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 Objections
Claims12 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the limitation “includes amino-2-methyl-1-propanol”. It is unclear if applicant meant to use 2-amino-2methyl-1-propanol or a different compound. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burgers (US20070148068A1).
Claim 1: Burgers teaches a vacuum solvent reclamation system for removing heat stable salts, degradation products, and other contaminants (removal of heat stable salts and other degradation byproducts, [0007]) from carbon dioxide (CO2) capture solvents (reclaiming CO2 absorbent solution, abstract), the vacuum solvent reclamation system comprising: a feed product exchanger (heat exchanger 400, figure 7) configured to increase the temperature of the CO2 capture solvents (heat exchanger 400 increases temp of absorbent liquid 201, [0078] and figure 7); a reboiler (vaporizer 200, figure 7) that increases the temperature of the CO2 capture solvents emitted from the feed product exchanger (vaporizer reads upon this) such that the heat stable salts, the degradation products, and the other contaminants accumulate in the reboiler (unvaporized residue 203 includes HSS which is removed from vaporizer 200, [0063]), wherein the feed product exchanger and the reboiler are in fluid communication (heat exchanger 400 and vaporizer 200 are connected by line 201, figure 7) to permit batch or semi-batch removal of the heat stable salts, the degradation products, and the other contaminants from the CO2 capture solvents (batch reclaimer similar to figure 4, [0078] and figure 7); and a condenser that decreases the temperature (condensed in condenser 210, [0078] and figure 7) of cleaned carbon dioxide (CO2) capture solvents emitted from the feed product exchanger (vapor stream 401, figure 7).
Claim 9: Burger teaches (i) the solvent comprises: a tertiary amine (tertiary amine, [0052]) or water (water, [0024]).
Claim 13: Burger teaches a vacuum solvent reclamation system for removing heat stable salts, degradation products and other contaminants (removal of heat stable salts and other degradation byproducts, [0007]) from carbon dioxide (CO2) capture solvents (reclaiming CO2 absorbent solution, abstract), the vacuum solvent reclamation system comprising: a reboiler(vaporizer 200, figure 7) that increases the temperature of the CO2 capture solvents (vaporizer reads upon this) such that the heat stable salts, degradation products and the other contaminants accumulate in the reboiler (unvaporized residue 203 includes HSS which is removed from vaporizer 200, [0063]), wherein the reboiler is configured to permit batch or semi-batch removal of heat stable salts, degradation products, and the other contaminants from the CO2 capture solvents (batch reclaimer similar to figure 4, [0078] and figure 7); and, a condenser that decreases the temperature (condensed in condenser 210, [0078] and figure 7) of cleaned carbon dioxide (CO2) capture solvents emitted from the reboiler (vapor stream 401, figure 7).
Claim 21: Burger teaches (i) the solvent comprises: a tertiary amine (tertiary amine, [0052]) or water (water, [0024]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger in view of US296 (US20080050296A1).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burger in view of Tanaka (US20150132207A1).
Rejection in view of Burger and US296
Claims 10 and 22: Burger does not explicitly state the water is deionized water. Burger teaches the use of water as an absorbent ([0024]).
US296 teaches that CO2 liquid absorbent includes a solvent ([0034]). US296 further teaches that deionized water as an example of suitable solvents for absorption of CO2 ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Burger to use deionized water as taught by US296 since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case the use of deionized water would have a reasonable chance of success as US296 teaches deionized water is used as an absorbent for CO2.
Rejection in view of Burger and Tanaka
Claims 10 and 22: Burger does not explicitly state the sterically hindered amine is 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol, 2-amino-2-hydroxymethyl-1,3-propanediol, 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol. Burger teaches the use of amine as an absorbent ([0007]).
Tanaka teaches the preparation of a complex amine absorbent for CO2 ([0001]). Tanaka teaches the absorbent has an amino hindered alcohol (primary amine is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Burger to use the absorbent with 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol as taught by Tanaka, as Tanaka teaches that this complex absorbent has a high ability to release CO2 during regeneration and therefore can reduce the water vapor used in a facility for recovering CO2 ([0021]).
Claims 11 and 23: Burger does not explicitly teach the solvent comprises an amino hindered alcohol, a polyamine, and water. Burger teaches removal of HSS from amines solvents used for CO2 absorption ([0006]-[0007]).
Tanaka teaches the preparation of a complex amine absorbent for CO2 ([0001]). Tanaka teaches the absorbent has an amino hindered alcohol (primary amine is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, claim 2), a polyamine (polyamine, claim 1), and water (dissolved in water, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Burger to use the absorbent with an amino hindered alcohol, a polyamine, and water as taught by Tanaka, as Tanaka teaches that this absorbent has a high ability to release CO2 during regeneration and therefore can reduce the water vapor used in a facility for recovering CO2 ([0021]).
Claims 12 and 24: Tanaka teaches the amino hindered alcohol includes amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (primary amine is 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, claim 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 and 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts do not teach the limitations of claim 2 and 14. It does not teach that the reclamation system is in fluid communication with a CO2 capture system with at least one rotary packed bed direct contact cooler, at least one rotary packed bed absorber rotating circularly, wherein a solvent provided through an inner radius of the at least one rotary packed bed absorber moves towards an outer radius of the at least one rotary packed bed absorber, and at least one water wash to remove traces of the solvent present in the flue gases, wherein the water wash is a separate rotary packed bed.
Claims 3-8 and 15-20 are dependent upon allowable claims 2 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 09/30/2026.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights