DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman “Nuclear Powered CO2 Capture from the Atmosphere” Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy Vol. 28 No. 1 p52-59 (hereinafter “Sherman”) in view of Hardy et al. US Patent 7,420,004 (hereinafter “Hardy”).
Regarding claim 1, Sherman teaches a method of sequestering carbon dioxide comprising:
a) forming a carbon containing reaction product (Na2CO3 sodium carbonate) by combining a capture solution (NaOH) with atmospheric carbon dioxide (air);
b) forming a carbon containing sequestration reaction product (CaCO3) by combining the carbon containing reaction product (Na2CO3 sodium carbonate) with a sequestration feedstock (Ca(OH)2 calcium hydroxide);
c) providing thermal energy from a nuclear reactor to break down the carbon containing sequestration reaction product (CaCO3 calcium carbonate), where the carbon containing sequestration reaction product (CaCO3 calcium carbonate) is broken down into a non-carbon residual product (CaO) and at least one of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (pages 55-57).
Thus, Sherman teaches:
a) (air) CO-2 + NaOH → Na2CO3
b) Na2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 → CaCO3 + regenerated NaOH
c) CaCO3 + nuclear heat → CaO + CO2
Sherman does not explicitly teach d) a step of synthesizing a sequestered carbon product using additional thermal energy from the nuclear reactor to heat a product feedstock and at least one of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
However, Hardy teaches as process of producing synthetic hydrocarbons (abstract, column 3 lines 1-6) from carbon dioxide and hydrogen produced from nuclear reactor electricity (column 3 lines 37-38).
Thus, Hardy teaches:
d) CO2 + nuclear supplied H2 → liquid fuel
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to take the CO-2 produced from Sherman for the hydrocarbon synthesis process in Hardy to provide a sustainable route for carbon capture and liquid fuels. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to take the carbon dioxide from Sherman’s process as the source of the carbon dioxide and react it with the nuclear supplied hydrogen of Hardy to produce liquid fuels.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reaction scheme of Sherman Figure 3. It is the Examiner’s position that it would be obvious to take the CO-2 from the lime kiln as the CO2 source in Hardy to produce liquid fuels.
Regarding claim 2, Sherman teaches reforming the sequestration feedstock (Ca(OH)2) from the non-carbon residual product (CaO) in the lime hydrator above (Sherman Figure 3 above). CaO + H2O → Ca(OH)2
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 8, Hardy uses a thermocatalyst for the reaction step (d) of a product feedstock (H2) and CO2. The catalyst comprises a combination of metals including Cu/CuO or Cu/ZnO (column 4 lines 62-63).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 11 and 12, Hardy teaches a substrate (catalyst support) including iron, cobalt, and nickel including combinations (column 5 lines 5-11). This implies that at least two substrates may be used in combination.
Regarding claim 13, Hardy teaches a water gas shift step of converting CO2 and hydrogen into CO and H2O (column 4 line 33). Thus, Hardy teaches destabilizing the chemical bonds of CO2 by reacting CO2 with hydrogen in a reverse water gas shift reaction to form CO and water.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the capture solution is sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and is selected to react with CO2 (in the air contactor step of Sherman’s Figure 3) to produce Na2CO3, a capture reaction product that takes C from the carbon dioxide. CO-2 + NaOH → Na2CO3
Regarding claim 16, the sequestration feedstock comprises Ca(OH)2. CaO + H2O → Ca(OH)2
Claims 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman and Hardy and in further view of Mallow et al. WO 8403691.
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5, for breaking down calcium carbonate (reaction c) Sherman does not explicitly teach:
(claim 3) using a first thermocatalyst with the sequestration reaction product.
(claim 4) wherein the first thermocatalyst comprises at least one of: a metal, a multi-metal catalyst complex, a metal oxide, an aluminosilicate, and a liquid metal.
(claim 5) wherein the first thermocatalyst comprises one or more of: platinum, copper, rubidium, gold, titanium and ruthenium.
However, Mallow teaches a method for accelerated decarboxylation of calcium carbonate in the presence of a catalyst comprising an alkali metal halide comprising rubidium (page 4 line 24). The catalysts have been found to reduce kiln temperatures and efficiently produce CaO and carbon dioxide from CaCO3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sherman’s CaCO-3 decarboxylation step and use the thermocatalyst in Mallow because the combination would reduce the temperature for the reaction and provide an efficient route to CaO and carbon dioxide.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman and Hardy and in view of Tsai US Publication 2011/0250117.
Regarding claim 17, Sherman does not explicitly teach d2) a step of synthesizing a sequestered carbon product using additional thermal energy from the nuclear reactor to heat a product feedstock comprising silicon dioxide and at least one of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
d2) SiO2+ CO2 → SiC + oxygen.
Tsai teaches this reaction of taking recycle carbon dioxide and producing silicon carbide ([0005], [0014]), providing a method for producing silicon carbide that is cost effective, energy efficient, and environmentally friendly. Since Tsai uses recycle carbon dioxide for this process, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use additional captured carbon from Sherman to provide a profitable material (SiC) while providing a use for the excess carbon. One having ordinary skill in the art to use captured carbon as a source for the reactions in Hardy and/or Tsai to provide profitable materials while reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Claim 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman in view of Tsai US Publication 2011/0250117.
Regarding claim 1 and 17, Sherman teaches a method of sequestering carbon dioxide comprising:
a) forming a carbon containing reaction product (Na2CO3 sodium carbonate) by combining a capture solution (NaOH) with atmospheric carbon dioxide (air);
b) forming a carbon containing sequestration reaction product (CaCO3) by combining the carbon containing reaction product (Na2CO3 sodium carbonate) with a sequestration feedstock (Ca(OH)2 calcium hydroxide);
c) providing thermal energy from a nuclear reactor to break down the carbon containing sequestration reaction product (CaCO3 calcium carbonate), where the carbon containing sequestration reaction product (CaCO3 calcium carbonate) is broken down into a non-carbon residual product (CaO) and at least one of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (pages 55-57).
Thus, Sherman teaches:
a) (air) CO-2 + NaOH → Na2CO3
b) Na2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 → CaCO3 + regenerated NaOH
c) CaCO3 + nuclear heat → CaO + CO2
Sherman does not explicitly teach d) a step of synthesizing a sequestered carbon product using additional thermal energy from the nuclear reactor to heat a product feedstock and at least one of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. And with regards to claim 17, wherein the product comprises silicon dioxide.
d) SiO2+ CO2 → SiC + oxygen.
Tsai teaches this reaction of taking recycle carbon dioxide and producing silicon carbide ([0005], [0014]), providing a method for producing silicon carbide that is cost effective, energy efficient, and environmentally friendly. Since Tsai uses recycle carbon dioxide for this process, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the captured carbon from Sherman to provide a profitable material (SiC) while providing a use for the excess carbon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights