DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-22 and 25-27 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8, 13, 16, 17, and 20 are amended.
Claims 23 and 24 are canceled.
Claim 27 is new.
This Action is Made Final.
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 amendment contains changes that have not been marked up. Specifically, at least claim 16 is inconsistent. For example, original claim 16 states “a second inlet…” This limitation is not included in amended claim 16 and has not been indicated as removed. Further amended claim 16 states “an outlet…”. This limitation was not in original claim 16 and is not indicated as newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that 19/133,924 does not disclose the limitations newly added to claim 1. Thia argument is not persuasive because 19/133,924 discloses dosing an alkaline additive (see claims 10 and 11), a feedback loop (the copending application does not explicitly disclose a feedback loop, however this limitation is required only in the system claims and a feedback loop is a process limitation, as the controller of the copending application measures the data and has a modeling method (see claim 7) it is capable of a feedback loop), and inhibiting over-alkalization (pH is limited) (see claim 12).
The applicant argues that copending application 19/236,371 does not disclose the newly added limitations. This argument is not persuasive because the copending application claims that the method include steps to “change an amount of dosage” (see claim 11) and the second verification step is equivalent to the feedback loop (see claim 11).
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The application argues that Takahashi fails to tech controlling dosing of an alkaline additive material dynamically via a real-time feedback loop. This argument is not persuasive because this limitation was previously rejected in view of Takahashi and Regan (see Non-Final office action rejection of claim 22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the feedback loop of Regan to the controller of Takahashi in order to prevent under and over saturation (over alkalinization) (see Regan para. 0118).
The applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to “regulate continuous, metered additive stream…not simply specify bulk rock-grinding regimes…”. This argument is not persuasive because it is directed to limitations that have not been claimed (a continuous additive stream) and because the additional features disclosed by Takahashi are not excluded from the claims.
The applicant argues that the “explicit stated results of Takahashi is to accelerate weathering to increase pH and maximize alkalinity generation”. The applicant has not provided any support for this argument. Further Takahashi does not disclose “over-alkalinization” and does teach adjusting material inputs based on sudden chemistry updates (sensor data) (see pg. 64-65, Embodiment 4).
The applicant argues that Takahashi does not disclose real time feedback. This limitation is disclosed by Regan.
Regarding claims 16 and 23 the applicant argues that Takahashi does not disclose an unfilled region or placing a sensor in the unfilled region. The unfilled region is inherent in Takahashi because Takahashi teaches that the CO2 is present in a gas phase and aqueous phase (see Takahashi pg. 26 lines 4-5). As the gas is present both in the aqueous phase and as a gas phase (in the embodiments with a gas phase) there is intently an unfilled region. The applicant is correct that Takahashi does not explicitly teach a gas sensor in the unfilled region, however Takahashi teaches sensors for measuring the partial pressure of CO2 (a gas sensor) and does not limit the location of the sensor (see pg. 2 lines 23-27), therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the sensor in the unfiled region because it is a simple rearrangement of parts (changing the location of the sensor) without changing the function of the sensor (sensor is measuring the same value). The applicant argues that Takahashi teaches submerged sensors. This argument is not persuasive because Takahashi does not limit the location of the sensors and the applicant has not provided nay support for this argument.
The applicant argues that the combination of Takahashi and Regan does not teach the claimed invention. This argument is not persuasive because Regan renders obvious the feedback loop that is not disclosed by Takahashi.
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.
Claims 1-22 and 25-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/133,924 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1-22 and 25-27:
The claims of the copending application disclose the system for processing liquid to change an amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid, the system comprising: a container (receptacle) (see claim 1) including an inlet to receive liquid (through an inlet) (see claim 2) and an outlet to release the liquid (water is released therefore an outlet is inherent) (see claim 2), the container for holding the liquid; one or more sensors (collecting sensor date) coupled to the container to measure carbon content in the liquid that is held in the container (carbon concentration) (see claim 1); and a control system (monitoring system) including a processor for executing instructions to: receive outputs of the one or more sensors; and based on the outputs of the one or more sensors, control dosing of material into the container that reacts with carbon dioxide to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid such that an amount of the material introduced into the container changes over time responsive to changes in the carbon content being measured in the liquid (adding supplement) (see claim 10) (see claim 14).
