DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-21 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 is found to be indefinite as it is unclear what is included in the “using carbon dioxide” step or how the carbon dioxide is considered “used”. Additionally, there is no explanation as to what is entailed by the accumulation step A and energy generation step B or how those two steps are different. Lastly, Claim 1 states “in which a flow of carbon monoxide and a flow of oxygen” which is grammatically incorrect and confusing as it is unclear what is happening with said flows.
Claim 2 states “an appropriately heated carbon dioxide flow” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear what is considered “appropriate”.
Claim 2 states “obtaining an initial carbon monoxide flow and an initial oxygen flow” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how they are obtained and if this is related to the electrolyzing part of A1.
Claim 3 states “obtaining a carbon monoxide flow”, “obtaining a mainly carbon monoxide and vapor flow, a recycled carbon monoxide flow, and a recirculation gas flow”, “obtaining a dehydrated carbon monoxide flow”, “obtaining an at least partially liquefied carbon monoxide flow”. It is unclear how these streams are obtained or how they relate at all to previously claimed steps in claims 1 and 2 or how these obtained streams relate to each other in the process.
Additionally Claim 3 states “a mainly carbon monoxide and vapor flow” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear what would be considered mainly carbon monoxide and vapor flow and if this merely means a majority is carbon monoxide or a majority is vapor. It is confusing if the mainly refers to both the carbon monoxide and vapor as a single element or at least the two need to comprise the majority.
Claim 4 has similar issues to claim 3 above with respect to the “obtaining” steps without saying how said streams are obtained or how it connects to other streams in the process. See similar rejections with respect to claim 3.
Claim 4 states “a third heat exchanger” and “another third heat exchanger” however a first and second heat exchanger have not been previously introduced.
Claim 5 states “a mainly carbon monoxide and vapor flow” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how this relates to the previously claimed mainly carbon monoxide and vapor flow of claim 3.
Claim 5 states “a flow to be regenerated m2” which is found indefinite as it is unclear what m2 refers to.
Claim 6 is indefinite as it provides steps unrelated to claim 5 including “washing with a physical solvent” without specifying what is being washed or how this relates to previous limitations.
Claim 6 states “s9” in line 5 which is found indefinite.
Claim 6 states “compression and cooling” without specifying what is compressed and cooled.
Claim 6 states “obtaining a regenerated physical solvent-se4prated compressed flow and cooled” which is grammatically incorrect and confusing as to what is meant by “and cooled”.
Claim 6 states “the further appropriately heated” which is found indefinite, see rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally this lacks antecedent basis as a further appropriate heated stream was not previously introduced.
Claim 7 states “the reaction product flow to be regenerated” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 states “said expanded reaction product flow” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 states “the bottom” and “the head” both of which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7 states “obtaining from the carbon dioxide and water flow a gaseous flow” which grammatically is confusing and is missing punctuation.
Claim 7 states “the third column” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 states “a third heat exchanger” and “another third heat exchanger” however this is found to be indefinite as a first and second heat exchanger have not been previously claimed.
Claim 10 states “oC1” and “oE1” which are indefinite.
Claim 10 states “said compressed and cooled oxygen flow” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 10 states “an at least partially liquefied oxygen flow” which is indefinite as an at least partially liquefied oxygen flow was previously disclosed in claim 2 and it is unclear if this is referring to the same stream.
Claim 10 states “the heat exchanges of steps A3b and A3c” and “the heat exchanges of step A3f)” which is found indefinite as they lack antecedent basis and additionally there are not a plurality of heat exchanges mentioned in step A3f.
Claim 12 states “using excess electric current available in the network” which is found indefinite as “the network” does not have antecedent basis and therefore it is unclear what is meant by “the network” and what electric current for said network would be considered “excess”.
Claim 13 states “the combustor” in line 4 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 states “a gaseous oxygen flow” and “a gaseous carbon monoxide flow” which are found indefinite as it is unclear if this is related to the oxygen and carbon monoxide flows of parent claim 1.
Claim 13 states eEK1 which is found to be indefinite.
Claim 13 states “cooling said combustion gas flow to obtain an expanded and cooled” which is found indefinite as it is unclear how cooling provides an expanded flow.
Claim 13 states “a first dehydration combustion gas flow portion” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how this portion relates to the dehydrated combustion gas flow or is a separate gas flow from said dehydrated combustion gas flow or a portion of it.
Claim 13 states “the remaining portion” in step B6 which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 13 states e5 in step B6 which is found to be indefinite.
Claim 13 states “said condensed combustion gas flow” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 14 states “a dehydrated and cooled combustion gas flow portion” which is indefinite as a dehydrated and cooled combustion gas flow portion was already previous claimed in claim 13 step B5.
Claim 15 states “wherein said cooling step B5” and “said steps B3 and B8” but in reference to step B4b) which is unclear how specifics for one step can be within a previous step.
Claim 15 states “the first oxygen and carbon monoxide heat exchanger” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 15 states “the second oxygen and carbon monoxide heat exchanger” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 17 states “thus obtaining a first expanded combustion gas and also a fully expanded combustion gas flow” which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear how these relate to the expanded combustion gas flow of parent claim 13.
Claim 17 states “B10) cooling” however the fully expanded combustion gas flow isn’t being cooled in B10 to have a further cooled stream, the cooled stream of B9 appears to be what should be being cooled in B10. This is found to be indefinite as the different steps B9 through B12 are all not being performed on the fully expanded combustion gas flow. Additionally it is confusion as steps B12-1B14 all start with performing heating on streams that are not the expanded combustion gas that previously “is subjected” to these steps. It is unclear how the fully expanded combustion gas flow is subjected to “heating the second compressed combustion gas flow” for example.
Claim 17 states “a third heat exchanger” and “a fourth heat exchanger” which is found to be indefinite as a first and second heat exchanger has not been previously disclosed.
Claim 18 states “the fourth heat exchanger”, and “the second heat exchanger” which lacks antecedent basis
Claim 19 states “the three flows” which is found to lack antecedent basis.
Claim 19 states “the second further-heated condensed and pumped combustion gas flow” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19 states “the compressed and further-heated combustion gas flow” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20 states wherein a refrigerated fluid is produced. This is found indefinite as it is unclear how this is related to any of the process steps of claim 1.
Claim 21 states “reaction product flow” which lacks antecedent basis
Claim 21 states “said expanded reaction product flow” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 21 states “the bottom” and “the head” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 21 states “the third column” which lacks antecedent basis and a first and second column have not already been introduced.
Claims 2-21 inherit 35 USC 112 deficiencies of any parent claims.
It is pointed out that although some prior art was attempted to be applied to the broadest indefinite claims (claims 1-2 and 20), these claims have indefinite issues and further due to the plethora of 112B issues the remaining claims were not reviewed for prior art rejections – where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims (MPEP 2173.06).
Additionally, applicant is advised to thoroughly check the claims for additional 112B issues including antecedent basis due to the large amount of issues present.
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 1-2 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0235587 Hawkes et al. (hereinafter Hawkes) in view of US 2019/0211715 Park et al. (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Hawkes discloses A method for producing and accumulating energy (see power generation process 116), producing carbon monoxide and oxygen and using carbon dioxide (see paragraph 15, electrolyze at least one of water and carbon dioxide to form oxygen and at least one of hydrogen and carbon monoxide),, comprising an accumulation step A) and an energy generation step B), wherein said accumulation step A) is a step in which a flow of carbon monoxide and a flow of oxygen (unclear what is meant by this, but energy is generated in 116, and an accumulation of carbon monoxide and hydrogen occurs which can then be combusted and used to create energy. While Hawkes does not explicitly disclose producing and accumulating energy from the syngas, this is disclosed by Park who provides for utilizing the syngas in turbine units to supply and generate electricity (see abstract, paragraph 21, see claims 1-10). It would have been obvious to utilize the combustible syngas of Hawkes to create further energy as disclosed by Park in order to take advantage of cooling expansion of streams to output an energy. Additionally it allows for additional energy efficiency wherein the syngas can be stored and then later combusted or expanded in a turbine to provide flexible creation of energy or heat. The examiner goes on official notice additionally that producing and accumulating energy cycles are well known in the art and allow for meeting off-peak and peak demands by an electrical user without wasting overcreated energy (i.e. storing energy for use on a higher use time later).
Regarding claim 2, method according to claim 1, wherein said step A) comprises the sub-steps of: Al) electrolyzing an appropriately-heated carbon dioxide flow and obtaining an initial carbon monoxide flow and an initial oxygen flow (see paragraph 15) , A2) obtaining an at least partially liquefied carbon monoxide flow from the initial carbon monoxide flow, A3) obtaining an at least partially liquefied oxygen flow from the initial oxygen flow (see paragraph 74, syngas can be cooled in recuperator before being directed to Fischer-Tropsch process).
Regarding claim 20, Hawkes discloses where a refrigerated fluid is produced (CO and Oxygen is liquefied/cooled, see rejection of claim 2 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights