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 “liquefied CO2 subcooler” and “spraying means” of claim 7 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1: “A liquefied CO2” should read “A liquefied carbon dioxide (CO2)”
Claim 2, lines 1-2: “a liquefied CO2 terminal” should read “the liquefied CO2 terminal”
Claim 2, line 4: “the pipeline” should read “the high-pressure pipeline”
Claim 2, line 4: “said pipeline” should read “said high-pressure pipeline”
Claim 4, line 1: “A liquefied CO2” should read “A liquefied carbon dioxide (CO2)”
Claim 5, line 3: “the pipeline” should read “the high-pressure pipeline”
Claim 5, lines 3-4: “said pipeline” should read “said high-pressure pipeline”
Claim 7, line 2: “liquefied CO2” should read “the liquefied CO2”
Claim 7, lines 2-3: “an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank” should read “the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank”
Claim 7, line 5: “cooled liquefied CO2” should read “the cooled liquefied CO2”
Claim 8, line 1: “liquefied CO2” should read “liquefied carbon dioxide (CO2)”
Claim 9, line 2: “a liquefied CO2 terminal” should read “the liquefied CO2 terminal”
Claim 10, line 2: “a liquefied CO2 terminal” should read “the liquefied CO2 terminal”
Claims 2-3 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claims 6-7 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claims 9-10 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 3, line 2: “mixing device” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the present specification, “A mixing-device, such as a static mixer and/or sparger (Pg. 6, lines 7-8)”, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 6, line 2: “mixing device” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the present specification, “A mixing-device, such as a static mixer and/or sparger (Pg. 6, lines 7-8)”, or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, the term “spraying means” also invokes 112(f), however it is not provided with any corresponding structure to define the spraying means, see 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Line 4 recites, “spraying means” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f), however, the specification does not provide any support for the structure of the spraying means. The closet support is, “spraying means inside the storage tank 10, configured to receive cooled liquefied CO2 and to respray the cooled liquefied
CO2 inside the tank (Pg. 7, lines 27-29)”, however this recitation is further defining the function of the spraying means rather than the structure of the spraying means. See 112(b) rejections below.
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 1-7 and 9-10 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 pipeline" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the pipeline” to “the high-pressure pipeline” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in lines 8-9 of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the pipeline and the high-pressure pipeline as the same components.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the high-pressure stream of gaseous components" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the high-pressure stream of gaseous components” to “the high-pressure fluid flow” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in lines 15-16 of claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the high-pressure stream of gaseous components and the high-pressure fluid flow as the same components.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2” to “a flow of liquefied CO2”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pipeline" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the pipeline” to “the high-pressure pipeline” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in lines 7-8 of claim 4. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the pipeline and the high-pressure pipeline as the same components.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2” to “a flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2”.
Claim limitation “spraying means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is provided in the present specification to define the components of the spraying means. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the spraying means to include sprayers, nozzles, and functional equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the high-pressure stream of gaseous components" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the high-pressure stream of gaseous components” to “the high-pressure fluid stream” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in lines 5-6 of claim 8 from which claim 9 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the high-pressure stream of gaseous components and the high-pressure fluid stream as the same components.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2” to “the high-pressure stream of liquid or dense-phase CO2” which is given sufficient antecedent basis in lines 7-8 of claim 8 from which claim 9 depends. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 and the high-pressure stream of liquid or dense-phase CO2 as the same components.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claims 6-7 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux.
Regarding claim 1, Trollux discloses a liquefied CO2 terminal arrangement for use in a liquefied CO2 terminal (Fig. 4; In addition to structural limitations, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “for use in a liquefied CO2 terminal.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.) comprising:
a liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank configured to contain liquefied CO2, having an outlet configured to withdraw liquefied CO2 from a bottom of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, and a top outlet configured to withdraw gaseous components from a top of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A, outlet A-1, top outlet A-2; Further, the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A, outlet A-1, and top outlet A-2 of Trollux have the same structure as the claimed intermediate storage tank, outlet, and top outlet and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed); and
an injection pump, having an inlet connected to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank outlet, and an outlet connected to a high-pressure pipeline configured to convey liquefied CO2 to a subterranean long-term storage reservoir (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, injection pump B, inlet B-2 is depicted to be connected to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A and outlet B-1 is depicted to be connected to a high-pressure pipeline C which is depicted to be reinjected under the seafloor D via reinjection 4.3; Pg. 1, paragraph 4, A practical solution that has emerged, is storage of captured CO2 in the ocean. This generally refers to reinjection into off-shore closures such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or other closed geological structures, e.g. an aquifer, or to using it for gas injection in an active oil field, for the purpose of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR); Further, the high-pressure pipeline C of Trollux has the same structure as the claimed high-pressure pipeline and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
wherein the liquefied CO2 terminal arrangement further comprises a compressor having a low-pressure inlet, and a high-pressure outlet, said compressor being configured to receive via the low-pressure inlet a flow of gaseous components withdrawn from the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank via the top outlet, and to produce from the flow of gaseous components a high-pressure fluid flow leaving from the high-pressure outlet, wherein the high-pressure outlet is connected via a high-pressure fluid flow conduit to the high-pressure pipeline and is configured to enter into the pipeline (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, compressor E, low-pressure inlet E-1, high-pressure outlet E-2, high-pressure fluid flow conduit F; Further, the compressor E and high-pressure fluid flow conduit F of Trollux have the same structure as the claimed compressor and high-pressure fluid flow conduit and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Regarding claim 2, Trollux discloses the liquefied CO2 terminal arrangement for use in a liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the high-pressure outlet connected via the high-pressure fluid flow conduit to the high-pressure pipeline is configured to enter into the pipeline at a location on said pipeline, which location is downstream of the injection pump (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, high-pressure fluid flow outlet E-2 is connected via the high-pressure fluid flow conduit F to the high-pressure pipeline C and is configured to enter into the pipeline at a location on said pipeline, which location is downstream of the injection pump D; Further, the high-pressure outlet E-2 of Trollux has the same structure as the claimed high-pressure outlet and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Regarding claim 4, Trollux discloses a liquefied CO2 terminal (Fig. 4) comprising:
a liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank configured to contain liquefied CO2, having an outlet configured to withdraw liquefied CO2 from a bottom of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, and a top outlet configured to withdraw gaseous components from a top of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A, outlet A-1, top outlet A-2; Further, the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A, outlet A-1, and top outlet A-2 of Trollux have the same structure as the claimed intermediate storage tank, outlet, and top outlet and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed); and
an injection pump, having an inlet connected to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank outlet, and an outlet connected to a high-pressure pipeline configured to convey liquid or dense-phase CO2 to a subterranean long-term storage reservoir (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, injection pump B, inlet B-2 is depicted to be connected to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A and outlet B-1 is depicted to be connected to a high-pressure pipeline C which is depicted to be reinjected under the seafloor D via reinjection 4.3; Pg. 1, paragraph 4, A practical solution that has emerged, is storage of captured CO2 in the ocean. This generally refers to reinjection into off-shore closures such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or other closed geological structures, e.g. an aquifer, or to using it for gas injection in an active oil field, for the purpose of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR); Further, the a high-pressure pipeline C of Trollux has the same structure as the claimed high-pressure pipeline and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed);
wherein the liquefied CO2 terminal further comprising a compressor having a low-pressure, and a high-pressure outlet, said compressor being configured to receive via the low-pressure inlet a flow of gaseous components withdrawn from the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank via the top outlet, and to produce from the gaseous components a high-pressure fluid flow of the gaseous components leaving from the high-pressure outlet, wherein the high-pressure outlet is connected via a high-pressure fluid flow conduit to the high-pressure pipeline and is configured to enter into the pipeline (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, compressor E, low-pressure inlet E-1, high-pressure outlet E-2, high-pressure fluid flow conduit F; Further, the compressor E and high-pressure fluid flow conduit F of Trollux have the same structure as the claimed compressor and high-pressure fluid flow conduit and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Regarding claim 5, Trollux discloses the liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the high-pressure outlet connected via the high-pressure fluid flow conduit to the high-pressure pipeline is configured to enter into the pipeline at a location on said pipeline, which location is downstream of the injection pump (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, high-pressure fluid flow outlet E-2 is connected via the high-pressure fluid flow conduit F to the high-pressure pipeline C and is configured to enter into the pipeline at a location on said pipeline, which location is downstream of the injection pump D; Further, the high-pressure outlet E-2 of Trollux has the same structure as the claimed high-pressure outlet and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux in view of L. T. Cope (US Patent No. 3,212,279), hereinafter Cope.
Regarding claim 3, Trollux discloses the liquefied CO2 terminal arrangement of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), additionally comprising a mixing device configured to distribute the high-pressure stream of gaseous components from the compressor into the flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2 in the high-pressure pipeline (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, mixer G; Further, the mixer G of Trollux has the same structure as the claimed mixing device and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
However, Trollux does not explicitly disclose the mixer G to be a static mixer and/or sparger as required by the 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation of “mixing device”.
Cope teaches the use of a sparger for mixing gas and liquid phase CO2 for entry into a storage tank (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 14-17, If desired, the compressed carbon dioxide gas may be delivered below the liquid level through a sparging device (not shown) in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal arrangement of Trollux of claim 1 to include a sparging device as taught by Cope. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid (Cope, Col. 2, lines 14-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Regarding claim 6, Trollux discloses the liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above), additionally comprising a mixing device configured to distribute the high-pressure fluid flow from the compressor into the flow of liquid or dense-phase CO2 in the high-pressure pipeline (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, mixer G; Further, the mixer G of Trollux has the same structure as the claimed mixing device and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
However, Trollux does not explicitly disclose the mixer G to be a static mixer and/or sparger as required by the 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation of “mixing device”.
Cope teaches the use of a sparger for mixing gas and liquid phase CO2 for entry into a storage tank (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 14-17, If desired, the compressed carbon dioxide gas may be delivered below the liquid level through a sparging device (not shown) in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal arrangement of Trollux of claim 5 to include a sparging device as taught by Cope. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid (Cope, Col. 2, lines 14-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux in view of Muska (US Patent No. 3,962,881), hereinafter Muska.
Regarding claim 7, Trollux discloses the liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 5 (see the rejection of claim 5 above).
However, Trollux does not disclose additionally comprising: a liquefied CO2 subcooler configured to receive liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, and to return cooled liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank; and, spraying means inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, configured to receive cooled liquefied CO2 and to respray the cooled liquefied CO2 inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank.
Muska teaches a liquefied CO2 subcooler configured to receive liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, and to return cooled liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank; and, spraying means inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, configured to receive cooled liquefied CO2 and to respray the cooled liquefied CO2 inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank (Fig. 1, sub-cooler 13, CO2 pass 15, vessel 20, conduit 21, conduit 23, conduit 30, spray device 32; Col. 6, lines 8-12, The liquid carbon dioxide which is sub-cooled by the vaporization of LNG and is emitted from the CO2 pass 15 of sub-cooler 13 is supplied through conduit 30 and a spray device 32 into the upper reaches of condensing vessel 20; Further, the sub-cooler 13 and spray device 32 of Muska have the same structure as the claimed liquefied CO2 subcooler and spraying means and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Trollux fails to teach a liquefied CO2 subcooler configured to receive liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, and to return cooled liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank; and, spraying means inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, configured to receive cooled liquefied CO2 and to respray the cooled liquefied CO2 inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, however Muska teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 storage to include a liquefied CO2 subcooler configured to receive liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, and to return cooled liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank; and, spraying means inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, configured to receive cooled liquefied CO2 and to respray the cooled liquefied CO2 inside the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank. This is strong evidence that modifying Trollux as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. temperature and pressure control within the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank 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 Trollux by Muska 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 temperature and pressure control within the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux in view of Davidsen (US 20260029089), hereinafter Davidsen.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) rejection of claim 8, Trollux discloses a method for treating impurities contained in liquefied CO2 in a liquefied CO2 terminal (Fig. 4) comprising the steps of:
withdrawing a low-pressure stream of gaseous components from a top outlet of a liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank containing liquefied CO2 (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A, top outlet A-2, injection pump B; Pg. 2, paragraph 34-36, loading stage at an export terminal, where carbon dioxide captured from a source, such as a fossil fuel-based powerplant, and sent to a convenient place at shore, is loaded into a ship's containment system; a transport stage by sea, with the carbon dioxide held in the ship's containment system; an unloading stage at an off-shore receiving facility; Further, the arrangement of the components of Fig. 4 of Trollux and the intended purpose of transferring liquefied CO2 to an off shore storage site as least imply withdrawing a low-pressure stream of gaseous components from a top outlet of a liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank containing liquefied CO2 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));
compressing the low-pressure stream of gaseous components so as to obtain a high-pressure fluid stream (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, compressor E, low-pressure inlet E-1, high-pressure outlet E-2, high-pressure fluid flow conduit F, a high-pressure pipeline C; Pg. 2, paragraph 34-36, loading stage at an export terminal, where carbon dioxide captured from a source, such as a fossil fuel-based powerplant, and sent to a convenient place at shore, is loaded into a ship's containment system; a transport stage by sea, with the carbon dioxide held in the ship's containment system; an unloading stage at an off-shore receiving facility; Further, the arrangement of the components of Fig. 4 of Trollux and the intended purpose of transferring liquefied CO2 to an off shore storage site as least imply compressing the low-pressure stream of gaseous components so as to obtain a high-pressure fluid stream 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)); and,
injecting the high-pressure fluid stream into a high-pressure stream of liquid or dense-phase CO2 in a high-pressure pipeline connected to a subterranean storage reservoir (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, injection pump B, inlet B-2 is depicted to be connected to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A and outlet B-1 is depicted to be connected to a high-pressure pipeline C which is depicted to be reinjected under the seafloor D via reinjection 4.3; Pg. 1, paragraph 4, A practical solution that has emerged, is storage of captured CO2 in the ocean. This generally refers to reinjection into off-shore closures such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or other closed geological structures, e.g. an aquifer, or to using it for gas injection in an active oil field, for the purpose of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR); Pg. 2, paragraph 34-36, loading stage at an export terminal, where carbon dioxide captured from a source, such as a fossil fuel-based powerplant, and sent to a convenient place at shore, is loaded into a ship's containment system; a transport stage by sea, with the carbon dioxide held in the ship's containment system; an unloading stage at an off-shore receiving facility; Further, the arrangement of the components of Fig. 4 of Trollux and the intended purpose of transferring liquefied CO2 to an off shore storage site as least imply injecting the high-pressure fluid stream into a high-pressure stream of liquid or dense-phase CO2 in a high-pressure pipeline connected to a subterranean storage reservoir 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)).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 8, Trollux discloses a method for treating impurities contained in liquefied CO2 in a liquefied CO2 terminal (Fig. 4) comprising the steps of:
withdrawing a low-pressure stream of gaseous components from a top outlet of a liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank containing liquefied CO2 (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A, top outlet A-2, injection pump B; Pg. 2, paragraph 34-36, loading stage at an export terminal, where carbon dioxide captured from a source, such as a fossil fuel-based powerplant, and sent to a convenient place at shore, is loaded into a ship's containment system; a transport stage by sea, with the carbon dioxide held in the ship's containment system; an unloading stage at an off-shore receiving facility; Further, the arrangement of the components of Fig. 4 of Trollux and the intended purpose of transferring liquefied CO2 to an off shore storage site as least imply withdrawing a low-pressure stream of gaseous components from a top outlet of a liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank containing liquefied CO2 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));
compressing the low-pressure stream of gaseous components so as to obtain a high-pressure fluid stream (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, compressor E, low-pressure inlet E-1, high-pressure outlet E-2, high-pressure fluid flow conduit F, a high-pressure pipeline C; Pg. 2, paragraph 34-36, loading stage at an export terminal, where carbon dioxide captured from a source, such as a fossil fuel-based powerplant, and sent to a convenient place at shore, is loaded into a ship's containment system; a transport stage by sea, with the carbon dioxide held in the ship's containment system; an unloading stage at an off-shore receiving facility; Further, the arrangement of the components of Fig. 4 of Trollux and the intended purpose of transferring liquefied CO2 to an off shore storage site as least imply compressing the low-pressure stream of gaseous components so as to obtain a high-pressure fluid stream 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)); and,
injecting the high-pressure fluid stream into a high-pressure stream of liquid or dense-phase CO2 in a high-pressure pipeline under the sea floor (See annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux below, injection pump B, inlet B-2 is depicted to be connected to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank A and outlet B-1 is depicted to be connected to a high-pressure pipeline C which is depicted to be reinjected under the seafloor D via reinjection 4.3; Pg. 1, paragraph 4, A practical solution that has emerged, is storage of captured CO2 in the ocean. This generally refers to reinjection into off-shore closures such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, or other closed geological structures, e.g. an aquifer, or to using it for gas injection in an active oil field, for the purpose of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR); Pg. 2, paragraph 34-36, loading stage at an export terminal, where carbon dioxide captured from a source, such as a fossil fuel-based powerplant, and sent to a convenient place at shore, is loaded into a ship's containment system; a transport stage by sea, with the carbon dioxide held in the ship's containment system; an unloading stage at an off-shore receiving facility; Further, the arrangement of the components of Fig. 4 of Trollux and the intended purpose of transferring liquefied CO2 to an off shore storage site as least imply injecting the high-pressure fluid stream into a high-pressure stream of liquid or dense-phase CO2 in a high-pressure pipeline under the sea floor 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, Trollux does not explicitly disclose the liquefied CO2 to be injected to a subterranean storage reservoir.
Davidsen teaches the liquefied CO2 to be injected to a subterranean storage reservoir (Fig. 1, subterranean reservoir 124, CO2 liquid injection line 120, CO2 vapor injection line 122; he subsea CO2 storage unit 102 may inject liquid CO2 from at least one liquid outlet 116 of the subsea CO2 storage unit 102 (preferably positioned in a lower portion of the subsea CO2 storage unit 102) into the at least CO2 one injection well 126 of the subterranean reservoir 124 via a CO2 liquid injection line 120 with one end connected to a CO2 liquid CO2 outlet 116 of the subsea CO2 storage unit 102 and the other end connected to the at least one injection well 126. A pump 103 may be positioned along the liquid injection line 120 to facilitate injection into the subterranean reservoir 124. An expansion unit (not shown) may be positioned along the liquid CO2 injection line 120 and, upon collection of liquid CO2 by the liquid CO2 injection line 120, may convert CO2 part or all of the liquid CO2 to vapor CO2 before being CO2 injected into the at least one injection well 126. To facilitate connection between the transfer line 108 and/or injection lines 120, 122, the system for CO2 storage 100 may comprise a pipeline end module (not shown) connected at an inlet to the CO2 subsea storage unit and/or at an outlet to the CO2 subsea storage unit. The subsea CO2 storage unit 102 may inject vapor CO2 from at least one vapor outlet 118 of the subsea CO2 storage unit 102 (preferably positioned in an upper portion of the subsea CO2 storage unit 102) into at least one injection well 126 of a subterranean reservoir 124 via a CO2 vapor injection line 122 with one end connected to a vapor CO2 outlet 118 of the sub sea CO2 storage unit 102 and the other end connected to the at least one injection well 126. In an advantageous embodiment, no compressor is provided on the CO2 vapor injection line 122, as the pressure within the CO2 storage unit 102 is sufficient to effect the injection of vapor CO2).
Trollux fails to teach the liquefied CO2 to be injected to a subterranean storage reservoir, however Davidsen teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 storage to include the liquefied CO2 to be injected to a subterranean storage reservoir. This is strong evidence that modifying Trollux as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. mitigating risk of CO2 escaping into the atmosphere to reduce overall global warming potential of the system). 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 Trollux by Davidsen 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 mitigating risk of CO2 escaping into the atmosphere to reduce overall global warming potential of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
576
937
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Trollux
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux in view of L. T. Cope (US Patent No. 3,212,279), hereinafter Cope.
Regarding claim 9, Trollux discloses the method for treating impurities contained in liquefied CO2 in a liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).
However, Trollux does not disclose additionally comprising the step of:
regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline.
Cope teaches regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 14-17, If desired, the compressed carbon dioxide gas may be delivered below the liquid level through a sparging device (not shown) in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid; Further, the teachings of Cope at least imply regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline 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)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal arrangement of Trollux of claim 8 to include a sparging device to include the step or limitation of regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline as taught by Cope. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid (Cope, Col. 2, lines 14-17).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trollux as modified by Davidsen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of L. T. Cope (US Patent No. 3,212,279), hereinafter Cope.
Regarding claim 9, Trollux as modified discloses the method for treating impurities contained in liquefied CO2 in a liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above).
However, Trollux as modified does not disclose additionally comprising the step of:
regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline.
Cope teaches regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 14-17, If desired, the compressed carbon dioxide gas may be delivered below the liquid level through a sparging device (not shown) in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid; Further, the teachings of Cope at least imply regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline 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)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal arrangement of Trollux as modified to include a sparging device to include the step or limitation of regulating the mixing ratio of the high-pressure stream of gaseous components to the high-pressure stream of liquefied CO2 in the pipeline connected to the subterranean storage reservoir so as to dissolve the gaseous components into the liquefied CO2, thereby obtaining a single phase in the high-pressure pipeline as taught by Cope. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to condense the vapor more effectively to liquid (Cope, Col. 2, lines 14-17).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trollux (US 20140299039), hereinafter Trollux in view of Muska (US Patent No. 3,962,881), hereinafter Muska.
Regarding claim 10, Trollux discloses the method for treating impurities contained in liquefied CO2 in a liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).
However, Trollux does not disclose additionally comprising the step of:
withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank;
subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and,
returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank.
Muska teaches withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank;
subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and,
returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank (Fig. 1, sub-cooler 13, CO2 pass 15, vessel 20, conduit 21, conduit 23, conduit 30, spray device 32; Col. 6, lines 8-12, The liquid carbon dioxide which is sub-cooled by the vaporization of LNG and is emitted from the CO2 pass 15 of sub-cooler 13 is supplied through conduit 30 and a spray device 32 into the upper reaches of condensing vessel 20).
Trollux fails to teach withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank; subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and, returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, however Muska teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 storage to include withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank; subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and, returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank. This is strong evidence that modifying Trollux as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. temperature and pressure control within the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank 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 Trollux by Muska 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 temperature and pressure control within the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trollux as modified by Davidsen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Muska (US Patent No. 3,962,881), hereinafter Muska.
Regarding claim 10, Trollux as modified discloses the method for treating impurities contained in liquefied CO2 in a liquefied CO2 terminal of claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above).
However, Trollux as modified does not disclose additionally comprising the step of:
withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank;
subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and,
returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank.
Muska teaches withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank;
subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and,
returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank (Fig. 1, sub-cooler 13, CO2 pass 15, vessel 20, conduit 21, conduit 23, conduit 30, spray device 32; Col. 6, lines 8-12, The liquid carbon dioxide which is sub-cooled by the vaporization of LNG and is emitted from the CO2 pass 15 of sub-cooler 13 is supplied through conduit 30 and a spray device 32 into the upper reaches of condensing vessel 20).
Trollux as modified fails to teach withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank; subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and, returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank, however Muska teaches that it is a known method in the art of CO2 storage to include withdrawing a flow of liquefied CO2 from an outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank; subcooling the flow of liquefied CO2 withdrawn from the outlet on the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank thereby obtaining a cooled flow of liquefied CO2; and, returning the cooled flow of liquefied CO2 to the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank by respraying the liquefied CO2 into the headspace of the liquefied CO2 intermediate storage tank. This is strong evidence that modifying Trollux as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. temperature and pressure control within the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank 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 Trollux as modified by Muska 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 temperature and pressure control within the liquefied CO2 intermediate tank to improve overall system efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winter (US Patent No. 7,891,197) discloses a method of liquified CO2 transfer.
Curlett (US 20080112760) discloses subterranean storage of CO2
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 July 24th, 2026
Prosecution Insights