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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “top gas from the distillation column is compressed in a compressor driven by the turbine” of claim 21 (Fig. 2 only depicts a top gas of the scrubber column being compressed) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 1: “CO2” should read “carbon dioxide (CO2)”
Claim 16, line 3: “a gas containing CO2” should read “the gas containing CO2”
Claim 16, line 9: “the component lighter than CO2” should read “the at least one component lighter than CO2”
Claim 16, line 10: “the component lighter than CO2” should read “the at least one component lighter than CO2”
Claim 17, line 10: “the CO2-rich fluid” should read “the at least one CO2-rich fluid”
Claim 16, line 1: “CO2” should read “carbon dioxide (CO2)”
Claim 23, line 1: “the CO2-rich fluid” should read “the at least one CO2-rich fluid”
Claim 25, line 1: “the at least one CO2-rich fluid” should read “the at least one CO2-rich fluid”
Claim 26, line 1: “CO2” should read “carbon dioxide (CO2)”
Claim 26, line 21: “expanded gas;” should read “expanded gas.”
Claim 30, line 5: “NOX” should be amended to define the term consistent with what is described on page 8 of the present disclosure.
Claims 17, 20, and 22-25 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
Claims 18-19 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Claim 21 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 20.
Claims 27-28 and 30 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 26.
Claim 29 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 28.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following recitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 26, line 18 recites, “means for sending…” but does not correspond to any additional structure in the present disclosure to define the means for sending. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 29, line 1 recites, “means for liquefying…” but does not correspond to any additional structure in the present disclosure to define the means for liquefying. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 29, line 2 recites, “means for sending…” but does not correspond to any additional structure in the present disclosure to define the means for sending. See 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26, line 18 recites, “means for sending…” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however the present disclosure does not provide any additional structure to define the means for sending. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 29, line 1 recites, “means for liquefying…” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however the present disclosure does not provide any additional structure to define the means for liquefying. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claim 29, line 2 recites, “means for sending…” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however the present disclosure does not provide any additional structure to define the means for sending. See 112(b) rejections below.
Claims 27-28 and 30 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 26.
Claim 29 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-30 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 16 recites the limitation "the low-temperature separation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the low-temperature separation" in line 1 to “low-temperature separation".
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one vaporized CO2-rich fluid" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the at least one vaporized CO2-rich fluid” in lines 1-2 to “the at least one CO2-rich fluid that was vaporized".
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the top of a stripping column" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the top of a stripping column" in line 2 to “a top of a stripping column".
Claim 20, lines 1-2 recite, “wherein the liquid enriched in CO2 is fed to the top of a scrubbing column and the liquid from the scrubbing column feeds a distillation column” which is unclear to the Examiner as Fig. 2 of the present disclosure depicts the liquid enriched in CO2 to be fed to the top the distillation column C and then the liquid of the distillation column C is sent to the scrubbing column N via lines 19 and 15, Fig. 2 does not depict any liquid from the scrubbing column N being sent to the distillation column C. This is further evidenced by the following recitation of the specification, “The liquid 5 from the phase separator Sis expanded and subsequently sent to the top of a distillation column C from which a liquid 9 enriched in CO2 and depleted in the at least one light component is withdrawn at the bottom. At least a part of the liquid is pressurized by a pump P and can be sent to be vaporized in the first heat exchanger E, a part 11 of the vaporized liquid optionally being sent to the bottom of the column C as reboiling and the other part 19 being sent to feed the column N at the bottom. The top gas 7 from the column C is heated in the first exchanger E. The column N is a column for the removal ofNOx compounds which are heavier than CO2, NOx being a designation covering the following compounds: nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3). As NO is lighter than CO2, the column N is used to remove nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and dinitrogen trioxide (N2O3), if present in the liquid. In this column fed by the flow 19, at least one impurity heavier than CO2 is scrubbed out by an intermediate reflux of CO2 15 and a top reflux 23 of pure CO2 to produce at the bottom a liquid enriched in the at least one heavier impurity 25, such as NOx compounds, for example NO2 (Pg. 8)”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will simply interpret the claim to require the use of both a distillation column and a scrubbing column for the separation process.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the top of a scrubbing column" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the top of a scrubbing column" in line 2 to “a top of a scrubbing column".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the liquid from the scrubbing column" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the liquid from the scrubbing column" in line 2 to “a liquid from the scrubbing column".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the top of a scrubbing column" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the top of a scrubbing column" in line 2 to “a top of a scrubbing column".
Claim 22, lines 1-2 recite, “wherein the gas depleted in CO2 goes into the cooler at a temperature greater than ambient temperature” which is unclear to the Examiner as to which previously claimed cooler (i.e., the first cooler or the second cooler) is being referred to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the gas depleted in CO2 goes into the first cooler at a temperature greater than ambient temperature” which is consistent with what is depicted in Figures 1 and 2. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “a temperature greater than ambient temperature”, and the claim also recites “for example greater than 30°C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the gas to be separated" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the gas to be separated" in line 1 to “the cooled gas to be separated" which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 16 from which claim 23 depends.
Claim 23, lines 1-2 recite, “wherein the gas to be separated is separated by partial condensation to produce the gas depleted in CO2 and also a liquid” which is unclear to the Examiner if the liquid of claim 23 is the same as the liquid enriched in CO2 of claim 16 from which claim 23 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the liquids of claims 16 and 23 to be the same liquid. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify the relationship between the liquids of claims 16 and 23.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “to produce the CO2-rich fluid”, and the claim also recites “which is preferably a CO2-rich liquid” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the narrower language as merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the cold" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the cold" in line 1 to “cold".
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the first heat exchanger E" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the first heat exchanger E" in line 2 to “the first heat exchanger" which is given proper antecedent basis in claim 16 from which claim 25 depends.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the low-temperature separation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the low-temperature separation" in line 1 to “low-temperature separation".
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the component lighter than CO2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the component lighter than CO2" in line 1 to “a component lighter than CO2".
Claim 26, line 17, recites, “at least one CO2-rich fluid” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the at least one CO2-rich fluid relates to the CO2-rich fluid of line 2 of claim 26. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the at least one CO2-rich fluid and the CO2-rich fluid to be the same fluids. The examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify the relationship between the at least one CO2-rich fluid and the CO2-rich fluid.
Claim limitation “means for sending” in claim 26 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure has been provided to define the components of the means for sending. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the means for sending to include flow paths, pipelines, conduits, and functional equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “means for liquefying” in claim 29 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure has been provided to define the components of the means for liquefying. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the means for liquefying to include heat exchangers, condensers, liquefiers, and functional equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the gas compressed in the CO2-rich product compressor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the gas compressed in the CO2-rich product compressor" in line 2 to “a gas compressed in the CO2-rich product compressor".
Claim limitation “means for sending” in claim 29 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure has been provided to define the components of the means for sending. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the means for sending to include flow paths, pipelines, conduits, and functional equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 17, 20, and 22-25 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
Claims 18-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 17.
Claim 21 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 20.
Claims 27-28 and 30 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 26.
Claim 29 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 28.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21-23, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darde et al. (US 20090013868), hereinafter Darde in view of Briglia et al. (US Patent No. 9,903,648), hereinafter Briglia and Kulkarni et al. (US Patent No. 8,911,535), hereinafter Kulkarni.
Regarding claim 16, Darde discloses a process for the low-temperature separation of a gas containing CO2 to produce a CO2-rich fluid (Fig. 2, unit 104; Fig. 3, stream 118, carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67, part 69, stream 85, rest 73; Pg. 3, paragraph FIG. 3 shows a low temperature purification unit that could be used as unit 104 in FIG. 2. At least one process according to the invention operates within such a unit; Pg. 3, paragraph 57, Stream 118 contains mainly carbon dioxide as well as NO2, oxygen, argon and nitrogen), the process comprising the steps of:
compressing a gas containing CO2 and at least one component lighter than CO2 in a compressor to form a compressed gas (Fig. 3, compressor 2, stream 118, stream 5; Pg. 3, paragraph 57, Stream 118 contains mainly carbon dioxide as well as NO2, oxygen, argon and nitrogen. It may be produced by unit 103 directly at the high pressure or may be brought up to the high pressure using optional compressor 2 shown in dashed lines),
cooling the compressed gas to form a cooled gas, wherein the step of cooling the compressed gas further comprises cooling the compressed gas in a first cooler and a first heat exchanger to form the cooled gas (Fig. 3, stream 5, heat exchanger 9, heat exchanger 55; Pg. 3, paragraph 57, Stream 5 cools in heat exchange line 9 and is partially condensed; Pg. 4, paragraph 72, Top gas 32 from the second phase separator 22 is cooled in heat exchanger 55 and sent to third phase separator 133. Part of the liquid from the phase separator 133 is sent to the column 43 and the rest as the intermediate purity stream 45 is divided in two streams 47, 141);
separating the cooled gas at low temperature by partial condensation to produce a liquid and a gas, wherein the liquid is enriched in CO2 and depleted in the component lighter than CO2, wherein the gas is depleted in CO2 and enriched in the component lighter than CO2 (Fig. 3, separators 11, 22, 133, 143; Pg. 3, paragraph 57-58, The partially condensed stream is sent to first phase separator 11 and separated into gaseous phase 13 and liquid phase 17. The gaseous phase 13 is divided in two to form stream 15 and stream 21. Stream 21 is used to reboil colunm 43 in exchanger 25 and is then sent to a second phase separator 22. Stream 15 by-passes the reboilers in order to control the reboiling duty. Liquid stream 17 from the first phase separator 11 is expanded in valve 19 and liquid stream 29 is expanded in valve 31, both streams being then sent to the top of colunm 43. Colunm 43 serves principally to remove the incondensable components (oxygen, nitrogen, and argon) from the feed stream; Pg. 4, paragraph 72, Top gas 32 from the second phase separator 22 is cooled in heat exchanger 55 and sent to third phase separator 133. Part of the liquid from the phase separator 133 is sent to the column 43 and the rest as the intermediate purity stream 45 is divided in two streams 47, 141),
heating the gas depleted in CO2 in the first heat exchanger and subsequently in the first cooler before being expanded in a turbine (Fig. 3, carbon dioxide lean top gas 157; Pg. 4, paragraph 74, The top gas from the third phase separator 133 is cooled in heat exchanger 55, optionally after compression by compressor 134 and sent to a fourth phase separator 143. The carbon dioxide lean top gas 157 from fourth phase separator 143 is warmed in heat exchanger 55, then in heat exchanger 9 as stream 157, warmed in exchanger 65 and expanded as stream 23 in expander 63, coupled to compressor 35); and
separating the liquid enriched in CO2 by distillation to form at least one CO2-rich fluid (Fig. 3, column 43; Pg. 3, paragraph 60, A carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67 is removed from the bottom of column 43 and divided in two. One part 69 is pumped by pump 71 to form stream 85, further pumped in pump 87 and then removed from the system. Stream 85 corresponds to stream 25 of FIG. 1. The rest 73 provides the frigorific balance).
However, Darde does not disclose the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas.
Briglia teaches the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas (Fig. 2, compressor 3, stages 3A-3D, cooling means 5D, cooler 5E, first exchanger 43; Col. 3, lines 58-66, In FIG. 1, a wet gas 1 comprising carbon dioxide and oxygen or carbon monoxide is compressed in a compressor
3. This compressor 3 comprises four stages 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, each being followed by a cooling means SA, 5B, 5C, 5D. After cooling in the cooling means SD, the gas 1 is cooled by the cooler SE in order to form the gas 7 and is sent into a purification unit 9 in order to remove the moisture. The dry gas 11 formed is cooled in a first exchanger 43 where it is cooled and is partially condensed).
Darde fails to teach the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas, however Briglia teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid to include the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas. This is strong evidence that modifying Darde as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring the feed is brought to sufficient temperature and pressure to improve overall system efficiencies). 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 Darde by Briglia 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 ensuring the feed is brought to sufficient temperature and pressure to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Darde as modified does not disclose the second cooler to be configured to exchange heat with water.
Kulkarni teaches a cooler for use in low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid that is configured to exchange heat with water (Fig. 2A, dew point chiller 4; Col. 6, lines 18-21, Dew point chillers 4 such as those contemplated for use in the present process are known in the art and include propane chillers or cooling water for the condensation and removal of the higher hydrocarbons).
Darde as modified fails to teach the second cooler to be configured to exchange heat with water, however Kulkarni teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid to include a cooler for that is configured to exchange heat with water. This is strong evidence that modifying Darde as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient cooling capacity to the chiller for condensation of the feed gas to improve overall system efficiencies). 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 Darde as modified by Kulkarni 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 providing sufficient cooling capacity to the chiller for condensation of the feed gas to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claims 17-18, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the at least one CO2-rich fluid is a liquid (Darde, Fig. 3, carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67, part 69, stream 85, rest 73; Pg. 3, paragraph 60, A carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67 is removed from the bottom of column 43 and divided in two. One part 69 is pumped by pump 71 to form stream 85, further pumped in pump 87 and then removed from the system. Stream 85 corresponds to stream 25 of FIG. 1. The rest 73 provides the frigorific balance; Further, the teachings of Darde at least imply wherein the at least one CO2-rich fluid is a liquid or partially liquid since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
However, Darde as modified does not disclose at least a part of the CO2-rich fluid is vaporized in the first heat exchanger and wherein the at least one vaporized CO2-rich fluid is compressed in a compressor.
Briglia teaches at least a part of the CO2-rich fluid is vaporized in the first heat exchanger and wherein the at least one vaporized CO2-rich fluid is compressed in a compressor (Fig. 2, bottom liquid 27, portion 61, column 25, compressor 51; Col. 4, lines 34-38, In FIG. 2, unlike FIG. 1, a portion 61 of the bottom liquid 27 is evaporated and reheated by passing entirely through the first exchanger 43 in order to be sent downstream of the compressor 47 as flow 61 which is sent downstream of the compressor 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Darde as modified wherein at least a part of the CO2-rich fluid is vaporized in the first heat exchanger as taught by Briglia. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because this alternative form is of particular advantage as this avoids subcooling the liquid which is evaporated at the pressure of the column this will thus relieve the cooled end of the exchanger and improve the liquefaction energy (Briglia, Col. 4, lines 38-42).
Moreover, Darde as modified discloses the use of compressors that are driven by turbines which have the well-known advantage of repurposing existing streams of the system to extract work to improve overall system efficiencies (Fig. 3, compressor 35, expander 63, compressor 59, expander 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Darde as modified wherein the compressor which the at least one vaporized CO2-rich fluid is sent to is driven by a turbine for the well-known advantage of repurposing existing streams of the system to extract work to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 19, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the liquid enriched in CO2 is expanded and sent to the top of a stripping column and the at least one CO2-rich fluid is a bottom liquid from the stripping column (Darde, Fig. 3, separators 11 and 22, valves 19 and 31, column 43; Pg. 3, paragraph 58, Liquid stream 17 from the first phase separator 11 is expanded in valve 19 and liquid stream 29 is expanded in valve 31, both streams being then sent to the top of column 43. Column 43 serves principally to remove the incondensable components (oxygen, nitrogen, and argon) from the feed stream; Pg. 3, paragraph 60, A carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67 is removed from the bottom of column 43 and divided in two. One part 69 is pumped by pump 71 to form stream 85, further pumped in pump 87 and then removed from the system. Stream 85 corresponds to stream 25 of FIG. 1. The rest 73 provides the frigorific balance; Further, the teachings of Darde at least imply and the at least one CO2-rich fluid is a bottom liquid, or at least partially liquid, from the stripping column since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 21, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 20 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 20 above), wherein a top gas from the distillation column is compressed in a compressor driven by the turbine (Darde, Fig. 3, carbon dioxide depleted stream 33, compressor35, expander 63; Pg. 3, paragraph 59, A carbon dioxide depleted stream 33 is removed from the top of column 43 and sent to compressor 35. The compressed stream 37 is then recycled to stream 5).
Regarding claim 22, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the gas depleted in CO2 goes into the cooler (Darde, Fig. 3, carbon dioxide lean top gas 157; Pg. 4, paragraph 74, The top gas from the third phase separator 133 is cooled in heat exchanger 55, optionally after compression by compressor 134 and sent to a fourth phase separator 143. The carbon dioxide lean top gas 157 from fourth phase separator 143 is warmed in heat exchanger 55, then in heat exchanger 9 as stream 157, warmed in exchanger 65 and expanded as stream 23 in expander 63, coupled to compressor 35; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Darde as modified teaches the claimed invention except for “wherein the gas depleted in CO2 goes into the cooler at a temperature greater than ambient temperature, for example greater than 30°C”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include “wherein the gas depleted in CO2 goes into the cooler at a temperature greater than ambient temperature, for example greater than 30°C”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of “wherein the gas depleted in CO2 goes into the cooler at a temperature greater than ambient temperature, for example greater than 30°C”, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. (As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 23, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the gas to be separated is separated by partial condensation to produce the gas depleted in CO2 and also a liquid; the liquid is separated by distillation in a distillation column to produce the CO2-rich fluid, which is preferably a CO2-rich liquid (Darde, Fig. 3, separators 11, 22, 133, 143; Pg. 3, paragraph 57-58, The partially condensed stream is sent to first phase separator 11 and separated into gaseous phase 13 and liquid phase 17. The gaseous phase 13 is divided in two to form stream 15 and stream 21. Stream 21 is used to reboil colunm 43 in exchanger 25 and is then sent to a second phase separator 22. Stream 15 by-passes the reboilers in order to control the reboiling duty. Liquid stream 17 from the first phase separator 11 is expanded in valve 19 and liquid stream 29 is expanded in valve 31, both streams being then sent to the top of colunm 43. Colunm 43 serves principally to remove the incondensable components (oxygen, nitrogen, and argon) from the feed stream; Pg. 4, paragraph 72, Top gas 32 from the second phase separator 22 is cooled in heat exchanger 55 and sent to third phase separator 133. Part of the liquid from the phase separator 133 is sent to the column 43 and the rest as the intermediate purity stream 45 is divided in two streams 47, 141).
Regarding claim 25, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above), wherein at least one CO2-rich fluid is a gas which is heated in the first heat exchanger E before being compressed (Darde, Fig. 3, NO2 depleted stream 79, stream 78, heat exchanger 9, compressors 75 and 77; Pg. 3, paragraph 65, NO2 depleted stream 79 is removed from the column and sent back to the heat exchange line. This stream is further warmed, compressed in compressors 75, 77, sent to heat exchanger 65, removed therefrom as stream 78, cooled in exchangers 81, 83 and mixed with stream 69 to form stream 85; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 26, Darde discloses an apparatus for the low-temperature separation of a gas containing CO2 to produce a CO2-rich fluid (Fig. 2, unit 104; Fig. 3, stream 118, carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67, part 69, stream 85, rest 73; Pg. 3, paragraph FIG. 3 shows a low temperature purification unit that could be used as unit 104 in FIG. 2. At least one process according to the invention operates within such a unit; Pg. 3, paragraph 57, Stream 118 contains mainly carbon dioxide as well as NO2, oxygen, argon and nitrogen) comprising:
a compressor (Fig. 3, compressor 2);
a cooler in fluid communication with an outlet of the compressor, such that the cooler is configured to receive a compressed gas from the outlet of the compressor (Fig. 3, stream 5, heat exchanger 9; Pg. 3, paragraph 57, Stream 5 cools in heat exchange line 9 and is partially condensed; Further, the heat exchanger 9 of Darde has the same structure as the claimed first heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a first heat exchanger in fluid communication with an outlet of the cooler, such that the first heat exchanger is configured to receive gas from the outlet of the cooler and to at least partially condense the gas to form a dual phase fluid (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 55; Pg. 4, paragraph 72, Top gas 32 from the second phase separator 22 is cooled in heat exchanger 55 and sent to third phase separator 133. Part of the liquid from the phase separator 133 is sent to the column 43 and the rest as the intermediate purity stream 45 is divided in two streams 47, 141; Further, the heat exchanger 55 of Darde has the same structure as the claimed first heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
a phase separator in fluid communication with the first heat exchanger, wherein the phase separator is configured to receive the dual phase fluid from the first heat exchanger and separate the dual phase fluid into a gas and a liquid, wherein the liquid is enriched in CO2 and depleted in the component lighter than CO2, wherein the gas is depleted in CO2 and enriched in the component lighter than CO2 (Fig. 3, separators 11, 22, 133, 143; Pg. 3, paragraph 57-58, The partially condensed stream is sent to first phase separator 11 and separated into gaseous phase 13 and liquid phase 17. The gaseous phase 13 is divided in two to form stream 15 and stream 21. Stream 21 is used to reboil colunm 43 in exchanger 25 and is then sent to a second phase separator 22. Stream 15 by-passes the reboilers in order to control the reboiling duty. Liquid stream 17 from the first phase separator 11 is expanded in valve 19 and liquid stream 29 is expanded in valve 31, both streams being then sent to the top of colunm 43. Colunm 43 serves principally to remove the incondensable components (oxygen, nitrogen, and argon) from the feed stream; Pg. 4, paragraph 72, Top gas 32 from the second phase separator 22 is cooled in heat exchanger 55 and sent to third phase separator 133. Part of the liquid from the phase separator 133 is sent to the column 43 and the rest as the intermediate purity stream 45 is divided in two streams 47, 141; Further, the phase separators 11, 22, 133, 143 of Darde have the same structure as the claimed phase separator and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
at least one distillation column configured to receive the liquid enriched in CO2, wherein the at least one distillation column is configured to produce at least one CO2 -rich fluid (Fig. 3, column 43, NO2 removal column 105; Pg. 3, paragraph 60, A carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67 is removed from the bottom of column 43 and divided in two. One part 69 is pumped by pump 71 to form stream 85, further pumped in pump 87 and then removed from the system. Stream 85 corresponds to stream 25 of FIG. 1. The rest 73 provides the frigorific balance; Further, the column 43 of Darde has the same structure as the claimed at least one distillation column and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
means for sending the gas depleted in CO2 to be heated first in the first heat exchanger and subsequently in the cooler, thereby forming a hot gas depleted in CO2 (Fig. 3, carbon dioxide lean top gas 157; Pg. 4, paragraph 74, The top gas from the third phase separator 133 is cooled in heat exchanger 55, optionally after compression by compressor 134 and sent to a fourth phase separator 143. The carbon dioxide lean top gas 157 from fourth phase separator 143 is warmed in heat exchanger 55, then in heat exchanger 9 as stream 157, warmed in exchanger 65 and expanded as stream 23 in expander 63, coupled to compressor 35; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above); and
a turbine configured to receive the hot gas depleted in CO2 from the cooler and expand the hot gas depleted in CO2 to form an expanded gas (Fig. 3, expander 63; Pg. 4, paragraph 74, The top gas from the third phase separator 133 is cooled in heat exchanger 55, optionally after compression by compressor 134 and sent to a fourth phase separator 143. The carbon dioxide lean top gas 157 from fourth phase separator 143 is warmed in heat exchanger 55, then in heat exchanger 9 as stream 157, warmed in exchanger 65 and expanded as stream 23 in expander 63, coupled to compressor 35).
However, Darde does not disclose the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas.
Briglia teaches the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas (Fig. 2, compressor 3, stages 3A-3D, cooling means 5D, cooler 5E, first exchanger 43; Col. 3, lines 58-66, In FIG. 1, a wet gas 1 comprising carbon dioxide and oxygen or carbon monoxide is compressed in a compressor
3. This compressor 3 comprises four stages 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, each being followed by a cooling means SA, 5B, 5C, 5D. After cooling in the cooling means SD, the gas 1 is cooled by the cooler SE in order to form the gas 7 and is sent into a purification unit 9 in order to remove the moisture. The dry gas 11 formed is cooled in a first exchanger 43 where it is cooled and is partially condensed).
Darde fails to teach the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas, however Briglia teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid to include the compressor comprising at least two stages and a second cooler disposed in between the first cooler and the heat exchanger for forming the cooled gas. This is strong evidence that modifying Darde as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. ensuring the feed is brought to sufficient temperature and pressure to improve overall system efficiencies). 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 Darde by Briglia 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 ensuring the feed is brought to sufficient temperature and pressure to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Darde as modified does not disclose the second cooler to be configured to exchange heat with water.
Kulkarni teaches a cooler for use in low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid that is configured to exchange heat with water (Fig. 2A, dew point chiller 4; Col. 6, lines 18-21, Dew point chillers 4 such as those contemplated for use in the present process are known in the art and include propane chillers or cooling water for the condensation and removal of the higher hydrocarbons).
Darde as modified fails to teach the second cooler to be configured to exchange heat with water, however Kulkarni teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid to include a cooler for that is configured to exchange heat with water. This is strong evidence that modifying Darde as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient cooling capacity to the chiller for condensation of the feed gas to improve overall system efficiencies). 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 Darde as modified by Kulkarni 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 providing sufficient cooling capacity to the chiller for condensation of the feed gas to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 27, Darde as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in Claim 26 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 26 above), further comprising a cycle compressor coupled to the turbine (Darde, Fig. 3, compressor 35, expander 63).
Regarding claim 28, Darde as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in Claim 26 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 26 above), further comprising a CO2-rich product compressor coupled to the turbine (Darde, Fig. 3, compressor 35, expander 63; Further, the Examiner BRI of “a CO2-rich product compressor” is a compressor that compresses a stream of that is the product of distillation what is primarily comprises of CO2).
Regarding claim 29, Darde as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in Claim 28 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 28 above), further comprising means for liquefying a part of the gas compressed in the CO2-rich product compressor and means for sending the liquefied gas to the at least one distillation column as reflux (Fig. 3 of Darde depicts the stream 33 to be sent to compressor 35 before being rerouted into stream 5 which is at least partially condensed or liquefied in heat exchangers 9 and 55 before reflux is provided to column 3 via line 41; Pg. 3, paragraph 59 A carbon dioxide depleted stream 33 is removed from the top of column 43 and sent to compressor 35. The compressed stream 37 is then recycled to stream 5; Pg. 4, paragraph 72, Part of the liquid from the phase separator 133 is sent to the column 43 and the rest as the intermediate purity stream 45 is divided in two streams 47, 141; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Regarding claim 30, Darde as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in Claim 26 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 26 above), wherein the at least one distillation column comprises a first distillation column and a second distillation column, wherein the first distillation column is fed with the liquid enriched in CO2 coming from the phase separator, and the second distillation column is fed with a bottom liquid from the first distillation column, wherein the second distillation column is configured to remove NOX (Darde, Fig. 3, column 43, NO2 removal column 105; Pg. 3, paragraph 60, A carbon dioxide enriched or rich stream 67 is removed from the bottom of column 43 and divided in two. One part 69 is pumped by pump 71 to form stream 85, further pumped in pump 87 and then removed from the system. Stream 85 corresponds to stream 25 of FIG. 1. The rest 73 provides the frigorific balance; Pg. 3, paragraph 64-65, In FIG. 3, after stream 69 is removed, the rest of the carbon dioxide enriched stream 73 is vaporized in heat exchange line 9 and sent to NO2 removal column 105. This column may have a top condenser and a bottom reboiler, as shown, the feed being sent to an intermediate point. Alternatively, there need be no bottom reboiler, in which case the feed is sent to the bottom of the column. A NO2 depleted stream 79 is removed from the column and sent back to the heat exchange line. This stream is further warmed, compressed in compressors 75, 77, sent to heat exchanger 65, removed therefrom as stream 78, cooled in exchangers 81, 83 and mixed with stream 69 to form stream 85; Further, NO2 removal column 105 has the same structure as the claimed second distillation column and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darde as modified by Briglia and Kulkarni as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of G. Ranke (US Patent No. 3,498,067), hereinafter Ranke.
Regarding claim 20, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above).
However, Darde as modified does not disclose wherein the liquid enriched in CO2 is fed to the top of a scrubbing column and the liquid from the scrubbing column feeds a distillation column.
Ranke teaches wherein the liquid enriched in CO2 is fed to the top of a scrubbing column and the liquid from the scrubbing column feeds a distillation column (Fig. 3, separator 117, scrubbing 11, pump 120, stripping 54; Col. 7, lines 52-66, in FIGURE 3, wherein a portion of the excess scrubbing liquid drawn from the column 11 through the separator 29 and conduit 25 is branched off in a conduit 115, expanded 55 through an expansion valve 116 and fed into a separator 117. Pure CO2 from the separator 117 is withdrawn through a conduit 118 and, through a pump 120, re-fed into the column 11 several plates (up to 10) below the feed point for conduit 12. Impure CO2 is taken from the top of the separator 117 through a conduit 121 from which it is exhausted through the conduit 53. The pure CO2 from the separator 117, therefore, constitutes a portion of the scrubbing liquid, regenerated solely by expansion, and fed back to the scrubbing column 11 to form a second scrubbing stage for high pressure scrubbing; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Darde as modified fails to teach wherein the liquid enriched in CO2 is fed to the top of a scrubbing column and the liquid from the scrubbing column feeds a distillation column, however Ranke teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid to include wherein the liquid enriched in CO2 is fed to the top of a scrubbing column and the liquid from the scrubbing column feeds a distillation column. This is strong evidence that modifying Darde as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. removing impurities from the CO2 stream to produce a purified CO2 product stream). 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 Darde as modified by Ranke 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 removing impurities from the CO2 stream to produce a purified CO2 product stream.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darde as modified by Briglia and Kulkarni as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Briglia et al. (US Patent No. 9,393,515), hereinafter Briglia ‘515.
Regarding claim 24, Darde as modified discloses the process as claimed in Claim 16 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 16 above).
However, Darde as modified does not disclose wherein at least a part of the cold is provided by a closed refrigeration cycle comprising at least one cycle compressor.
Briglia ‘515 teaches wherein at least a part of the cold is provided by a closed refrigeration cycle comprising at least one cycle compressor (Fig. 1, refrigeration cycle 23; Col. 4, lines 36-40, The cold behavior of the appliance is provided by a refrigeration cycle involving three compressors in order to compress a cycle gas to three pressures, the cycle gas being cooled and reheated in the exchange line. Other methods for producing cold can be envisaged).
Darde as modified fails to teach wherein at least a part of the cold is provided by a closed refrigeration cycle comprising at least one cycle compressor, however Briglia ‘515teaches that it is a known method in the art of low-temperature separation to produce CO2-rich fluid to include wherein at least a part of the cold is provided by a closed refrigeration cycle comprising at least one cycle compressor. This is strong evidence that modifying Darde as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient refrigeration capacity to improve overall system efficiencies). 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 Darde as modified by Briglia ‘515and 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 removing impurities from the CO2 stream to produce a purified CO2 product stream.
Moreover, Darde as modified discloses the use of compressors that are driven by turbines which have the well-known advantage of repurposing existing streams of the system to extract work to improve overall system efficiencies (Fig. 3, compressor 35, expander 63, compressor 59, expander 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Darde as modified wherein the at least one cycle compressor of the closed refrigeration cycle is driven by a turbine for the well-known advantage of repurposing existing streams of the system to extract work to improve overall system efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beasse et al. (US Patent No. 9,458,022) discloses a similar process for the low-temperature separation of a gas containing CO2 to produce a CO2-rich fluid.
Court et al. (US Patent No. 9,206,795) discloses a similar process for the low-temperature separation of a gas containing CO2 to produce a CO2-rich fluid that includes both a scrubbing column and a distillation column.
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 July 28th, 2026
Prosecution Insights