The claims of the copending application further disclose or render obvious all other claimed limitations, such as an air inlet (dispensing gaseous carbon dioxide, therefore an air inlet is inherent) (see claim 13), a second sensor for alkalinity (see claim 7), and a partially submerged/floating housing (external water system) (see claims 2-4).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-8, 20-22, 25 and 26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/236,371 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1-8, 20-22, 25 and 26:
The claims of the copending application disclose the system for processing liquid to change an amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid, the system comprising: a container including an inlet to receive liquid and an outlet to release the liquid, the container for holding the liquid (see claim 11); one or more sensors (autonomous measuring system) (see claim 11) coupled to the container to measure carbon content in the liquid that is held in the container (); and a control system including a processor for executing instructions to (control system): receive outputs of the one or more sensors; and based on the outputs of the one or more sensors, control dosing of material into the container that reacts with carbon dioxide to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid such that an amount of the material introduced into the container changes over time responsive to changes in the carbon content being measured in the liquid (see claim 11).
The remaining limitations of claims 2-8, 20-23 and 26 are disclosed or made obvious in view of the claims of the copending application, specifically a second sensor for alkalinity (see claim 1).
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 16-26 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.
Regarding Claim 16:
The claim states “one or more sensors…the one or more sensors comprising a gas sensor…and one or more liquid sensors”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear it one or more sensors are being required or two or more sensors.
Regarding Claim 20:
The claim states “on or more sensors…the one or more sensor positioned in the unfilled region…the one or more sensors positioned in the filled region…” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear it one or more sensors are being required or two or more sensors.
The remaining claims are indefinite because they depend from indefinite claims.
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.
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) 1-15 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (WO 2023/034869) in view of Regan et al (US 2021/0129078).
Regarding Claim 1:
Takahashi teaches the system for processing liquid to change an amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid, the system comprising: a container (at least one container) including an inlet to receive liquid (influent is fed into the container therefore there is an inlet) (see pg. 1, Brief summary) and an outlet to release the liquid (see fig. 1, Annotated below), the container for holding the liquid; one or more sensors coupled to the container to measure carbon content in the liquid that is held in the container (sensor for dissolved CO2 concentration) (see pg.1, Brief summary); and a control system including a processor for executing instructions to (control system 6) (see pg. 61 lines 15-19): receive outputs of the one or more sensors; and based on the outputs of the one or more sensors, control dosing of an alkaline additive (additive feedstock application) material into the container that reacts with carbon dioxide to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid such that an amount of the material introduced into the container changes over time responsive to changes in the carbon content being measured in real time in the liquid to achieve a target chemical condition and inhibit over-alkalinization (see pg. 64-65, Embodiment 4, pg. 65-66, embodiment 5).
Takahashi does not teach controlling dosing of material into the container comprises: the control system including the processor for executing instructions to perform a feedback loop.
Regan teaches a method for processing liquid to change the amount of carbon dioxide comprising controlling dosing of material into a container comprising: a control system including a processor for executing instructions to perform a feedback loop (feedback to control system) (see para. 0118).
Takahashi and Regan are analogous invention in the art of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the feedback loop of Regan to the method of Takahashi because it can prevent undersaturation or oversaturation (see Regan para. 0118).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control introduction of the material into the container based on the material reacting with the carbon dioxide (see Takahashi pg. 70 lines 3-6)
Takahashi does not explicitly teach ending application of the material based on
the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid being below a threshold amount. Takahashi further teaches modifying parameters based on the amount of carbon dioxide being below a threshold amount (see Takahashi pg. 2 lines 10-14).
Regan further teaches ending introduction of material based on an amount of carbon dioxide being below a threshold amount (mixing is done according to target chemical concentrations) (see Regan para. 0118, 0123, 0132, 0134, 0135).
It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the control system of Takahashi to end introduction of the material, as disclosed by Regan because it can prevent undersaturation or oversaturation (see Regan para. 0118).
Regarding Claim 3:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the carbon content in the liquid is a first content, and the control system is configured to control dosing of the material into the container to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid to a second content lower than the first content, and wherein the control system monitors outputs of the one or more sensors during active introduction of the material into the container to determine when the second content is reached (see Takahashi pg. 2 lines 10-14).
Regarding Claim 4:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 3.
Takahashi does not explicitly teach ending application of the material based on
the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid being below a threshold amount. Takahashi further teaches modifying parameters based on the amount of carbon dioxide being removed (see Takahashi pg. 2 lines 10-14).
Regan further teaches ending introduction of material based on an amount of carbon dioxide removed (mixing is done according to target chemical concentrations) (see Regan para. 0118, 0123, 0132, 0134, 0135).
It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the control system of Takahashi to end introduction of the material, as disclosed by Regan because it can prevent undersaturation or oversaturation (see Regan para. 0118).
Regarding Claim 5:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the control system is further configured to determine an amount of carbon dioxide captured (decrease in CO2 concentration) and stored based on a comparison of the first content and the second content (see Takahashi pf. 2 lines 10-14).
Regarding Claim 6:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control opening of the outlet of the container to release the liquid based on the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid falling below a threshold amount (control gate valve) (see Takahashi pg. 61 lines 14-19).
Regarding Claim 7:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches system of claim 1, further comprising: an additive system (feedstock slurry tank) coupled to the container including a repository of the material to be added into the container (see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 8:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to determine the carbon content (see pg. 2, lines 1-14) in the liquid once the container is in a closed state (see pg. 2 lines 15-17), wherein the closed state prevents liquid and airflow into or out of the container.
Regarding Claim 9:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the container includes an air inlet (inlet suitable for at least one acidifying agent alternatively Takahashi teaches CO2 is provided form a gaseous CO2 source, therefor an inlet air is inherent ) (see pg. 2 lines 15-19, pf. 3 lines 19-24) to enable carbon dioxide to be input into the container to incorporate the carbon dioxide into the liquid within the container.
Regarding Claim 10:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the container includes an air inlet (there is aeration, therefore there is an air inlet) to enable direct air capture into the container to incorporate gas into the liquid within the container (see pg. 3, lines 16-17).
Regarding Claim 11:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor for measuring the carbon content in the liquid (dissolved CO2 concentration), and the system further comprises: a second sensor for measuring an alkalinity (alkalinity) of the liquid in the container; and based on the alkalinity of the liquid in the container, the control system controls the air inlet to enable the direct air capture into the container to incorporate additional carbon dioxide into the liquid within the container (see pg. 1, lines 25-27). There are means for controlling aeration including the partial pressure of CO2 (see pg. 3 lines 15-18), therefore Takahashi is capable of the claimed method limitations. The claim is directed to a system, therefore method limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same function.
Regarding Claim 12:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor for measuring the carbon content in the liquid (dissolved CO2 concentration) (see pg. 1 line 27), and the system further comprises: a second sensor for measuring an oxygen level of the liquid in the container (dissolved oxygen concentration) (see pg. 2 line 29); and based on the oxygen level of the liquid in the container, the control system controls the air inlet to enable the direct air capture into the container to incorporate additional oxygen into the liquid within the container. The claim is directed to a system, therefore method limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same function. As Takahashi teaches sensors for measuring the same values and a control system it would be capable of the same method steps.
Regarding Claim 13:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the material reacts with the carbon dioxide to dissolve and form bicarbonate products, and the control system is configured to control dosing of the material such that some of the material is recoverable and the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid is reduced to a target amount (see pg. 2 lines 10-14).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a housing coupled to or including the container, the one or more sensors, and the control system (housing as a shipping container) (see pg. 9, lines 17-18, fig. 20),
Takahashi does not teach the housing is at least partially submerged in a source of the liquid or the housing is a floating vessel.
Regan teaches a carbon capture system, comprising a housing (marine vessel 602) (see para. 0084) including a container, one or more sensors and a control system (see para. 0083). Regan further teaches the housing is at least partially submerged in a source of the liquid or the housing is a floating vessel (marine vessels float and are partially submerged in the ocean).
Takahashi and Regan are analogous inventions in the art of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the system of Takahashi in a marine vessel housing, as disclosed by Regan because it is the simple substitution of one housing for another, obviously resulting in the ability for ocean based carbon capture, with an expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 27:
Takahashi, as modified, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein based on the outputs of the one or more sensors, the control system is further configured to control metered dosing of an additive liquid (see pg. 66 lines 1-5) and an additive gas stream directly into the container (see Takahashi pg. 3 lines 19-19) that reacts with carbon dioxide to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid such that an amount of the additive liquid and the additive gas stream introduced into the container changes dynamically over time via the real-time feedback loop (see Regan para. 0118).
Claim(s) 16, 18-21, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (WO 2023/034869).
Regarding Claim 16:
Takahashi teaches the system for processing liquid to change an amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid, the system comprising: a container including a first inlet to receive liquid into the container and an outlet (see fig. 1 annotated above), wherein the container is configured to be partially filled with the liquid to create a filled region containing the liquid and an unfilled region containing air (containing aqueous and/or gaseous CO2, when both are present there is inherently an unfilled region for the gaseous CO2 to be treated) (see Takahashi pg. 26 lines 4-5); one or more sensors coupled to the container, the one or more sensors comprising a gas sensor to measure carbon content in the air (partial pressure of CO2) and one or more liquid sensor positioned in the filled region to measure properties of the liquid including alkalinity (see pg. 1 lines 25-59, pg. 2lines 23-27); and a control system including a processor for executing instructions to: receive outputs of the one or more sensors; calculate a concentration of carbon in the liquid based on the outputs of the one or more sensors including the carbon content of the air in the unfilled region and the properties of the liquid including alkalinity; and based on the concentrations, control dosing of material into the container that reacts with carbon dioxide to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid such that an amount of the material introduced into the container changes over time responsive to changes in the carbon content being measured in the liquid (see pg. 2 lines 8-14).
Takahashi does not teach that the gas sensor is positioned in the unfilled region. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the gas sensor int eh unfilled region because it is the simple rearrangement of parts, without changing the function of the sensor. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA
1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 18:
Takahashi teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor for measuring the carbon content in the liquid, and the system further comprises: a second sensor for measuring an alkalinity of the liquid in the container (see pg. 1 lines 25-27); and based on the alkalinity of the liquid in the container, the control system controls the second inlet to enable direct air capture into the container to incorporate additional carbon dioxide into the liquid within the container. The claim is directed to a system, therefore method limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same function. As Takahashi teaches sensors for measuring the same values and a control system it would be capable of the same method steps.
Regarding Claim 19:
Takahashi teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a first sensor for measuring the carbon content in the liquid (see pg. 1 lines 25-27), and the system further comprises: a second sensor for measuring an oxygen level (dissolved oxygen concentration) (see pg. 2 line 29) of the liquid in the container; and based on the oxygen level of the liquid in the container, the control system controls the air inlet to enable the direct air capture into the container to incorporate additional oxygen into the liquid within the container. The claim is directed to a system, therefore method limitations only add patentable weigh to the extent that the prior art must be capable of the same function. As Takahashi teaches sensors for measuring the same values and a control system it would be capable of the same method steps.
Regarding Claim 20:
Takahashi teaches the method for processing liquid to change an amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid, the method comprising: receiving liquid from a source into a container (see Fig. 1 above) by partially filling the container with liquid to create a filled region and an unfilled region containing air (containing aqueous and/or gaseous CO2, when both are present there is inherently an unfilled region for the gaseous CO2 to be treated) (see Takahashi pg. 26 lines 4-5); measuring carbon content in the liquid that is held in the container by one or more sensors coupled to the container (see pg. 1, lines 25-29), wherein the measuring carbon content in the liquid comprises measuring by the one or more sensors a carbon content of the air (partial pressure of CO2), measuring by the one or more sensors positioned in the filled region, properties of the liquid including temperature, salinity, and alkalinity; and calculating he concentration of carbon in the liquid based on the outputs of the one or more sensors(see pg., 2 lines 1-15); and based on the concentration of carbon in the liquid, controlling dosing of material (feedstock application rate) (see pg. 66 lines 2-5) into the container that reacts with carbon dioxide to change the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid such that an amount of the material introduced into the container changes over time responsive to changes in the carbon content being measured in the liquid (see pg. 2 lines 10-14).
Takahashi does not teach that the gas sensor is positioned in the unfilled region. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to place the gas sensor int eh unfilled region because it is the simple rearrangement of parts, without changing the function of the sensor. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA
1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 21:
Takahashi teaches the method of claim 20, wherein controlling dosing of material into the container comprises: a control system including a processor for executing instructions to control operation of a valve (control system is connected to automated values therefore there is a processor for executing instructions of some kind) (See pg. 62 lines 11-15).
Takahashi does not teach that the valve is of a feeder to release the material from the feeder into the container. Takahashi further teaches a feeder to release material (see fig. 1, feed stock slurry container), a controlled application rate of feedstock (see pg. 66 lines 1-5) and the sensors can be used to control automated valves (see pg. 62 lines 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a valve to control the flow of material, as disclosed by Takahashi, to the feeder of Takahashi because it is the simple addition of a known control means to a known device, obviously resulting in a controllable flow from the feeder, with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 25:
Takahashi teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the container includes an inlet to receive the liquid and an outlet to release the liquid (see fig. 1, above), and the method further comprises: based on the outputs of the one or more sensors, controlling opening and closing of the inlet and the outlet to control a flow rate of the liquid into and out of the container (changes to flow rate) (see pg. 24 lines 1-2, pg. 34 lines 11-14, pg. 48 lines 20-23).
Regarding Claim 26:
Takahashi teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the container includes an inlet to receive the liquid and an outlet to release the liquid, and the method further comprises: based on the outputs of the one or more sensors, controlling opening and closing of the inlet and the outlet to control a duration of the liquid in the container (changing flow rate changes the duration of liquid in the container) (see pg. 48 lines 20-23).
Claim(s) 17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (WO 2023/034869) as applied to claims 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Regan et al (US 2021/0129078).
Regarding Claims 17:
Takahashi teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the control system is configured to control introduction of the material into the container based on the material reacting with the carbon dioxide (see Takahashi pg. 70 lines 3-6)
Takahashi does not explicitly teach ending application of the material based on
the amount of carbon dioxide in the liquid being below a threshold amount. Takahashi further teaches modifying parameters based on the amount of carbon dioxide being below a threshold amount (see Takahashi pg. 2 lines 10-14).
Regan teaches ending introduction of material based on an amount of carbon dioxide being below a threshold amount (mixing is done according to target chemical concentrations) (see Regan para. 0118, 0123, 0132, 0134, 0135).
Takahashi and Regan are analogous inventions in the art of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the control system of Takahashi to end introduction of the material, as disclosed by Regan because it can prevent undersaturation or oversaturation (see Regan para. 0118).
Regarding Claim 22:
Takahashi teaches the method of claim 21.
Takahashi does not teach controlling dosing of material into the container comprises: the control system including the processor for executing instructions to perform a feedback loop including (i) releasing a first amount of the material from the feeder into the container, (ii) receiving subsequent outputs of the one or more sensors, (iii) determining an updated carbon content in the liquid, (iv) based on the updated carbon content in the liquid being above a threshold amount, releasing a second amount of the material from the feeder into the container.
Regan teaches a method for processing liquid to change the amount of carbon dioxide comprising controlling dosing of material into a container comprising: a control system including a processor for executing instructions to perform a feedback loop (feedback to control system) (see para. 0118) including (i) releasing a first amount (calculated portion) of the material from the feeder into the container (material dispensing system) (see para. 105), (ii) receiving subsequent outputs of the one or more sensors, (iii) determining an updated carbon content in the liquid, (iv) based on the updated carbon content in the liquid being above a threshold amount, releasing a second amount of the material from the feeder into the container (date used as feedback to material dispensing system) (see para., 0118).
Takahashi and Regan are analogous invention in the art of carbon capture. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add the feedback loop of Regan to the method of Takahashi because it can prevent undersaturation or oversaturation (see Regan para. 0118).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 9/16/226
Prosecution Insights