matter) from waste gas streams (e.g., flue gas), the method comprising: contacting the waste gas stream with an aqueous solution under conditions adapted to cause at least some of the carbon dioxide and the additional components to exit the waste gas stream and enter the aqueous solution ([0006]; [0129]). Seeker discloses that this multi-pollutant removal process may be accomplished via countercurrent means (e.g., contact between oppositely flowing gaseous and liquid phase streams), wherein contact may be accomplished through the use of packed column reactors ([0129]; [0253]). The Examiner finds that the counter-current single step packed column reactor (processor comprising a gas-liquid contactor/absorber) reads on the claimed single stage absorption column (See Applicant’s Specification, filed 06/03/2024: p. 15, lines 22-24; Claim 9).
Claim 2. Seeker discloses A scrubber system (system 200) for the simultaneous capture of CO2, NOX and SOX from flue gas (waste gas stream 230) to generate a clean gas (processed waste gas stream) ([0006]; [0084]), the scrubber system (200) comprising:
a single stage absorption column (processor 210 and liquid-solid separator 222) having a scrubbing solution inlet (proton-removing agents 240 to processor 210; divalent cations 240 to processor 210), a flue gas inlet (waste gas stream 230 to processor 210), a scrubbing solution outlet (processor 210 to liquid-solid separator 222 to wet cake stream) and a flue gas outlet (processor 210 to liquid-solid separator 222 to supernatant stream) (Figs. 1A; 2A; [0011] “the processor comprises a gas-liquid contactor, a gas-liquid-solid contactor, a reactor, a settling tank, or a combination thereof”; [0129]; [0161]);
a scrubbing solution (aqueous solution) flowing through the single stage absorption column (210) from the scrubbing solution inlet to the scrubbing solution outlet, wherein the scrubbing solution comprises sodium carbonate (proton-removing agent (e.g., sodium carbonate)) and at least one oxidizer (oxidant (e.g., hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or a H2O2/CH3OH mixture)) ([0019]; [0105]; [0109]; [0129]; [0161]; [0166]); and
a flue gas (waste gas stream) flowing through the single stage absorption column (210, 222) from the flue gas inlet to the flue gas outlet (Figs. 1A; 2A; [0011] “the processor comprises a gas-liquid contactor, a gas-liquid-solid contactor, a reactor, a settling tank, or a combination thereof”; [0020]; [0050]; [0084]; [0122]; [0129]; [0259]; [0261]);
wherein the scrubbing solution (aqueous solution) is capable of removing CO2, NOX and SOX from the flue gas as the flue gas flows from the flue gas inlet to the flue gas outlet, such that the flue gas located proximate the flue gas outlet has at least 95% CO2, at least 25% NO, and at least 90% SO2 simultaneously removed by the scrubbing solution ([0021]; [0161]).
Claims 4-8. Seeker discloses removing at least 50% of the carbon dioxide and at least 50% of the additional oxides from the waste gas stream ([0021]); and that nearly 100% of the NOx, SOx, and/or CO2 contained in the flue gas is sequestered ([0161]).
Claim 9. Seeker discloses that the multi-pollutants removal process may be accomplished via countercurrent means (e.g., contact between oppositely flowing gaseous and liquid phase streams) ([0129]; [0174]); and the pH of the aqueous solution may be raised to alkaline levels in order to drive the precipitation of carbonate and/or sulfur-based (e.g., SO4, SO3, etc.) compounds as well as other compounds (e.g., hydroxide compounds and metal complexes) and particulate matter as desired ([0131]; [0253]).
Claim 10. Seeker discloses that the aqueous solution may be charged with a proton-removing agent, such as sodium carbonate ([0105]; [0131]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration range of the proton-removing agent in the aqueous solution in Seeker to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 11-12. Seeker discloses that oxidation of components in the waste gas stream comprises subjecting the waste gas stream to oxidants, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or a H2O2/CH3OH mixture ([0100]; [0166]).
Claim 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concentration range of the oxidant(s) (hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or a H2O2/CH3OH mixture) in Seeker to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 17. Seeker discloses that the pH of the aqueous solution may range from pH 5 to pH 14 but may be raised to alkaline levels, such as a pH 9 or higher in order to drive the precipitation of carbonate and/or sulfur-based (e.g., SO4, SO3, etc.) compounds as well as other compounds (e.g., hydroxide compounds and metal complexes) and particulate matter as desired ([0131]).
Claim 18. Seeker discloses that the temperature of the flue gas may vary (e.g., from 0°C. to 2000°C) ([0119]) and that the precipitation conditions occur at a temperature of 25 to 45°C ([0130]). Where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Claim 19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ratio of aqueous solution to waste gas stream in Seeker to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the flow rate of the aqueous solution in Seeker to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 24. Seeker discloses that carbonic anhydrase may be used as an enzyme to enhance dissolution of CO2 and accelerate precipitation of precipitation material; however, Seeker does not require this chemical agent.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeker et al. (US 2015/0037231) in view of Cooper (US 4,425,313).
Claim 21. Seeker does not disclose wherein the single stage absorption column further discloses a packing material. However, Cooper teaches a process for treating gas mixtures including carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the method comprising treating the gas mixture with an aqueous media including alkali metal carbonate, alkali metal bicarbonate and a peroxygen compound (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 50-64); wherein the absorption column / tower may include Pall-type rings as packing material (Example I; Example IV). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the packed column(s) in Seeker with a packing material, as taught by Cooper, in order to help improve mass transfer, increase separation efficiency, and reduce pressure drop inside packed columns with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 22. Cooper teaches wherein the absorption column / tower may include Pall-type rings as packing material (Example I; Example IV).
Claim 23. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the packed column(s) in Seeker with a Pall-type ring, as taught by Cooper, of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice with a reasonable expectation of success. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (See Ge et al. (US 2014/0113346): [0194] “For example, packed column can be metal (intalox metal) such as a Raschig ring (raschig ring), Bell (berl saddle), the filler of matrix (intalox saddle), Bauer (pall DT-ring) and the like. the filling material can be such as nylon, polystyrene, polymers such as polyethylene, ceramic such as silicon dioxide or a metal such as aluminum.”; See also Saunders et al. (US 2011/0174156): [0035] “For example filling column by column filler such as Raschig ring (raschig ring), lessing ring, saddle filler, intalox metal metal (intalox metal), Berl filler, pall ring (pall ring) and Taylor filler (tellerette). the fillings can be made of polymers such as nylon, polystyrene or polyethylene, ceramic such as silicon dioxide, or a metal such as aluminium or stainless steel.”; See also Liu et al. (CN 111228990 A): “filler in the invention can adopt current technology involved in filler such as Raschig ring filler, pall ring filler in the bulk filler, stair ring packing, saddle-shaped filler, intalox saddle-shaped filler and so on, … the filler material preferably adopts material of oxidation resistance, acid and alkali resistance, such as ceramic, stainless steel, PE, PP, PVC plastic, stainless steel and so on.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhou et al. (US 2010/0135881) discloses a process of simultaneously reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur oxide (SOX) emissions from flue gases, said method comprising the steps of: a) sending said flue gas to an absorber unit to be contacted with a potassium carbonate solution to remove CO2 and SOX; b) sending said rich stream to a stripper to remove said CO2.
Cooper et al. (US 7,842,264) discloses a process for capturing and removing carbon dioxide gas, heavy metals, particulates, oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, or a mixture thereof, from a combustion gas mixture stream.
Cui (CN 110496517 A) discloses removing carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitric oxide in flue gas using an absorption method that includes contacting the flue gas with a sodium carbonate solution as an absorbent and sodium sulfite as an oxidizing agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights