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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granados et al. (US Patent No. 11,344,842), hereinafter Granados in view of Jorgenson et al. (US 20250262584), hereinafter Jorgenson, Briglia et al. (US Patent No. 10,337,791), hereinafter Briglia, and Jaouani et al. (US Patent No. 7,076,971), hereinafter Jaouani.
Regarding claim 11, Granados discloses a process for starting up a carbon capture process (Fig. 2; Col. 1, lines 20-22, It relates in particular to a method for start-up of a membrane that has to be operated at low temperature in an apparatus for purifying CO2 at low temperature) wherein in the carbon capture process under normal operation:
i) a gaseous mixture containing CO2, at least one component heavier than CO2 and at least one component lighter than CO2 (Col. 5, lines 4-6, A gas mixture 1 containing carbon dioxide, moisture and at least one other gas, selected from the list: hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon monoxide) is compressed, dried, cooled in a heat exchanger (Fig. 2, heat exchanger H; Col. 5, lines 7-11, a compressor 5. After being cooled by the cooler 7, the mixture is purified of water by the adsorption unit A to form the dried flow 11. The dried flow 11 condenses partially in the exchanger H and is sent as flow 13 to the phase separator PS1), separated to form a feed stream (Fig. 2 depicts the flow 13 to enter PS1 and separate into a gas stream 15 and a liquid stream 17; gas stream 15 having less of the heavier components as the heavier components of the stream will separate with the liquid steam 17), the feed stream being separated by at least one partial condensation step (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 14-16, The gas from the first phase separator PS1 is cooled in a heat exchanger 19 and condenses partially to form flow 21) forming a liquid enriched in CO2 with respect to the feed stream (Fig. 2, line 47) and a gas enriched in the at least one component lighter than CO2 with respect to the feed stream (Fig. 2, overhead gas 23; Col. 5, lines 36-38, The overhead gas 23 from phase separator PS2 is enriched in noncondensable gases, for example hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, argon or oxygen);
ii) the gas enriched in the at least one component lighter than CO2 is warmed in the heat exchanger and then expanded in a turbine, emerging from the turbine at a first temperature and is sent to the atmosphere (Fig. 2, non-permeate 53; Col. 44-50, The partially heated gas 23 is expanded in a valve V4 and sent to a membrane system, in this case comprising a membrane M producing a permeate 55 and a non-permeate 53. The non-permeate 53 will be strongly heated before being sent to atmosphere. The non-permeate 53 may be expanded in a turbine T after heating in a heater 59, the expanded flow 61 then being heated in the heat exchanger).
However, Granados does not disclose the gas mixture to contain at least one component heavier than CO2 wherein the feed stream contains proportionally less of the at least one component heavier than CO2 than the gaseous mixture.
Jorgenson teaches the gas mixture to contain at least one component heavier than CO2 wherein the feed stream contains proportionally less of the at least one component heavier than CO2 than the gaseous mixture (Fig. 1, feed stream 105; Pg. 1, paragraph 15, A flue gas (or other gas) feed stream 105 comprises carbon dioxide, one or more NOx compounds, and one or more of nitrogen, oxygen, water and argon; Pg. 1, paragraph 18, The cooled compressed flue gas stream 155 is sent to the NOx removal zone 160 comprising one or more NOx removal columns where the majority of the NOx compounds other than NO and N2O are removed from the cooled compressed flue gas stream 155. The reduced contaminant stream 165 comprises carbon dioxide and a reduced level of NOx compounds compared to the cooled compressed flue gas stream 155 entering the NOx removal zone 160).
Granados fails to teach the gas mixture to contain at least one component heavier than CO2 wherein the feed stream contains proportionally less of the at least one component heavier than CO2 than the gaseous mixture, however Jorgenson teaches that it is a known method in the art of carbon capture to include the gas mixture to contain at least one component heavier than CO2 wherein the feed stream contains proportionally less of the at least one component heavier than CO2 than the gaseous mixture. This is strong evidence that modifying X as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. removal of NOx). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Granados by Jorgenson and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of removal of NOx.
However, Granados as modified does not disclose the gas mixture to be separated in a washing column.
Briglia teaches the gas mixture to be separated in a washing column (Fig. 1, methane wash column 1; Col. 4, lines 50-53, A feed stream 10 cooled in heat exchanger 9 and containing hydrogen, carbon monoxide and at least 2% methane is sent to the bottom of a methane wash column 1 fed by
liquid methane 11 at the top of the column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Granados as modified to separate the gas mixture in a washing column as taught by Briglia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to harness the refrigeration capacity of a waste stream for cryogenic separation to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Granados as modified does not disclose wherein during start-up, a gas expanded in the turbine is produced at a second temperature wherein a temperature difference between the first temperature and the second temperature is to be at least 1 °C and the temperature of the second temperature is lower than 0°C, the expanded gas being then warmed in the heat exchanger or sent to the distillation column of the carbon capture process to cool down a distillation column.
Jaouani teaches wherein during start-up, a gas expanded in the turbine is produced to control turbine temperature during start up, the expanded gas being then sent to the distillation column of the carbon capture process to cool down a distillation column (Fig. 1; Col. 6, lines 4-9, If the inlet or outlet temperature of the turbine 4 becomes too low following the start-up or a change of operation, the
valve V1 is opened, and at least one portion of the supercharged and cooled air passes directly to the inlet of the turbine 4 without passing via the exchanger 6. This prevents damaging the turbine).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Granados as modified to include the step or limitation of wherein during start-up, a gas expanded in the turbine is produced at a second temperature wherein the temperature difference between the first temperature and the second temperature is to be at least 1 °C and the temperature of the second temperature is lower than 0°C, the expanded gas being then warmed in the heat exchanger or sent to the distillation column of the carbon capture process to cool down the distillation column as taught by Jaouani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent turbine damage during start-up operations (Jaouani, Col. 6, lines 4-9).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granados as modified by Jorgenson, Briglia, and Jaouani as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Trainer (US 20070000282), hereinafter Trainer.
Regarding claim 15, Granados as modified discloses the process according to Claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Granados as modified does not disclose wherein during the start-up at least part of the expanded gas is liquefied by the expansion step and sent to the heat exchanger to be vaporized therein.
Trainer teaches wherein during the start-up at least part of the expanded gas is liquefied by the expansion step and sent to the heat exchanger to be vaporized therein (Fig. 2, stream 43; Pg. 2, paragraph 35, the air expanded in the turbine 11 is partly sent to the medium-pressure column 13 and partly recycled (stream 43) to the booster 9; Although not explicit, stream 43 is recycled to the compressor which means it would, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, have to be a vaporized stream).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Granados as modified to include the step or limitation of wherein during the start-up at least part of the expanded gas is liquefied by the expansion step and sent to the heat exchanger to be vaporized therein as taught by Trainer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to maintain stable operations during low flow conditions to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granados as modified by Jorgenson, Briglia, and Jaouani as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hirose (US Patent No. 11,353,262), hereinafter Hirose.
Regarding claim 17, Granados as modified discloses the process according to Claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Granados as modified does not disclose wherein during the start-up, the gas expanded in the turbine is the gaseous mixture which is sent to the turbine directly after being dried.
Hirose teaches disclose wherein during the start-up, the gas expanded in the turbine is the gaseous mixture which is sent to the turbine directly after being dried (Fig. 2, unit 62, expansion turbine 3; Col. 11, lines 57-64, The second branch line 23 is a line that branches from the main feed air supply line 28 in front of the main heat exchanger 1. A portion of the feed air passing through the scrubbing section 62 is supplied to the main heat exchanger 1 through the main feed air supply line 28, and the other portion is diverted to the second branch line 23. The feed air is introduced into the second turbine 3 through the second branch line 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Granados as modified to include the step or limitation of wherein during start-up, the gas expanded in the turbine is the gaseous mixture which is sent to the turbine directly after being dried as taught by Hirose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent pressure drops and damage to the pipelines due to condensation and formation of hydrates from expansion of moisture in the gas stream.
Claim 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granados as modified by Jorgenson, Briglia, and Jaouani as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Callahan (US Patent No. 5,233,837), hereinafter Callahan.
Regarding claim 18, Granados as modified discloses the process according to Claim 11 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 11 above).
However, Granados as modified does not disclose wherein in the normal operation, the feed stream is compressed in a compressor between the stripping column and the phase separation.
Callahan teaches wherein in the normal operation, the feed stream is compressed in a compressor between a stripping column and a phase separation (Fig. 1 depicts stream 280 being sent from separator 260 to compressor 290 prior to being sent to column 360).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Granados as modified to include the step or limitation of wherein in the normal operation, the feed stream is compressed in a compressor between a stripping column and a phase separation as taught by Callahan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the stream from one stage of separation to the next while maintaining desired operating pressures to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 19, Granados as modified discloses the process according to Claim 18 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 18 above).
However, Granados as modified does not disclose wherein the compressor is coupled to the turbine.
Jaouani teaches wherein the compressor is coupled to the turbine (Fig. 1, turbine-supercharger set 3; Col. 5, lines 34-36, turbine-supercharger set 3, comprising an expansion turbine 4 and a supercharger 5 the shafts of which are coupled together).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compressor of the process of Granados as modified to be coupled to the turbine as taught by Jaouani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to utilize the energy of the turbine to operate the compressor to improve the energy efficiency of the system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granados as modified by Jorgenson, Briglia, Jaouani, and Hirose as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hideyuki et al. (JP 3026091), hereinafter Hideyuki.
Regarding claim 20, Granados as modified discloses the process according to Claim 17 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 17 above).
However, Granados as modified does not disclose wherein the during start-up, between 15 and 40% of the gaseous mixture is sent to the turbine directly after being dried and between 60 and 85% of the gaseous mixture is sent to the heat exchanger and then to a phase separator.
Hideyuki teaches wherein during the start-up, between 15 and 40% of the gaseous mixture is sent to the turbine directly after being dried and between 60 and 85% of the gaseous mixture is sent to the heat exchanger and then to a phase separator (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, The amount of gas supplied to the upper tower 15 via the expansion turbine 12 is 30%, and the amount of gas extracted from the starting circuits 51, 52, 53 is 60%, and 70% of the compressed and cooled feed air can be introduced into the lower tower 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Granados as modified to include the step or limitation of wherein during start-up, between 15 and 40% of the gaseous mixture is sent to the turbine directly after being dried and between 60 and 85% of the gaseous mixture is sent to the heat exchanger and then to the phase separator as taught by Hideyuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure a sufficient amount of refrigeration can be generated by the turbine and the refrigeration can be transferred to the rectification section using a large amount of feed air, making it possible to quickly cool the rectification section and significantly shorten the start-up time of the system (Hideyuki, Pg. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 6 of the response, “The Examiner cites Jaouani for the limitations directed to running the turboexpander output colder during startup to help cool down the downstream carbon capture distillation system to its operating temperature. The Examiner cites: If the inlet or outlet temperature of the turbine 4 becomes too low following the start-up or a change of operation, the
valve V1 is opened, and at least one portion of the supercharged and cooled air passes directly to the inlet of the turbine 4 without passing via the exchanger 6. This prevents damaging the turbine. See also: The valves V1, V2 may also have the same operation as in FIG. 1, that is, if the inlet temperature of the turbine and/or the outlet temperature of the blower become (becomes) too low, hot air can be sent into the turbine by opening the valve V1 so that the air passes directly from the blower to the turbine through the line 45. This is literally the opposite of the claims. Because the Examiner's support in the prior art for the rejection does not exist, the rejection should be withdrawn.” However, this argument is not persuasive as Col. 7, lines 49-54 cites by the Applicant discuss control of the valves “a certain time after the primary compressor is started up (Col. 7, lines 42-43)”, not operation during start up which is required by the claims and described by Col. 6, lines 4-9 of Jaouani, “If the inlet or outlet temperature of the turbine 4 becomes too low following the start-up or a change of operation, the valve V1 is opened, and at least one portion of the supercharged and cooled air passes directly to the inlet of the turbine 4 without passing via the exchanger 6. This prevents damaging the turbine.” Further, the teachings of Jaouani cited by the Examiner to teach “wherein during start-up, a gas expanded in the turbine is produced to control turbine temperature during start up, the expanded gas being then sent to the distillation column of the carbon capture process to cool down a distillation column” are not “literally the opposite of the claims” as the claims are requiring control of an outlet gas of a turbine to maintain the outlet gas to a desired temperature difference and the teachings of Jaouani disclose using bypass valves to maintain an outlet gas of a turbine within a desired temperature range to prevent damage to the turbine (Col. 6, lines 4-9). Further, as pressure and temperature change proportionally, the transfer of the gas expanded in the turbine 4 to the medium-pressure column 8 via line 22 is acting to cool the double distillation column 7 as required by the claims.
The rejection of independent claim 11 is maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 15 and 17-20 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 March 02nd, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763