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 .
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.
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 2 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.
The term “low-H2S” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““low-H2S” 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. For purposes of further examination, “low-H2S” is being interpreted as any amount of H2S lower than a desired amount.
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) 1-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (“Synergistic effect of O2, H2S and SO2 impurities on the corrosion behavior of X65 steel in water-saturated supercritical CO2 system” Corrosion Science, 2016, 107, 193-20 3).
Regarding Claim 1: Sun et al. teaches a carbon dioxide stream comprising 1000 ppm H2S (Pg. 193; Table 2; and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2: Sun et al. teaches addition of H2S to the carbon dioxide (Pg. 194, Col. 2; and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3: Sun et al. teaches examples with no SO2 (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 4: Sun et al. does not teach the presence of any SO3.
Regarding Claim 5: Sun et al. does not teach the presence of any NO.
Regarding Claim 6: Sun et al. does not teach the presence of any NO2.
Regarding Claim 7: Sun et al. teaches examples with no O2 (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 10: Sun et al. teaches the CO2 at 50 °C (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 11: Sun et al. teaches the rest of the gas as CO2 (greater than 95%) (Table 2).
Claim(s) 12-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (“Synergistic effect of O2, H2S and SO2 impurities on the corrosion behavior of X65 steel in water-saturated supercritical CO2 system” Corrosion Science, 2016, 107, 193-20 3).
Regarding Claim 12: Sun et al. teaches a carbon dioxide stream and does not teach the presence of any nitrogen oxides (Pg. 193; Table 2; and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13: Sun et al. teaches examples with no SO2 (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 14: Sun et al. does not teach the presence of any SO3.
Regarding Claim 15: Sun et al. teaches examples with no H2S (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 17: Sun et al. teaches examples with no O2 (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 19: Sun et al. teaches the CO2 at 50 °C (Table 2).
Regarding Claim 20: Sun et al. teaches the rest of the gas as CO2 (greater than 95%) (Table 2).
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.
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (“Synergistic effect of O2, H2S and SO2 impurities on the corrosion behavior of X65 steel in water-saturated supercritical CO2 system” Corrosion Science, 2016, 107, 193-20 3).
Sun et al. teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 8: Sun et al. does not teach H2O in less than 500 ppmv. However, Sun et al. teaches that H2O is an impurity that poses a risk to pipeline security and stability (Pg. 193). At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reduce the amount of H2O as much as possible in the carbon dioxide and would have been motivated to do so to reduce the risk of corrosion (Pg. 193, see also MPEP 2144.04 VII).
Regarding Claim 9: Sun et al. teaches the pressure of carbon dioxide is 10 MPa (100 barg) (Table 2).
Sun et al. does not teach the pressure as greater than 100 barg. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05). In the present case a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same results from 100 barg and values just over 100 such as 100.01 barg.
Claim(s) 16 and 18is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (“Synergistic effect of O2, H2S and SO2 impurities on the corrosion behavior of X65 steel in water-saturated supercritical CO2 system” Corrosion Science, 2016, 107, 193-20 3).
Sun et al. teaches the method of claim 12 as set forth above.
Regarding Claim 16: Sun et al. does not teach H2O in less than 50 ppmv. However, Sun et al. teaches that H2O is an impurity that poses a risk to pipeline security and stability (Pg. 193). At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reduce the amount of H2O as much as possible in the carbon dioxide and would have been motivated to do so to reduce the risk of corrosion (Pg. 193, see also MPEP 2144.04 VII).
Regarding Claim 18: Sun et al. teaches the pressure of carbon dioxide is 10 MPa (100 barg) (Table 2).
Sun et al. does not teach the pressure as greater than 100 barg. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05). In the present case a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same results from 100 barg and values just over 100 such as 100.01 barg.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights