DETAILED ACTION
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 8-13, 16 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether or not “a plurality of sorbent containers 102” includes the “sorbent container 102” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, on line 1 of the 2nd page, “the flow” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear whether or not “a plurality of sorbent containers 102” includes the “sorbent container 102” recited in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, “the product streams of steam vapor” (plural) lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
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, claims 13 and 17 recite broad recitations of pressure, and the claim also recites narrow recitations of pressure. The claims 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.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether or not “a plurality of sorbent containers 102” includes the “sorbent container 102” recited in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, “the product streams of steam vapor” (plural) lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected for depending from indefinite claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 14 and 15 are allowed and if the 112(b) rejections are overcome, all claims will be allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose or make obvious independent claims 1, 10 and 14. Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed system where latent heat from the directed mixture of the steam vapor and the CO2 is recovered with the condenser 105 and transferred to heat cooling water in the condenser 105 to steam which is returned to the evaporator 101. The structure required to carry out this limitation, along with rest of the claim, is not taught or made obvious by the prior art. Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed system wherein the pressure-sensing valve 209 diverts at least a portion of the flow of the high-pressure plant steam 309 through the jet ejector 114 and into a process steam pathway 310 and creates a motive force, and wherein the motive force created pulls the low-pressure steam through the jet ejector 114 and into the process steam pathway 310 and captures waste heat contained within the low-pressure steam. Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed system wherein the vapor re-compressor 111b increases temperature and pressure of the low-pressure steam, and wherein the vapor re-compressor 111b directs the low-pressure steam with increased temperature and pressure into a process steam pathway 310 and captures waste heat contained within the low-pressure steam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights