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 “decompression equipment” and “dehydration equipment” 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “Decompression equipment 4”, “Dehydration equipment 5”, and “adsorption separation apparatus 80”. 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. 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 2-9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 4: “while being retained therein” should read “while being retained in the flow path”
Claim 11, lines 3: “one or more states” should read “one or more shapes”
Claims 3-9 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 12 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
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 limitations use the phrase “means” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f):
Claim 2, line 6: “cooling means” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “The cooling equipment 3 is not particularly limited, but examples thereof include a vapor compression refrigerator, and a cooling medium is not particularly limited, but CO2 can be used (Pg. 4, paragraph 14); The cooling equipment 3 is an example of a cooling means capable of cooling a flow path (a flow path 42 described below) through which gas flows while being retained therein, and the CO2 adsorbent (Pg. 7, paragraph 22)”, or equivalents thereof.
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the low concentration" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examine recommends changing “the low concentration” in line 17 to “a low concentration CO2 gas”.
Claim 2, line 4 recites, “the adsorption tower” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the adsorption tower of line 4 relates to the adsorption towers of the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the adsorption tower of line 4 to be an adsorption tower of the first adsorption tower group or the second adsorption tower group. The Examiner recommends making amendments to clarify the relationship between the adsorption tower of line 4 and the adsorption towers of the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group.
Claim 10, line 2 recites, “a CO2 concentration of the high concentration” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the CO2 concentration of the high concentration relates to the gas containing CO2 having a concentration higher of claim 1 form which claim 10 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the CO2 concentration of the high concentration to refer to the gas containing CO2 having a concentration higher of claim 1 form which claim 10 depends. The Examiner recommends making amendments to clarify the relationship between the CO2 concentration of the high concentration and the gas containing CO2 having a concentration higher.
Claim 12, line 1 recites, “the rubber is provided by being packed in a mesh or porous bag” which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “the rubber is disposed in a mesh or porous bag”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as recommended herein.
Claims 2, 10-11, and 13-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 3-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 2.
Claim 12 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al. (US Patent No. 4,761,167), hereinafter Nicholas in view of Haut et al. (US Patent No. 5,062,270), hereinafter Haut and Panploo et al. (Natural rubber latex foam with particulate fillers for carbon dioxide adsorption and regeneration), hereinafter Panploo.
Regarding claim 1, Nicholas discloses a CO2 separation system (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 30-41, As illustrated in the flow diagram of FIG. 1, after removal of part of the CO2 and most of the C2 + hydrocarbons from the gas recovered from the well, the mixed gas composed chiefly of methane, nitrogen and CO2 is introduced into a PSA system for removal of CO2 by selective adsorption. The unadsorbed effluent comprised of methane and nitrogen is charged to a NRU, in which the nitrogen is separated and returned to regenerate the CO2-laden adsorbent in the PSA beds, while the substantially pure methane is recovered for desired uses), comprising:
first CO2 separation equipment (Fig. 1, cryogenic distillation);
second CO2 separation equipment (Fig. 1, PSA);
a first pipe (Fig. 1 depicts a flow path connecting the cryogenic distillation to the PSA);
low-concentration CO2 gas discharge equipment (Fig. 2, discharge manifold 20; Col. 2, lines 63-66, Each of the columns contains a bed of adsorbent selective in the retention of CO2 while less strongly adsorbed nitrogen and methane exit from the column into the associated one of the discharge lines 21, 22, 23, 24 connected to discharge manifold 20); and
the first CO2 separation equipment includes a cryogenic separation apparatus configured to separate CO2 from gas to be treated by cryogenic separation treatment (Fig. 1, cryogenic distillation; Further, the cryogenic distillation of Nicholas has the same structure as the claimed cryogenic separation apparatus and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed),
the first pipe supplies gas discharged from the first CO2 separation equipment to the second CO2 separation equipment (Fig. 1 depicts a flow path connecting the cryogenic distillation to the PSA; Col. 2, lines 30-41, As illustrated in the flow diagram of FIG. 1, after removal of part of the CO2 and most of the C2 + hydrocarbons from the gas recovered from the well, the mixed gas composed chiefly of methane, nitrogen and CO2 is introduced into a PSA system for removal of CO2 by selective adsorption. The unadsorbed effluent comprised of methane and nitrogen is charged to a NRU, in which the nitrogen is separated and returned to regenerate the CO2-laden adsorbent in the PSA beds, while the substantially pure methane is recovered for desired uses),
the second CO2 separation equipment includes an adsorption separation apparatus including a CO2 adsorbent (Fig. 1, PSA; Fig. 2, columns A, B, C, D; Col. 2, lines 63-66, Each of the columns contains a bed of adsorbent selective in the retention of CO2 while less strongly adsorbed nitrogen and methane exit from the column into the associated one of the discharge lines 21, 22, 23, 24 connected to discharge manifold 20),
the low-concentration CO2 gas discharge equipment discharges gas containing low concentration CO2 from the second CO2 separation equipment (Col. 2-3, lines 63-67 and 1-9, Each of the columns contains a bed of adsorbent selective in the retention of CO2 while less strongly adsorbed nitrogen and methane exit from the column into the associated one of the discharge lines 21, 22, 23, 24 connected to discharge manifold 20. Thus, with column A then on-stream, the unsorbed effluent is discharged via line 21 into manifold 20 through then open valve 31. The mixed gas is manifold 20 is discharged into the associated NRU facility 60 in which the nitrogen is separated from the methane by fractional distillation. The methane is compressed and sent to the pipe line via line 25, while all or part of the nitrogen is utilized in regeneration of the CO2-laden adsorbent of the PSA system as will hereinafter be described),
the high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus discharges gas containing CO2 having a concentration higher than the low concentration from the second CO2 separation equipment (Fig. 2, line 40; Col. 3, lines 17-23, The bed in column A, at the termination of the adsorption step is then subjected to regeneration. The column is depressurized in a direction counter to that of feed introduction by opening valve 41 through which gas from column A, comprised primarily of desorbed CO2, and void space gas containing CH4 and N2, is discharged into line 40 and thereby vented; Further, line 20 is identified having mostly CH4/N2 and line 40 is identified having mostly CO2/N2 which at least implies the high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus discharges gas containing CO2 having a concentration higher than the low concentration from the second CO2 separation equipment 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, Nicholas does not disclose gas reflux equipment including a second pipe and a high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus, wherein
in the gas reflux equipment, at least a part of the gas discharged from the high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus is returned to the first CO2 separation equipment through the second pipe, and
the first CO2 separation equipment performs cryogenic separation treatment for separating CO2 from the gas returned by the gas reflux equipment.
Haut teaches gas reflux equipment including a second pipe and a high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus (Fig. 1, line 20, separator 120, reflux pump 124, line 28), wherein
in the gas reflux equipment, at least a part of the gas discharged from the high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus is returned to the first CO2 separation equipment through the second pipe (Col 6-7, lines 67-68 and 1-19, The methane-enriched stream then is stripped of its acid gas components by an adsorbent 116, preferably a molecular sieve bed, operated at a temperature and pressure approaching the temperature and pressure of the overhead stream as it leaves the distillation column as nearly as is feasible to produce an acid gas stripped stream. The acid gas stripped stream leaves the commercial adsorbent through line 20, is partially condensed by condenser 118 and collected in separator 120. The vapor component of the acid gas stripped stream is preferably drawn off through line 22 for compression by compressor 122 and fed through line 24 into the feedstream in line 10. It should be understood that it is not necessary to compress and reflux the vapor component of the stripped stream, but it is preferable to do so. The liquid component of the acid gas stripped stream is preferably refluxed through line 26 by reflux pump 124 thereby providing a methane-enriched liquid stream to the upper distillation zone 112 of the distillation column through line 28), and
the first CO2 separation equipment performs cryogenic separation treatment for separating CO2 from the gas returned by the gas reflux equipment (Further, the teachings of routing the stream 20 to the column at least imply the first CO2 separation equipment performs cryogenic separation treatment for separating CO2 from the gas returned by the gas reflux equipment 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)).
Nicholas fails to teach gas reflux equipment including a second pipe and a high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus, wherein in the gas reflux equipment, at least a part of the gas discharged from the high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus is returned to the first CO2 separation equipment through the second pipe, and the first CO2 separation equipment performs cryogenic separation treatment for separating CO2 from the gas returned by the gas reflux equipment, however Haut teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 separation to include gas reflux equipment including a second pipe and a high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus, wherein in the gas reflux equipment, at least a part of the gas discharged from the high-concentration CO2 gas discharge apparatus is returned to the first CO2 separation equipment through the second pipe, and the first CO2 separation equipment performs cryogenic separation treatment for separating CO2 from the gas returned by the gas reflux equipment. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. utilizing waste streams of the system to provide reflux 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 Nicholas by Haut 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 utilizing waste streams of the system to provide reflux to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Nicholas as modified does not disclose the adsorption separation apparatus including rubber as the CO2 adsorbent.
Panploo teaches the adsorption separation apparatus including rubber as the CO2 adsorbent (Abstract, To reduce the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere, natural rubber (NR) was developed as a rubber foam for CO2 adsorption).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach the adsorption separation apparatus including rubber as the CO2 adsorbent, however Panploo teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 separation to include the adsorption separation apparatus including rubber as the CO2 adsorbent. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (Panploo, Abstract)). 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 Nicholas as modified by Panploo 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 reducing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (Panploo, Abstract).
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas as modified by Haut and Panploo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maruyama (WO 2011155058), hereinafter Maruyama.
Regarding claim 2, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the adsorption separation apparatus includes a first adsorption tower group including one or more adsorption towers and a second adsorption tower group including one or more adsorption towers, the adsorption tower has a flow path through which gas flows while being retained therein, and the CO2 adsorbent (Nicholas, Fig. 2, columns A, B, C, D; Col. 2, lines 63-66, Each of the columns contains a bed of adsorbent selective in the retention of CO2 while less strongly adsorbed nitrogen and methane exit from the column into the associated one of the discharge lines 21, 22, 23, 24 connected to discharge manifold 20; Col. 2, lines 63-66, Each of the columns contains a bed of adsorbent selective in the retention of CO2 while less strongly adsorbed nitrogen and methane exit from the column into the associated one of the discharge lines 21, 22, 23, 24 connected to discharge manifold 20).
However, Nicholas as modified does not disclose the CO2 separation system further includes a cooling means capable of cooling the flow path and the CO2 adsorbent.
Maruyama teaches the CO2 separation system further includes a cooling means capable of cooling the flow path and the CO2 adsorbent (Fig. 1, adsorption towers 2A, 2B, heat medium circulation path 3; Pg. 3, That is, the biogas separation / recovery system 1 uses a circulating water tank, a circulating water pump, or the like to effectively use the heat generated when adsorbing carbon dioxide as heat when desorbing and regenerating carbon dioxide. A device 3 is provided. By this water circulation device 3, the adsorption temperature is in the range of approximately 0 to 60 ° C., and the regeneration temperature is in the relatively low temperature range of approximately -10 to 50 ° C. The circulation route only needs to be able to transfer the heat of adsorption as circulating water as an intermediate heat medium, and may circulate the adsorption towers in parallel or in series, or may switch the flow direction as necessary. When the temperature of circulating water falls below freezing point due to outside air temperature, use antifreeze such as ethylene glycol solution. As the intermediate heat medium, for example, a medium excellent in heat transport such as Freon gas or ammonia gas can be applied. When these heat medium gases are used as the intermediate heat medium, the circulating water pump and the circulating water tank can be omitted and left to natural convection. As the heat medium is circulated by the water circulation device 3, the adsorption heat is removed on the adsorption side so as to suppress a decrease in adsorption performance due to a temperature rise. On the regeneration side, heat lost by regeneration and pressure swing (reduced pressure) is compensated to suppress a decrease in desorption performance, and the adsorption / desorption performance is improved. By carrying out heat transport between the adsorption side and the regeneration side by the water circulation device 3, energy-saving and efficient operation can be expected).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach the CO2 separation system further includes a cooling means capable of cooling the flow path and the CO2 adsorbent, however Maruyama teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 separation via adsorption to include the CO2 separation system further includes a cooling means capable of cooling the flow path and the CO2 adsorbent. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. suppressing a decrease in desorption performance and the adsorption/desorption performance is improved (Maruyama, Pg. 3)). 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 Nicholas as modified by Maruyama 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 suppressing a decrease in desorption performance and the adsorption/desorption performance is improved (Maruyama, Pg. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group are a pair of adsorption tower groups having a same configuration (Fig. 2 of Nicholas depicts each of the columns A, B, C, and D to have the same configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein at least a part of the adsorption towers constituting the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is disposed in series in the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group (Table 1 of Nicholas shows the opening and closing of the valves connected to the inputs and outputs of the columns A, B, C, and D and shows that only one column is used for adsorption at a time for each of the 4 time periods which at least implies series operation of the columns 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 5, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein a gas breakthrough time per adsorption tower is 5 minutes or more and 60 minutes or less (Nicholas, Col. 3, lines 10-12, The described adsorption step is continued in column A for a predetermined fixed period short of breakthrough of CO2 from the adsorbent bed therein… Each of time periods I to IV may be in the order of about three or more minutes so that a complete cycle will occupy 12 or more minutes depending, among other considerations, upon the adsorptive capacity of the adsorbent bed in the column; Further, the teaching of Nicholas at least imply that the breakthrough time is less than 3 or more minutes, which includes a range of 5 minutes or more to 60 minutes or more, since Nicholas teaches the adsorption step to be shorter than the breakthrough time of the CO2 adsorbent in the columns 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); Further, it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.).
Regarding claim 6, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein a CO2 concentration in gas introduced into the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is adjusted to 10 mol% or more and 40 mol% or less (Nicholas, Table 4, CO2 19.94 Mole %; Further, it has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.); and
and a CO2 concentration in gas discharged from the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is adjusted to 2 mol% or more and 10 mol% or less (Nicholas, Table 5 continued, stream 20 shows no CO2 composition in the discharge stream 40 which at least implies near zero % mole concentration of CO2 in the discharge stream 40 since it has been held 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); Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nicholas as modified wherein and a CO2 concentration in gas discharged from the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is adjusted to 2 mol% or more and 10 mol% or less to allow for a desired amount of CO2 removal from the stream to improve overall system flexibilities.
Nicholas as modified does not explicitly disclose
Regarding claim 7, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above),
wherein a CO2 concentration in gas introduced into the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is adjusted to 5 mol% or more and 10 mol% or less (Nicholas, Table 4, CO2 19.94 Mole %; Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%). MPEP § 2144.05-I.). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nicholas as modified wherein a CO2 concentration in gas introduced into the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is adjusted to 5 mol% or more and 10 mol% or less to the system to be used with feed streams with varying CO2 concentrations to improve overall system flexibilities), and
a CO2 concentration in gas discharged from the first adsorption tower group and the second adsorption tower group is adjusted to 0 mol% or more and 2 mol% or less (Nicholas, Table 5 continued, stream 20 shows no CO2 composition in the discharge stream 40 which at least implies near zero % mole concentration of CO2 in the discharge stream 40 since it has been held 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 9, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above), wherein a temperature of the cooling is -50°C or more and 0°C or less (Maruyama, Pg. 3, That is, the biogas separation/recovery system 1 uses a circulating water tank, a circulating water pump, or the like to effectively use the heat generated when adsorbing carbon dioxide as heat when desorbing and regenerating carbon dioxide. A device 3 is provided. By this water circulation device 3, the adsorption temperature is in the range of approximately 0 to 60 ° C., and the regeneration temperature is in the relatively low temperature range of approximately -10 to 50 ° C). Further, the limitations of claim 9 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Nicholas as modified does not disclose wherein a CO2 concentration of the high concentration is 50 mol% or more and 99 mol% or less.
Maruyama teaches wherein a CO2 concentration of the high concentration is 50 mol% or more and 99 mol% or less (Pg. 5, Moreover, not only the purity of the recovered methane gas but also the recovered carbon dioxide gas has a purity of 95% or more).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach a CO2 concentration of the high concentration is 50 mol% or more and 99 mol% or less, however Maruyama teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 separation to include a CO2 concentration of the high concentration is 50 mol% or more and 99 mol% or less. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a high purity CO2 for used in downstream operations (Maruyama, Pg. 5)). 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 Nicholas as modified by Maruyama 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 a high purity CO2 for used in downstream operations (Maruyama, Pg. 5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas as modified by Haut and Panploo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2018108067), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Nicholas as modified does not disclose wherein an adsorption pressure of the adsorption tower is adjusted to 5 MPa or more and 45 MPa or less.
Zhang teaches wherein an adsorption pressure of the adsorption tower is adjusted to 5 MPa or more and 45 MPa or less (Pg. 8, The adsorption pressure refers to the operating pressure of the adsorption bed in the adsorption step. The increase of adsorption pressure is beneficial to increase the gas phase partial pressure of the easily adsorbable components, so it is beneficial to increase the adsorption capacity of the adsorbent to the easily adsorbed components, and also to improve the concentration of the product components which are not easily adsorbed and to improve the easily adsorbed components. The concentration of product logistics. Under normal circumstances, the adsorption pressure is determined comprehensively according to factors such as gas source pressure, specific process requirements, and operating conditions. A suitable adsorption pressure for the present invention is 0.1 to 6.0 MPa (g).).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach wherein an adsorption pressure of the adsorption tower is adjusted to 5 MPa or more and 45 MPa or less, however Zhang teaches that it is a known method in the art of adsorption to include wherein an adsorption pressure of the adsorption tower is adjusted to 5 MPa or more and 45 MPa or less. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. increasing the gas phase partial pressure of the easily adsorbable components, so it is beneficial to increase the adsorption capacity of the adsorbent to the easily adsorbed components, and also to improve the concentration of the product components which are not easily adsorbed and to improve the easily adsorbed components (Zhang, Pg. 8)). 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 Nicholas as modified by Zhang 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 increasing the gas phase partial pressure of the easily adsorbable components, so it is beneficial to increase the adsorption capacity of the adsorbent to the easily adsorbed components, and also to improve the concentration of the product components which are not easily adsorbed and to improve the easily adsorbed components (Zhang, Pg. 8).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas as modified by Haut and Panploo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nobunaga et al. (WO 2022249774), hereinafter Nobunaga.
Regarding claims 11-12, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Nicholas as modified does not disclose wherein the rubber is provided in one or more states selected from the group consisting of a pellet shape, a powder shape, and a fine particle shape; and
wherein the rubber is provided by being packed in a mesh or porous bag.
Nobunaga teaches wherein the adsorbent is provided in one or more states selected from the group consisting of a pellet shape, a powder shape, and a fine particle shape; and
wherein the adsorbent is provided by being packed in a mesh or porous bag (Fig. 2, adsorption device 4, adsorbent 5, covering material 81; Pg. 9, Also, the adsorbent 5 of this modified example is a powder having an average particle size in the range of 400 µm or more and 1.3 mm or less. On the other hand, the covering material 81 includes a mesh having a mesh diameter in the range of 50 (mesh/inch) to 200 (mesh/inch). Another example of this mesh diameter is a value in the range of 65 (mesh/inch) or more and 200 (mesh/inch) or less. As a result, the adsorption device 4 according to this modified example can suppress the adsorption material 5 from falling off through the gaps of the covering material 81 while ensuring a good specific surface area of the adsorption material 5).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach wherein the rubber is provided in one or more states selected from the group consisting of a pellet shape, a powder shape, and a fine particle shape; and wherein the rubber is provided by being packed in a mesh or porous bag, however Nobunaga teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 adsorption to include wherein the adsorbent is provided in one or more states selected from the group consisting of a pellet shape, a powder shape, and a fine particle shape; and wherein the adsorbent is provided by being packed in a mesh or porous bag. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. suppressing the adsorption material from falling off through the gaps of the covering material while ensuring a good specific surface area of the adsorption material (Nobunaga, Pg. 9)). 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 Nicholas as modified by Nobunaga 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 suppressing the adsorption material from falling off through the gaps of the covering material while ensuring a good specific surface area of the adsorption material (Nobunaga, Pg. 9).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas as modified by Haut and Panploo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markbreiter et al. (US Patent No. 4,704,146), hereinafter Markbreiter.
Regarding claims 13-15, Nicholas as modified the CO2 separation system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Nicholas as modified does not disclose wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced to the cryogenic separation apparatus; and an apparatus configured to discharge CO2 liquefied by being subjected to the cooling.
Haut teaches wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced to the cryogenic separation apparatus; and an apparatus configured to discharge CO2 liquefied by being subjected to the cooling (Fig. 1, inlet cooler 102, line 12; Col. 3-4, lines 62-68 and 1-6, The mixture of acid gases and methane is cooled by inlet cooler 102 and expansion valve 104 to a suitable temperature and pressure as disclosed by Valencia et al before being introduced into the column 100 65 at inlet 101. A lower distillation zone 106 in the column produces an enriched carbon dioxide liquid bottoms stream and a freezing zone vapor feedstream at a temperature and pressure at which substantially no carbon dioxide solids are formed. The bottoms stream leaves the column in line 12. A portion of the stream 12 is drawn off as a bottoms product and a portion is heated in reboiler 108 and returned to the bottom of the column through line 14).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced to the cryogenic separation apparatus; and an apparatus configured to discharge CO2 liquefied by being subjected to the cooling, however Haut teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 separation to include wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced to the cryogenic separation apparatus; and an apparatus configured to discharge CO2 liquefied by being subjected to the cooling. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient input and output parameters of the cryogenic separation apparatus 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 Nicholas as modified by Haut 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 input and output parameters of the cryogenic separation apparatus to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Nicholas as modified does not disclose wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a compression apparatus configured to compress supplied gas and the cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced through the compression apparatus;
wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through decompression equipment configured to decompress gas to separate liquid CO2; and
wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through dehydration equipment configured to perform dehydration.
Markbreiter teaches wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a compression apparatus configured to compress supplied gas and the cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced through the compression apparatus (Fig. 1, line 10, compressor 11, air cooler 13; Col. 2, lines 14-18, Dry by-product gas containing at least 90% by volume CO2 and at least 2% by volume methane is supplied by line 10 to compressor 11 and passed at a pressure in the range of about 225 to 275 psia by line 12 through air cooler 13); and
wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through decompression equipment configured to decompress gas to separate liquid CO2 (Fig. 1, separator 19, fractionation column 27; Col. 2, lines 18-39, At slightly above ambient temperature the compressed gas flows through line 14, heat exchanger 15, line 16, heat exchanger 17 and line 18 into separator 19 wherein vapor is separated from condensate. For example, if the dry-by-product gas supplied by line 10 came from the processing of land-fill gas in accordance with U.S. Pat. No. 4,252,548, it would contain a small fractional percentage, say about 0.2%, of methanol. The major portion of the methanol in the gas would in such case drop out in separator 19 as condensate and discharge through line 20. On the other hand, if the byproduct gas was not dry, methanol could be injected by line 21 into line 16 and the condensate removed from separator 19 by line 20 would be aqueous methanol. The cold, dry gas passes from separator 19 through line 22 into either of two regenerable adsorbers 23A,23B wherein traces of other gases such as hydrogen sulfide and residual methanol are eliminated from the gas exiting therefrom into line 24. The now substantially pure mixture of CO2 and methane flows from line 24, through heat exchanger 25 and line 26 into the upper portion of fractionation column 27); and
wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through dehydration equipment configured to perform dehydration (Fig. 1, adsorbers 23A, 23B; Col. 2, lines 18-46, At slightly above ambient temperature the compressed gas flows through line 14, heat exchanger 15, line 16, heat exchanger 17 and line 18 into separator 19 wherein vapor is separated from condensate. For example, if the dry-by-product gas supplied by line 10 came from the processing of land-fill gas in accordance with U.S. Pat. No. 4,252,548, it would contain a small fractional percentage, say about 0.2%, of methanol. The major portion of the methanol in the gas would in such case drop out in separator 19 as condensate and discharge through line 20. On the other hand, if the byproduct gas was not dry, methanol could be injected by line 21 into line 16 and the condensate removed from separator 19 by line 20 would be aqueous methanol. The cold, dry gas passes from separator 19 through line 22 into either of two regenerable adsorbers 23A,23B wherein traces of other gases such as hydrogen sulfide and residual methanol are eliminated from the gas exiting therefrom into line 24. The now substantially pure mixture of CO2 and methane flows from line 24, through heat exchanger 25 and line 26 into the upper portion of fractionation column 27. Regenerable adsorbers are well known in the art and there is no need to show the valves which alternately direct the flow of gas from line 22 to one of adsorbers 23A,23B while the other adsorber undergoes regeneration. As is also known, the choice of adsorbents and molecular sieves will depend upon the trace contaminants present in the gas).
Nicholas as modified fails to teach wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a compression apparatus configured to compress supplied gas and the cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced through the compression apparatus; wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through decompression equipment configured to decompress gas to separate liquid CO2; and wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through dehydration equipment configured to perform dehydration, however Markbreiter teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 separation to include wherein the cryogenic separation apparatus includes: a compression apparatus configured to compress supplied gas and the cooling apparatus configured to cool gas introduced through the compression apparatus; wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through decompression equipment configured to decompress gas to separate liquid CO2; and wherein the gas to be treated is introduced into the cryogenic separation apparatus through dehydration equipment configured to perform dehydration. This is strong evidence that modifying Nicholas as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing the feed stream at a sufficient pressure and dryness for fractionation 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 Nicholas as modified by Markbreiter 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 the feed stream at a sufficient pressure and dryness for fractionation to improve overall system efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Al Mesfer et al. (Breakthrough adsorption study of activated carbons for CO2 separation from flue gas) discloses its known for adsorbent breakthrough times to be based on flow rate of the gas and temperature of the column.
Jain et al. (US Patent No. 5,601,634) discloses a similar two step separation method that uses cryogenic separation then adsorption to remove undesirable components from a feed stream.
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 September 10th, 2026
Prosecution Insights