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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to a method of making calcium carbonate, classified in C01F11/183.
II. Claims 9 and 10, drawn to a device for supercritical water oxidation, classified in B01J3/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as methanol generation. The material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit apparatus claims (MPEP §2115).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The above noted inventions designated by Groups I and II have acquired a separate status in the art as evidenced by their different classification, they have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and a completed search of both inventions would necessitate different fields of search. For at least these reasons, a concerted search of both groups of inventions would impose an undue burden upon the office.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Chris Lutz on 09/24/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:. In claim 2, line 3, in the phrase “reacting the form HCO3-…” should be corrected to say “reacting the formed HCO3-“. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2006/004503.
Regarding claim 1, WO’4503 discloses a method for manufacturing precipitated calcium carbonate in a high pressure system (Abstract), characterized by the steps of: increasing pressure and temperature of a stream containing an oxidizable material and water then adding oxidant, such as oxygen (Pg. 3, line 18), to a first reaction chamber system and oxidizing the oxidizable material of the stream through supercritical water oxidation to form carbon dioxide and water (Pg. 3, line 18-20). The reference then adds lime to a second reaction chamber system (Pg. 3, line 22), and having the carbon dioxide of the oxidized stream to react with the lime (CaO) to form precipitated calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the second reaction chamber system. The reference teaches an embodiment where the CO2 is combined with calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) in the stream to produce precipitated calcium carbonate (Pg. 4, lines 10-13). In a further embodiment the reference highlights that the steam containing oxidizable material is a waste stream (containing sludge; See Pg. 5, lines 12-17). The reference does not explicitly teach that the oxidizable material is a hydrocarbon. However, the reference indicates that this material is organic and decomposes into carbon dioxide and water (Pg. 4, line 1). Furthermore, the reference aims to treat waste from paper recycling (Pg. 1, line 8). In view of these teachings a person of ordinary skill would envisage that the oxidizable component of the waste stream would comprise a portion that is a hydrocarbon component.
Regarding claim 2, the dissolution of CO2 into supercritical water to become HCO3- is intrinsic to the supercritical solution. The Instant Specification indicates that high pressure of the supercritical solution circumvents an solubility issues (Pg. 4, lines 21-28). The reaction mechanism of the CO2 first reacting with supercritical water to form HCO3- and then reacting with calcium to make the calcium carbonate is intrinsic to the supercritical solution.
Regarding claim 3, The reference teaches pumping the wastewater stream to SCWO reactor for pressurized operation (using pumps; See Pg. 7, lines 8-14; into reactor 16; See lines 19-22). The SCWO reactor 16 is considered as the containment adapted for pressurized operation. Pumping is considered equivalent to transporting. The reference further teaches that the heater is used “only” at start-up and the heater is bypassed “when the exothermic reaction has started” (Pg. 7, lines 24-26). This is considered equivalent to removing the heating source.
Regarding claim 4, the reference further teaches that the effluent is recovered and used to power steam generation (Pg. 8, lines 11-15). Recovering heat energy to generate steam is considered as powering an external load because the reference specifically teaches a generator (Pg. 8, line 12). The term “powering” is broadly interpreted to mean electrical or heating power.
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006/004503.
Regarding claim 5, The instant Specification indicates that the conversion to HCO3- is thermodynamically favorable and is limited by CO2 dissolution rates (Spec Pg. 4, lines 21-28). This issue is overcome by high pressure and purity of the effluent gas from the SCWO reaction. The reference further teaches that the heater is used “only” at start-up and the heater is bypassed “when the exothermic reaction has started” (Pg. 7, lines 24-26). Thus, in the supercritical condition of the reference (250bar, See Pg. 7, line 13; 350-400°C, See Pg. 7, line 20), the CO2 would be expected to dissolve and form bicarbonate and mineralize to calcium carbonate.
The reference teaches an overlapping range for the temperature. Overlapping temperatures are considered a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the Gibbs free energy is defined by DG= DH-TDS. In an exothermic process the DH is negative. Thus a person of ordinary skill would expect the free Gibbs energy to be negative in an exothermic process.
Regarding claim 8, the CO32- ions would be expected to form to react with the Ca+ ions in the solution since CO2 is converted to CaCO3. The reference of WO’4503 teaches the starting materials and the method steps of forming CO2 and reacting it with calcium in waste water at supercritical conditions to form CaCO3, as discussed above. Thus, the same products would be expected to form as claimed by the instant process.
Relevant Art
Lackner et al. US20080031801 teaches capturing CO2 be sequestering the greenhouse gas sodium carbonate and calcium carbonate (Para [0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5.
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.
/SYED T IQBAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
