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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-171434, filed on October 26, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a combustion device in claim 1. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as comprising, an engine (Applicant Specification [0011]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “combustion”) and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
a carbon dioxide extraction device in claim 1. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as comprising, an absorption tower (Applicant Specification [0021]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “carbon extraction”) and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noborisato (US20220288527A1) in view of Takegawa et al (JP H0397613 A).
In re Claim 1, Noborisato discloses a carbon dioxide recovery system (Fig. 1: 1) configured to recover carbon dioxide contained in exhaust gas (11; [0019]: exhaust gases discharged from the furnace 100 flow through the duct 11) discharged from a combustion device (100), comprising:
a carbon dioxide extraction device (2) configured to absorb carbon dioxide contained in the exhaust gas (11) into an absorption solution ([0019]: exhaust gases respectively flowing into the absorption towers 2, 3, 4, 5 are brought into contact with the absorption liquids flowing into the absorption towers 2, 3, 4, 5 via the CO2 lean absorption liquid) to adsorb the carbon dioxide onto an adsorbent ([0019]);
a separation device (6) configured to separate carbon dioxide gas (7) from the absorption solution (35) by heating the absorption solution to which the carbon dioxide is attached in the carbon dioxide extraction device ([0018]: heat exchanger is connected to a heat medium supply line 28),
the separation device (6) including a heater (See Fig. 1 and [0018]: 6 is provided with a heat exchanger) configured to heat the absorption solution by heat exchange () between the absorption solution ([0018]: a heat medium, such as water vapor, for heating the CO2 rich absorption liquids flows) a heat transfer medium (28).
However, Noborisato does not explicitly teach, a liquefaction device configured to liquefy the carbon dioxide gas by cooling the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution or the adsorbent in the separation device, wherein the liquefaction device includes: at least one compressor configured to compress the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution or the adsorbent in the separation device; at least one heat exchanger configured to perform heat exchange between the heat transfer medium to be introduced into the heater and the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the at least one compressor; at least one cooler configured to cool the carbon dioxide gas by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the at least one compressor and a first cooling medium; Anda liquefier configured to liquefy the carbon dioxide gas by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas that has passed through the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one cooler and a second cooling medium.
On the other hand, Takegawa teaches that for a carbon dioxide recovery system can be operated such that a liquefaction device with a series of heat exchangers that ultimately liquefies carbon dioxide, a liquefaction device (Fig. 1) configured to liquefy the carbon dioxide gas (gas leaving 7) by cooling the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution in the separation device (7),
wherein the liquefaction device includes:
at least one compressor (14) configured to compress the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution in the separation device (7).
at least one heat exchanger (13) configured to perform heat exchange between the heat transfer medium to be introduced into the heater and the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the at least one compressor (14).
at least one cooler (15) configured to cool the carbon dioxide gas by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the at least one compressor (14) and a first cooling medium (medium of cooler 15); and
a liquefier (17) configured to liquefy the carbon dioxide gas ([0017]: liquefied by 17) by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas () that has passed through the at least one heat exchanger (13) and the at least one cooler (15) and a second cooling medium ([0001]: sing LNG as a coolant).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the carbon dioxide recovery system of Noborisato to have been a liquefaction device based on the teaching of Takegawa since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to use a known liquefaction device such as that taught by Takegawa to provide a process suitable for providing liquefaction on a carbon dioxide recovery system of Noborisato. As the heat exchangers for the liquefaction device as taught by Takegawa is considered a liquefaction device comprising a liquefaction device, a person having ordinary skill would combine these teachings in order to obtain the demanded high purity carbon dioxide liquid (Takegawa [0001]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 5, Modified Noborisato teaches wherein the carbon dioxide extraction device (2) is configured to absorb the carbon dioxide contained in the exhaust gas (11) into the absorption solution ([0019]: exhaust gases respectively flowing into the absorption towers 2, 3, 4, 5 are brought into contact with the absorption liquids flowing into the absorption towers 2, 3, 4, 5 via the CO2 lean absorption liquid).
In re Claim 6, Modified Noborisato teaches wherein the carbon dioxide extraction device (2) is configured to adsorb the carbon dioxide contained in the exhaust gas onto the adsorbent (See [0019]).
In re Claim 7, Noborisato discloses a carbon dioxide recovery method (Fig. 1:1) for recovering carbon dioxide contained in exhaust gas (11) discharged from a combustion device (101), comprising:
a carbon dioxide extraction step of absorbing carbon dioxide (2) contained in the exhaust gas (11) into an absorption solution ([0019]: exhaust gases respectively flowing into the absorption towers 2, 3, 4, 5 are brought into contact with the absorption liquids flowing into the absorption towers 2, 3, 4, 5 via the CO2 lean absorption liquid).
a separation step of separating carbon dioxide gas (6) from the absorption solution by heating the absorption solution by heat exchange between the absorption solution ()a heat transfer medium (28)|( [0018]: heat exchanger is connected to a heat medium supply line 28).
On the other hand, Noborisato does not explicitly teach a liquefaction step of liquefying the carbon dioxide gas by cooling the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution or the adsorbent in the separation step, wherein the liquefaction step includes: compression step of compressing the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution or the adsorbent in the separation step; a heat exchange step of performing heat exchange between the heat transfer medium before the heat exchange in the separation step and the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the compression step; a cooling step of cooling the carbon dioxide gas by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the compression step and a first cooling medium; and a liquefaction step of liquefying the carbon dioxide gas by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas subjected to the heat exchange with the heat transfer medium in the heat exchange step and cooled in the cooling step and a second cooling medium
However, Takegawa teaches a process for a carbon dioxide recovery system that can be operated such that a liquefaction device with a series of heat exchangers that ultimately liquefies carbon dioxide a liquefaction step of liquefying the carbon dioxide gas (Fig. 1) by cooling the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution in the separation step (13),
wherein the liquefaction step includes: compression step of compressing the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption in the separation step (14);
a heat exchange step of performing heat exchange between the heat transfer medium before the heat exchange in the separation step and the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the compression step (13).
a cooling step of cooling the carbon dioxide gas (15) by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas compressed in the compression step (14) and a first cooling medium (medium of cooler 15); and
a liquefaction step of liquefying the carbon dioxide gas by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas subjected to the heat exchange with the heat transfer medium in the heat exchange step and cooled in the cooling step (17) and a second cooling medium ([0001]: using LNG as a coolant).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the carbon dioxide recovery system of Noborisato to have been a liquefaction device based on the teaching of Takegawa since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to use a known liquefaction device such as that taught by Takegawa to provide a process suitable for providing liquefaction on a carbon dioxide recovery system of Noborisato. As the heat exchangers for the liquefaction device as taught by Takegawa is considered a liquefaction device comprising a liquefaction step, a person having ordinary skill would combine these teachings in order to obtain the demanded high purity carbon dioxide liquid (Takegawa [0001]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noborisato (US20220288527A1) as modified by Takegawa et al (JP H0397613 A) further in view of Araki et al (JP2010235395A).
In re Claim 2, Modified Noborisato teaches carbon dioxide recovery system (Noborisato Fig. 1) according to wherein the liquefaction device (Takegawa Fig. 1) further includes a carbon dioxide gas line (Takegawa Fig. 1: line extending from top of 7) for sending the carbon dioxide gas separated from the absorption solution in the separation device (Noborisato 6) to the liquefier (Takegawa 17), the carbon dioxide gas line () being equipped with the at least one compressor (14), the at least one heat exchanger (13), and the at least one cooler (15), and wherein the at least one compressor (14) includes: a first compressor (14).
Modified Noborisato does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one compressor includes: a first compressor; and a second compressor disposed downstream of the first compressor on the carbon dioxide gas line.
However, Araki teaches wherein the at least one compressor (60a and 60 b) includes: a first compressor (60a); and a second compressor (60b) disposed downstream of the first compressor (60a) on the carbon dioxide gas line (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Noborisato and to have modified them by wherein the at least one compressor of modified Noborisato includes: a first compressor of modified Noborisato; and a second compressor as taught by Araki disposed downstream of the first compressor on the carbon dioxide gas line of modified Noborisato as taught by Araki, in order to pressurize and lower the temperature the carbon dioxide gas (See Araki [0058-0059]), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 3, Modified Noborisato teaches wherein at least one heat exchanger (Araki 83a) includes: a first heat exchanger (Araki 83a) disposed between the first compressor (Araki 60a) and the second compressor (Araki 60b) on the carbon dioxide gas line (Araki 32); and a second heat exchanger (Araki 83b) disposed downstream of the second compressor (Araki 60b) on the carbon dioxide gas line (Araki 32).
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noborisato (US20220288527A1) as modified by Takegawa et al (JP H0397613 A) further in view of Inui et al (US 20140190349 A1).
In re Claim 4, Modified Noborisato does not explicitly teach comprising a pre-heater configured to heat the carbon dioxide gas to be introduced into the at least one compressor by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas and a first heating medium.
However, Inui teaches a pre-heater (76A) configured to heat the carbon dioxide gas to be introduced into the at least one compressor (78) by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas and a first heating medium ([0062]: water containing medium heats CO2 gas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of modified Noborisato and to have modified them by having a pre-heater configured to heat the carbon dioxide gas as taught by Inui to be introduced into the at least one compressor of modified Noborisato by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide gas and a first heating medium as taught by Inui, in order to maintain stable compression that pressurizes the carbon dioxide gas so as to compensate for pressure loss caused by the process (See Inui [0062-0063]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights