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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be an extra space and comma after device. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation valve device, and the claim also recites “for example a butterfly valve such as a damper butterfly valve” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-19 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima (US20140086799A1).
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of US580 (US20160250580A1).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Shah (US20070232706).
Rejection in view of Iijima
Claim 13: Iijima teaches a process for treating a flue gas produced in at least one upstream unit operating at a nominal operating pressure (Abstract teaches a system for collecting flue gas and removing CO2 from it. Figures 1-9 also show this.), the process comprising: - treating, via at least one downstream treatment unit, all or virtually all of the stream of flue gas originating from the upstream unit or upstream units, thereby producing, from said flue gas, a gaseous or liquid stream rich in carbon dioxide which contains more than 50 mol% of carbon dioxide (Figure 9 shows the CO2 collecting system 1000 which results in a CO2 gas 1018.), - enabling the stream of flue gas to communicate, between the upstream unit and the downstream unit, via an outlet line, with a stack opening to the atmosphere, and this outlet line is left open or partially open in nominal operation thereby equilibrating the pressure in the stream of flue gas to atmospheric pressure (See stack 13 and 1001b. [0041] teaches the flue gas is connected to the outside air. [0049] teaches that the stack 13 is open to the atmosphere. This would read upon the limitation.).
If Iijima does not explicitly teach thereby producing, from said flue gas, a gaseous or liquid stream rich in carbon dioxide which contains more than 50 mol% of carbon dioxide, Iijima teaches in figure 9 a pure CO2 gas line leaving the separation drum 1017. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention that this would only contain more than 50%mol of CO2 as water is being removed by the condenser and separation drum.
Iijima does not explicitly state the flue gas containing from 5 mol% to 90 mol% of carbon dioxide on a wet basis and being at a pressure between 0.5 and 2 bar absolute. Iijima teaches in [0003] that this flue gas can come from different industrial facilities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a specific mol% of CO2 in a flue gas and a pressure between 0.5-2bar absolute depending on what process the flue gas is being taken from.
Claim 14: Iijima teaches - detecting at least one item of information for predicting the variation of a flow rate of flue gas leaving the upstream unit, the predictive information item being different from a measurement of pressure, flow rate or overall composition of the flue gases, - regulating the flow rate of flue gas between the upstream unit and the downstream treatment unit as a function of the predictive information item using a valve device for the passage of the flue gas and/or a pressure increase device positioned between the upstream unit and the downstream unit or within the downstream unit (Figure 3C and [0053]-[0054] teaches there are gas temperature sensors that control how much flue gas is drawn by the blower. This would read upon the claims with the flow adjusting damper and blower. Figure 5B and [0063]-[0064] teaches O2 sensors that also control the drawing amount of the flue gas by the blower and flow adjusting damper.).
Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that applicant’s specification page 3 lines 15-17 indicate that only measuring the concentration of O2 in the flue gas does not mean that it is measuring the overall composition. Examiner notes that this is broad enough where it can apply to measuring any kind of concentration as long as the entirety of the flue gas makeup is not measured.
Claim 15: Iijima teaches a valve device is positioned in the stack, the valve device being configured to be open or partially open and the valve device comprises a valve (Damper in 1001b of figure 9.)
Claim 16: Iijima teaches the valve device is arranged to have an opening between 5% and 100% of the maximum opening permitted by the valve device (The valve being able to be closed and opened would be 0-100% of the opening permitted and would therefore read upon the claim.).
Claim 17: Iijima teaches a pressure increase device, configured to increase the pressure of the gaseous stream of flue gas, is provided, the pressure increase device comprising a compressor or a blower (Blower 14).
Claim 18: Iijima teaches - measuring at least one flow rate of gas entering the upstream unit, wherein the at least one flow rate of gas comprises the flow rate of the various gases entering the upstream unit which represent at least 80% of all of the gases entering the upstream unit, the measured flow rates forming part of an item of information for predicting the variation of a flow rate of flue gas leaving the upstream unit (The system can operate between an on and off mode. This can be read upon by the work of the system in response to any gas coming into the industrial facility, in which case the system would be on and working or when there is no gas coming in which would be when the system is off. In this case having any kind of gas flow into the industrial facility would in turn cause flue gas to be produced or when no gas is entering and there is no flue gas leaving and therefore can read upon predicting variation of flow rate.), - regulating the flow rate of flue gas between the upstream unit and the downstream unit as a function of the predictive information item which is the measured flow rate(s) by increasing the flow rate of flue gas leaving the upstream unit by sucking up more flue gas, by increasing the flow area of a valve device and/or by increasing the rotational speed of the compressor or of the blower and/or by modifying the position of a variable vane of the compressor or of the blower (The blower is taught to suck up more flue gas and the flow adjusting damper would control the flow area of the valve device.).
Claim 19: Iijima teaches - measuring one or more oxygen concentrations in the flow of flue gas, (Figure 5B shows the O2 sensors) and/or - measuring one or more temperatures of the air in the stack or originating from the stack (Figure 3A and 3B show gas temperature sensors in the stack and after the stack.), - determining, from the measurements, if air originating from the atmosphere is adding to the flow of flue gas, or if flue gas is escaping into the atmosphere through the stack, regulating the flow rate of flue gas to prevent the addition of air to the flow of flue gas or to prevent flue gas from escaping into the atmosphere ([0012] teaches that the damper can be opened and closed inside the stack depending on the operating of the CO2 collecting device. [0049] teaches that the atmosphere from outside can flow in and it would regulate the blower depending on the temperature.).
Claim 23: Iijima teaches the downstream unit comprises one or more amine scrubbing units (Figure 9 and [0008] teaches that the CO2 absorbing solvent is amine based.).
Claim 24: Iijima teaches the upstream units and downstream units are connected to a same flue gas network (The upstream and downstream units are connected to each other via the flue gas line.).
Rejection in view of Iijima and US580
Claim 20: Iijima does not explicitly teach a failure mode or a disturbance or an alarm of the upstream device is taken into account in order to regulate the flow rate of flue gas arriving in the downstream treatment unit, an item of information for predicting the variation of a flow rate of flue gas leaving the upstream unit then being the detection of this failure mode or this disturbance or this alarm. US580 teaches in [0001]-[0002] that PSA units are known to be used in separation/purification of feed gas, especially in fields of producing CO2 or separating constituents of air. It also teaches in [0107] that the parameters and coefficients are provided in order to remain within defined ranges with various alarms and safety measures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a PSA with an alarm for the parameters as taught by US580, as US580 teaches the PSAs are known to be used for separation and purification of feed gas in fields of producing CO2 and that alarms and safety measures for the PSA would enable it to work properly.
Claim 21: Iijima does not explicitly teach the upstream treatment unit comprises a pressure swing adsorption (PSA) device, and a failure mode or a disturbance or an alarm of this PSA device is taken into account in order to regulate the flow rate of flue gas arriving in the downstream treatment unit, an item of information for predicting the variation of a flow rate of flue gas leaving the upstream unit then being the detection of this failure mode or this disturbance or this alarm. Iijima teaches that it is an industrial facility that produces flue gas. US580 teaches in [0001]-[0002] that PSA units are known to be used in separation/purification of feed gas, especially in fields of producing CO2 or separating constituents of air. It also teaches in [0107] that the parameters and coefficients are provided in order to remain within defined ranges with various alarms and safety measures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a PSA with an alarm for the parameters as taught by US580, as US580 teaches the PSAs are known to be used for separation and purification of feed gas in fields of producing CO2 and that alarms and safety measures for the PSA would enable it to work properly.
Rejection in view of Iijima and Shah
Claim 22: Iijima does not explicitly teach the upstream unit or at least one of the upstream units is a steam methane reforming unit. Iijima teaches that it is an industrial facility that produces flue gas. Shah teaches in [0006] that gas generated from steam methane reformer has a CO2 content that is necessary to be separated for downstream processing of the synthesis gas. It would have been obvious to have a SMR as the upstream unit of Iijima as Shah teaches that SMR produces a gas that needs the separation of CO2 and Iijima teaches a process that removes CO2 from produced gases.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 08/06/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights