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(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 2, 4, 10-11, 13, 15 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 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation after “optionally”, and “more optionally” meant to further limit.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation after “optionally” meant to further limit.
Similar issue with claim 5 because the term “optionally”.
Claims 10–11, 13, 15 are indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation after “optionally”, and “more optionally” meant to further limit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1-11,13, 17, 20-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vella et al., US 2023/0356140 A1 (“Vella”).
Regarding claim 1:
Vella discloses a method for removing CO2 and H20 from an exhaust gas (Vella’s method of removing contaminants of carbon dioxide or water from a gaseous feed, Vella [0014]), the method comprising:
(a) an adsorption step in which a non-amine metal organic framework (Vella discloses its adsorption material could be MOF-74, which is non-amine MOF, Vella [0037]) is contacted for 10-900 seconds (Vella discloses the adsorption cycle duration could be greater than 1 second and less than 600 seconds, Vella [0035], such range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)) with an exhaust gas comprising CO2 in an amount of at least 3 v/v% (Vella discloses its feed stream may include CO2 in a range between 500 ppmv to 10 vol%, Vella [0028], such range overlaps with the claimed range and supports a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)), and H20 in an amount of at least 0.3 v/v% (Vella discloses a water content range between 50 ppmv to10,000 ppmv, Vella [0028], 10,000 ppmv is equivalent to 1 vol%, and therefore, Vella discloses a range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)), in order to adsorb CO2 and H20 onto the metal organic framework (Vella discloses its process is configured to move water and carbon dioxide, Vella [0028]), and
(b) a desorption step in which a vacuum is applied to the metal organic framework from step (a) such that CO2 and H20 are desorbed from the metal organic framework (Vella discloses a regeneration or purge step, where a pressure swing process includes depressurization steps, where the adsorbed carbon dioxide/water can be released, Vella [0005] and [0035], [0041]).
Regarding claim 2:
Vella discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in step (a) the metal organic framework is contacted for 10-300 seconds with the exhaust gas, optionally for 15-200 seconds, more optionally for 20-60 seconds (Vella discloses the adsorption cycle duration could be greater than 1 second and less than 600 seconds, Vella [0035], such range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3:
Vella discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein in step (b), the vacuum is applied to the metal organic framework for 10-300 seconds, optionally for 15- 200 seconds, more optionally for 20-60 seconds (Vella discloses a complete cycle of swing adsorption process if less than 600 seconds, which indicating the cacuum applied during step (b) would necessarily be less than 600 seconds, Vella claim 12, Vella therefore discloses a range that overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metal organic framework comprises an organic ligand, the organic ligand optionally comprising a dicarboxylate ligand, a tricarboxylate ligand, or a tetracarboxylate ligand (Vella discloses MOF-74, Vella [0037], which comprising dicarboxylate ligand).
Regarding claim 5:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metal organic framework comprises metal cations with a valency of 2 or more, and optionally the metal cations comprise Mg2+, Ca2+, Mn2+,Co2+, Cu2+, Ni2+ or Zn2+ (Vella discloses MOF-74, Vella [0037], which comprising at least Mg²⁺).
Regarding claim 6:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the organic ligand comprises a benzene dicarboxylate ligand or a benzene tricarboxylate ligand (Vella discloses MOF-74, Vella [0037], which comprising benzene dicarboxylate ligand).
Regarding claim 7:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the organic ligand comprises 2,5- dioxido-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate or 1,3,5- benzenetricarboxylate (Vella discloses MOF-74, Vella [0037], which comprising 2,5- dioxido-1,4-benzenedicarboxylate).
Regarding claim 8:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein step (a) is carried out at a temperature of 5-100 °C (Vella discloses the adsorption temperature remains relatively steady at 100 °F, which is equivalent to 38 °C, Vella [0071], Vella therefore discloses a temperature falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 8, wherein step (a) is carried out at a temperature of 30-60 °C (Vella discloses the adsorption temperature remains relatively steady at 100 °F, which is equivalent to 38 °C, Vella [0071], Vella therefore discloses a temperature falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas comprises H20 in an amount of 0.3-20 v/v%, optionally in the range 0.4- 15v/v%, more optionally in the range 0.5-1v/v% ((Vella discloses a water content range between 50 ppmv to10,000 ppmv, Vella [0028], 10,000 ppmv is equivalent to 0.005 v% to 1 vol%, and therefore, Vella discloses a range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas comprises C02 in an amount of 3 to 35v/v%, optionally in the range 7 to 35v/v%, more optionally in the range 10 to 25v/v% (Vella discloses its feed stream may include CO2 in a range between 500 ppmv to 10 vol%, Vella [0028], such range is equivalent to 0.05 vol% to 10 vol%, such range overlaps with the claimed range and supports a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13:
Vella discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas comprises 02 in an amount of 0.1 to 25v/v%, optionally in the range 1 to 15v/v%, more optionally in the range 2 to 12v/v% (Vella discloses its feed stream may include CO2 in a range between 500 ppmv to 10 vol%, Vella [0028], such range is equivalent to 0.05 vol% to 10 vol%, such range overlaps with the claimed range and supports a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 17:
Vella discloses that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein step (a) absorbs at least 90% of the C02 in the exhaust gas (see Vella Table 1B).
Regarding claim 20:
Vella discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein step (b) provides an outlet stream of at least 85% C02 (Vella’s Table 1B discloses a CO2 in feed as 5000 ppmv and 6 ppmv in product, which means 4994 ppmv is adsorbed, meaning 99.88% of CO2 is absorbed and can be released to an outlet stream).
Regarding claim 21:
Vella discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising dehydrating the exhaust gas prior to step (a) (see Vella [0028]).
Regarding claim 22:
Vella discloses an apparatus (Vella’s swing adsorption system 100, Vella Fig. 1, [0042]) for removing CO2 and H20 from an exhaust gas as defined in claim 1, the apparatus comprising:
(a) an input stream (Vella’s feed stream 309, Fig. 3, [0053]) of the exhaust gas which is connectable to either a first or second adsorption unit (Vellas’s adsorbent bed units 320, 325, Fig. 3, [0054]),
(b)(i) a first adsorption unit comprising a non-amine metal organic framework as an adsorbent (Vella’s unit 320, which could comprise MOF-74, Fig. 3, [0054] and [0037]),
(b)(ii) a second adsorption unit comprising a non-amine metal organic framework as an adsorbent (Vella’s unit 320, which could comprise MOF-74, Fig. 3, [0054] and [0037]), and
(c) a valve through which the input stream of exhaust gas is connectable to either the first or second adsorption unit, the valve being configured such that it switches connection between the first and second adsorption units after 10-900 seconds (Vella discloses its system comprising valves to manage flow through the cycles, Vella [0007], Vella discloses its adsorption bed could perform alternatively between purge and adsorption step, Vella [0010], it is therefore implicit to have a valve to switch between adsorption step and purge step between adsorption beds, and since Vella discloses a full cycle is between 1 and 600 seconds, Vella Claim 12, Vella read on the claimed switch time limits).
Claims 15–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vella as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Radosz et al., US 2010/0242728 A1 (“Radosz”).
Regarding claim 15:
Vella does not disclose a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas comprises N2 in an amount of 50 to 95v/v%, optionally in the range 60 to 90v/v%, more optionally in the range 70 to 80v/v%.
However, in the analogous art of carbon dioxide removal from exhaust gas, Radosz discloses a method of separating carbon dioxide from flue gas, Radosz [0001]. Radosz discloses its flue gas contains mostly nitrogen, water vapor and carbon dioxide, Radosz [0002]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Vella’s apparatus to be used to separate carbon dioxide and water from Radosz’s flue gas because Vella’s system represents an improved system for reducing contaminants levels to extremely low levels while retaining high levels of the retained preferred products composition.
Regarding claim 16:
Vella discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas is one or more of the group comprising: cement flue gas, Waste to Energy (WTE) flue gas, lime flue gas, power plant flue gas, refinery flue gas, steel flue gas, blue hydrogen flue gas (as discussed in claim 15, Vella uses Radosz’s flue gas as feed gas, and Radosz’s flue gas is from a power plants, Radosz [0002]).
Claims 18–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vella as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of De Souza et al., US 2005/0172803 A1 (“De Souza”).
Regarding claim 18:
Vella does not disclose that a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vacuum is such that the difference in pressure between step (a) and step (b) is 0.1-10 bar.
In the analogous art of carbon dioxide adsorption, De Souza discloses a PSA adsorption process, where difference between adsorption pressure P and desorption pressure P’ is less than 1 Bar, De Souza [0005]. De Souza discloses such pressure difference is general for any PSA Process, De Souza [0004] and [0005]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Vella’s pressure different between step (a) and (b) to be within this range because such range are disclosed by De Souza as “general”. With such modification, Vella would have a pressure difference falls within the claimed range.
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed pressure difference range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Regarding claim 19:
Vella as modified discloses a method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the vacuum is such that the difference in pressure between step (a) and step (b) is 0.6-1.5 bar (as discussed in claim 18, the pressure different is less than 1 bar in view of De Souza, overlapping with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed pressure difference range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights