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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed August 27th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 19, “said CO2 adsorbent bed absorbs” should read “said CO2 adsorbent bed [[absorbs]] adsorbs”
In claim 5, line 2, “purified carbon-dioxide” should read “purified [[carbon-dioxide]] carbon dioxide”
In claim 6, line 11, “purified carbon-dioxide stream” should read “purified [[carbon-dioxide]] carbon dioxide stream”
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein said dryer removes water from an input stream to thereby produce a pre-capture stream; wherein said capture chamber receives said pre-capture stream from said dryer; wherein said vacuum source causes a pressure in said capture chamber to be below a pressure of said input air stream; wherein at least one of: said pressure and a temperature of said capture chamber is controlled by at least one of: said vacuum source and said heater; wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed adsorbs said carbon dioxide from said pre-capture stream within said capture chamber to thereby produce a purified carbon dioxide stream, and wherein an exhaust stream is produced from said capture chamber, said exhaust stream having a carbon dioxide concentration lower than that of said input air stream.” Claim 1 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 1 is an apparatus claim because it is to an “apparatus for capturing carbon dioxide.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “wherein said dryer is configured to remove [[remove]] water from an input air stream thereby [[produce]] producing a pre-capture stream; wherein said capture chamber is configured to receive [[receives]] said pre-capture stream from said dryer; wherein said vacuum source is configured to cause [[causes]] a pressure in said capture chamber to be below a pressure of said input air stream; wherein at least one of: said pressure and a temperature of said capture chamber is configured to be controlled by at least one of: said vacuum source and said heater; wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed is configured to adsorb [[adsorbs]] said carbon dioxide from said pre-capture stream within said capture chamber to thereby produce a purified carbon dioxide stream, and wherein is configured to produce an exhaust stream, said exhaust stream having a carbon dioxide concentration lower than that of said input air stream. ”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein said vacuum source regenerates said dryer.” Claim 3 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 3 is an apparatus claim because it is to an “apparatus.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “wherein said vacuum source is configured to regenerate [[regenerates]] said dryer.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein at least part of said exhaust stream passes through a second dryer.” Claim 4 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 4 is an apparatus claim because it is to an “apparatus.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “wherein at least part of said exhaust stream is configured to pass [[passes]] through a second dryer.”
Claims 2 and 5, which are dependent upon claim 1, are similarly 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0001225 A1 to Ritter et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ritter).
Regarding claim 1, Ritter teaches an apparatus for capturing carbon dioxide (Abstract), said apparatus comprising: a dryer (Fig. 1. desiccant beds D1 and D2); a capture chamber (Fig. 1, capture chambers C1 and C2), said capture chamber being in fluid communication with said dryer (Fig. 1, capture chamber 1 is connected to desiccant bed D1); a CO2 adsorbent bed, said CO2 adsorbent bed being positioned within said capture chamber (¶0034 “The capture bed C1 can incorporate any suitable materials for preferential adsorption and capture of CO2”); a vacuum source, said vacuum source being in fluid communication with said CO2 adsorbent bed (¶0010 “The system can also include one or more vacuum pumps in controllable fluid communication with the heavy product ends of the first and second CO2 capture beds”); and a heater, said heater being thermally coupled to said CO2 adsorbent bed such that when said heater is in operation, said heater supplies thermal energy to said CO2 adsorbent bed (¶0010 “The system can also include … heaters for heating the capture beds”), wherein said dryer removes water from an input stream to thereby produce a pre-capture capture stream (Fig. 1, desiccant bed D1 produces dry gas stream 9); wherein said capture chamber receives said pre-capture stream from said dryer (Fig. 1, dry gas stream 9 enters capture bed C1); wherein said vacuum source causes a pressure in said capture chamber to be below a pressure of said input air stream (Fig. 8 depicts the change in pressure of the capture chambers C1 and C2 across the entire cycle, wherein pressure is lowest during the depressurization step); wherein at least one of: said pressure and a temperature of said capture chamber is controlled by at least one of: said vacuum source and said heater (¶0046 “Heating can be carried out to a targeted temperature”); wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed adsorbs said carbon dioxide from said pre-capture stream within said capture chamber to thereby produce a purified carbon dioxide stream (Fig. 1, high content CO2 gas 11), and wherein an exhaust stream is produced from said capture chamber, said exhaust stream having a carbon dioxide concentration lower than that of said input air stream (Fig. 1, low CO2-content stream 10 passes through two CO2 capture chambers C1 and C2 and will therefore have a lower CO2 content than the input air stream).
Regarding claim 2, Ritter teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above, wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed comprises at least one of: a zeolite adsorbent, a metal-organic framework adsorbent, a covalent-organic framework adsorbent, a silica adsorbent, or an alumina adsorbent (¶0035).
Regarding claim 4, Ritter teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above, wherein at least a portion of said exhaust stream passes through a second dryer (Fig. 1, a portion 6 of the dry, low CO2-content stream 10 is fed into second desiccant bed D2).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0264138 A1 to McGrail et al. (hereinafter referred to as McGrail).
Regarding claim 3, Ritter teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein said dryer is coupled to said vacuum source and wherein said vacuum source regenerates said dryer.
However, McGrail teaches an apparatus for capturing carbon dioxide (Abstract) wherein a gas stream is first passed through a dryer prior to entering a CO2 adsorption chamber (Fig. 1, incoming air passes through H2O bed 11 before entering CO2 bed 13) and comprises a vacuum source (Fig. 1, vacuum pump), wherein said dryer is coupled to said vacuum source and wherein said vacuum source regenerates said dryer (¶0026 “a parallel set of desiccant beds is isolated from the air stream and simultaneously regenerated under a partial vacuum.”).
Ritter and McGrail are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide and water removal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the apparatus as taught by Ritter could be modified to incorporate vacuum regeneration as taught by McGrail to either aid in the regeneration of the dryer or as an alternative regeneration means. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the regeneration of the dryer) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 6-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2023/0070112 A1 to Besarati et al. (hereinafter referred to as Besarati).
Regarding claim 6, Ritter teaches a method for capturing carbon dioxide (Abstract), comprising: (a) flowing an input air stream through a dryer to thereby produce a pre-capture stream, wherein said dryer removes water from said input air stream (¶0033 “Following passage of the feed gas 1 through the desiccant bed D1, a dry gas stream 9 can exit”); (b) flowing said pre-capture stream into a capture chamber in fluid communication with said dryer, wherein a CO2 adsorbent bed is positioned within said capture chamber (¶0033 “a dry gas stream 9 can exit the light product end of the desiccant bed D1 and pass into the heavy product end of the capture bed C1.” ; ¶0034 “The capture bed C1 can incorporate any suitable materials for preferential adsorption and capture of CO2”); and (d) heating said CO2 adsorbent bed and using a vacuum source on said CO2 adsorbent bed to thereby extract said carbon dioxide from said capture chamber to thereby produce a purified carbon dioxide stream (¶0044-0047 explains the steps in which the capture beds are regenerated using vacuum and heat). Ritter does not explicitly teach step (c) of using a vacuum source to thereby decrease a pressure of said capture chamber to a blowdown pressure, thereby removing non-CO2 components from said capture chamber as an exhaust stream (emphasis added).
However, Besarati teaches a method for capturing carbon dioxide (Abstract), comprising: (a) flowing an input air stream through a dryer to thereby produce a pre-capture stream (Fig. 1, first air flow moves from state 2 to state 3 by passing through a desiccant wheel ; ¶0015 “Then, humid air enters a desiccant reactor … where a large fraction of the humidity is removed”); (b) flowing said pre-capture stream into a capture chamber in fluid communication with said dryer (Fig. 1, first air flow 3 passes to zeolite reactors), wherein a CO2 adsorbent bed is positioned within said capture chamber and (c) using a vacuum source to thereby decrease a pressure of said capture chamber to a blowdown pressure, thereby removing non-CO2 components from said capture chamber as an exhaust stream (¶0017 “First, vacuum is applied to the reactors, which leads to removal of air in the dead space as well as nitrogen from the zeolite (state 6).” ; Fig. 1, state 6 is removed from zeolite reactors through use of a vacuum pump).
Ritter and Besarati are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide capture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Ritter to incorporate the additional vacuum desorption step as taught by Besarati to ensure non-CO2 components were first removed from the capture chamber prior to the desorption and subsequent evacuation of a purified CO2 stream. An initial vacuum desorption step would ensure that the product stream of CO2 did not contain additional components trapped within said capture chamber.
Regarding claim 7, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Besarati further teaches wherein step (c) further comprises adding heat energy to said CO2 adsorbent bed by way of a heater (¶0019-0021 describes that heat is added to the reactors from internal heat exchangers between the two vacuum steps). Ritter also teaches adding heat energy to the CO2 adsorbent bed by way of a heater (¶0046 “Following depressurization, the capture bed C2 can be closed and the bed can be heated, e.g., by use of an electrical heater 30 or the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches wherein said heat energy increase a temperature of said CO2 adsorbent bed to between about a temperature of said input air stream and about 80⁰C (¶0064 “Following the CnD step, and during the IH step, CO2 capture bed C2 remains closed while heated, e.g., from about 50⁰C to about 80⁰C”).
Regarding claim 9, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches the step of (e) passing a dry gas stream through said capture chamber, wherein said dry gas is passed through said CO2 adsorbent bed to thereby cool said CO2 adsorbent bed and to thereby form a heated gas stream, and wherein said heated gas stream is flowed through said dryer to thereby regenerate said dryer (¶0007 “heating of the bed to encourage desorption of CO2 previously adsorbed in the bed, venting of the CO2 capture bed, and purging and cooling of the CO2 capture bed. The purge gas used during the purging steps of the regeneration process can include a portion of the dry, low CO2-content gas stream that exits the first CO2 capture bed. Optionally, a portion of the purge gas can also be used in regeneration of the second desiccant bed.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed comprises at least one of: a zeolite adsorbent, a metal-organic framework adsorbent, a covalent-organic framework adsorbent, a silica adsorbent, or an alumina adsorbent (¶0035).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Besarati further teaches wherein said pressure of said capture chamber during step (c) is between 0 – 0.1 atm (¶0027 “the pressure is reduced to 0.05 bar or less.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed is heated to a temperature of about 80⁰C to about 275⁰C during step (c) (¶0064). Besarati also teaches wherein said CO2 adsorbent bed is heated within this range (¶0029).
Regarding claim 13, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches wherein said method is continuously repeated to extract said carbon dioxide from a continual source of air (¶0054 “By way of example … a system can be designed to continuously process about 200 SLPM of ambient air to produce about 200 g/day of CO2”).
Regarding claim 15, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches a further step (e) passing at least part of said exhaust stream through a secondary capture chamber having a secondary CO2 adsorbent bed (¶0047 “While the bed C2 is still hot, and to obtain increased recovery of the captured CO2 a purge gas 7 can be fed countercurrently through the capture bed C2 following the initial venting of the bed. As shown, the purge gas 7 can be provided from the dry, low CO2-content stream10 that exits the capture bed C1.”), wherein said secondary CO2 adsorbent bed cools down using said exhaust stream creating a heated exhaust stream (¶0049 “the purge gas 7 can carry heat from the bed. Upon exit, the now heated, dry, and low CO2 content purge gas can be fed to the second desiccant bed D2 for further recharging”).
Regarding claim 16, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches wherein said exhaust stream passes through a separate dryer after being removed from said capture chamber (¶0049 “the purge gas 7 can carry heat from the bed. Upon exit, the now heated, dry, and low CO2 content purge gas can be fed to the second desiccant bed D2 for further recharging of desiccant bed D2”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter and Besarati, and further in view of McGrail.
Regarding claim 14, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter and Besarati do not explicitly teach wherein said vacuum source is used on said dryer to thereby regenerate said dryer.
However, McGrail teaches a method for capturing carbon dioxide (Abstract) wherein a gas stream is first passed through a dryer prior to entering a CO2 adsorption chamber (Fig. 1, incoming air passes through H2O bed 11 before entering CO2 bed 13) and comprises a vacuum source (Fig. 1, vacuum pump), wherein said dryer is coupled to said vacuum source and wherein said vacuum source regenerates said dryer (¶0026 “a parallel set of desiccant beds is isolated from the air stream and simultaneously regenerated under a partial vacuum.”).
Ritter, Besarati, and McGrail are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide and water removal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method as taught by Ritter and Besarati could be modified to incorporate vacuum regeneration as taught by McGrail to either aid in the regeneration of the dryer or as an alternative regeneration means. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the regeneration of the dryer) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0291064 A1 to Conroy et al. (hereinafter referred to as Conroy), as evidenced by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2014/0026750 A1 to Jain (hereinafter referred to as Jain).
Regarding claim 5, Ritter teaches the apparatus as applied to claim 1 above. Ritter further teaches that the captured CO2 can be reused or transported for other applications (¶0009). As evidenced by Jain, the use of captured and purified carbon dioxide in food and beverage applications is known in the art (¶0039 “The purified CO2 product exits the CO2 purification system 125 as stream 140 and is available, for example, for food or beverage applications”); however, Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is coupled to a beverage machine and wherein the purified carbon dioxide is used to either carbonate a beverage or dispense a drink.
Conroy teaches a carbonation system for a beverage machine (Fig. 1) that contains a carbon dioxide source (¶0042 “The carbonation system 110 can receive a carbonating gas from a gas source”), and wherein said beverage device uses purified carbon dioxide to carbonate a beverage (¶0042 “The carbonation system 110 can receive a carbonating gas from a gas source, such as a carbon dioxide canister or bottle disposed in the housing 102, and the carbonating gas can be used to carbonate the precursor liquid.”).
Ritter, Jain, and Conroy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide utilization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the apparatus as taught by Ritter could be coupled to the beverage device as taught by Conroy such that the purified carbon dioxide could be utilized as the source gas in carbonating a beverage.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter and Besarati, and further in view of Conroy, as evidenced by Jain.
Regarding claim 17, Ritter and Besarati teach the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter further teaches that the captured CO2 can be reused or transported for other applications (¶0009). As evidenced by Jain, the use of captured and purified carbon dioxide in food and beverage applications is known in the art (¶0039 “The purified CO2 product exits the CO2 purification system 125 as stream 140 and is available, for example, for food or beverage applications”); however, Ritter and Besarati do not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises a step of (e) executing at least one of: carbonating a beverage or dispensing a drink.
Conroy teaches a carbonation system for a beverage machine (Fig. 1) that contains a carbon dioxide source (¶0042 “The carbonation system 110 can receive a carbonating gas from a gas source”), and wherein said beverage device uses purified carbon dioxide to carbonate a beverage (¶0042 “The carbonation system 110 can receive a carbonating gas from a gas source, such as a carbon dioxide canister or bottle disposed in the housing 102, and the carbonating gas can be used to carbonate the precursor liquid.”).
Ritter, Besarati, Jain, and Conroy are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide utilization. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method as taught by Ritter and Besarati could be modified to include a step of carbonating a beverage as taught by Conroy, such that the purified carbon dioxide would be utilized as the source gas in said carbonation step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm 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, 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
