US 10343114

Here is a concise summary of US patent 10343114:

US Patent 10343114: Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury

• Title: Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury
• Current Assignee: Birchtech Corp. (Original Assignee: Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.)
• Inventors: Edwin S. Olson, Michael J. Holmes, John H. Pavlish
• Filing Date: May 14, 2018
• Issue Date: July 9, 2019
• Abstract: A promoted carbon and/or non-carbon base sorbent are described that are highly effective for the removal of mercury from flue gas streams. The promoted sorbent comprises a carbon and/or non-carbon base sorbent that has reacted with and contains forms of halogen and halides. Optional components may be added to increase and/or preserve reactivity and mercury capacity.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a promoted sorbent, which can be made of carbon, non-carbon material, or a combination. The sorbent is prepared by reacting a base sorbent structure with a "promoter" (like halogens or halides) to create a product that effectively removes mercury from gas streams.
• Claim 17: This claim covers a method for creating a mercury-removing sorbent. It involves taking a granular base sorbent and reacting it with a promoter (halogens, halides, or combinations) to produce a promoted sorbent that is effective for mercury removal from gas.
• Claim 26: This claim outlines a method for reducing mercury in flue gas. It involves introducing a base sorbent into a mercury-containing flue gas, either by injecting it or creating it in place. This promoted sorbent then captures over 70% of the mercury, resulting in cleaned flue gas, and the promoted sorbent is substantially recovered from this cleaned gas.
• Claim 36: This claim details a method for reducing mercury and ash in a gas stream. It involves injecting promoted sorbent particles (carbon and/or non-carbon) with a mass mean size greater than 40 micrometers into the gas. The mercury is captured by these particles, which are then separated from the ash particles based on their size, and subsequently reinjected into the gas stream.
• Claim 40: This claim describes a method to reduce mercury in gas to a specific level using a carbon base sorbent. It involves reacting the carbon sorbent with a promoter (halogens, halides, or combinations) to make a promoted carbon sorbent. This promoted sorbent then interacts with mercury-containing gas to capture mercury, producing a cleaned gas. The method also includes monitoring the mercury content of the cleaned gas.
• Claim 43: Similar to Claim 40, but this claim focuses on using a non-carbon base sorbent. It involves reacting a non-carbon sorbent with a promoter to create a promoted non-carbon sorbent, allowing it to interact with mercury-containing gas, and monitoring the mercury content of the cleaned gas.
• Claim 46: This claim is a broader method for reducing mercury to a desired level using a base sorbent that can be non-carbon, carbon, or a combination. This base sorbent is reacted with a promoter (halogens, halides, or combinations) to create a promoted sorbent. This promoted sorbent then interacts with mercury-containing gas to capture mercury, producing a cleaned gas, and the mercury content of the cleaned gas is monitored.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number US10343114 did not yield any specific results regarding ongoing litigation or appeals directly involving this patent. The search results provided general information about Federal Circuit opinions and case summaries in 2026, primarily discussing Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp. concerning US Patent 10,912,321, but no direct mention of US10343114 was found.

As a patent attorney, I have investigated known litigation involving US patent 10343114. The search results from Unified Patents indicate a history of litigation and PTAB cases related to this patent.

Here is a summary of the known litigation and PTAB cases involving US Patent 10343114, based on the provided data from Unified Patents:

PTAB Cases:

• IPR2025-00278
  • Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2025-00274
  • Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2025-01118
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-00832
  • Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-00834
  • Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-01295
  • Status: Procedural Termination [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-01294
  • Status: Procedural Termination [cite: Original Patent Document]

District Court Cases:

• Wyoming District Court
  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-00015
  • Status: Litigation (Critical) [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Wyoming District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00015
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00037
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00447
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Wisconsin Western District Court
  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-00026
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Arizona District Court
  • Case Number: 3:24-cv-08145
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01334
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00243
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00446
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Missouri Western District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00050
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-md-03132
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Missouri Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00980
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00046
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00154
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Kansas District Court
  • Case Number: 5:25-cv-04033
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case:

• Case Number: 26-1403
  • Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]

Note on Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s), and Filing Dates: The provided Google Patents data from Unified Patents lists the existence and status of these cases but does not explicitly state the plaintiffs, defendants, or specific filing dates for each individual case. To obtain that detailed information, one would typically need to access the dockets for each case directly through PACER or the respective court's electronic filing system. The Google Patents information states "Unified Patents Litigation Data" and "Unified Patents PTAB Data" are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, indicating a source of litigation data without providing the specific parties for each listed case. [cite: Original Patent Document]Known litigation involving US patent 10343114, based on the provided information, includes a number of PTAB cases and District Court cases, as well as one case in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Detailed information regarding plaintiffs, defendants, and specific filing dates for each case is not available in the provided patent text, which primarily lists case numbers, jurisdictions, and outcomes/statuses.

PTAB Cases (Inter Partes Reviews - IPRs):

• IPR2025-00278
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2025-00274
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2025-01118
  • Outcome/Status: Not Instituted - Procedural [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-00832
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-00834
  • Outcome/Status: Settlement [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-01295
  • Outcome/Status: Procedural Termination [cite: Original Patent Document]
• IPR2020-01294
  • Outcome/Status: Procedural Termination [cite: Original Patent Document]

U.S. District Court Cases:

• Jurisdiction: Wyoming District Court
  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-00015
  • Outcome/Status: Critical litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Wyoming District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00015
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00037
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00447
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Wisconsin Western District Court
  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-00026
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Arizona District Court
  • Case Number: 3:24-cv-08145
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01334
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00243
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00446
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Missouri Western District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00050
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-md-03132
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Missouri Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:24-cv-00980
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00046
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Iowa Southern District Court
  • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00154
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]
• Jurisdiction: Kansas District Court
  • Case Number: 5:25-cv-04033
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case:

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 26-1403
  • Outcome/Status: Litigation [cite: Original Patent Document]

The provided data from Google Patents, sourced from Unified Patents, does not specify the plaintiffs, defendants, or exact filing dates for each listed case. To obtain this information, one would typically need to consult the individual court dockets. [cite: Original Patent Document]

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10343114. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits and the patent owner prevailed. This gives a defendant a posture where the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB on the merits.

IPR2025-01118 — UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v. Edwin S. Olson et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-06
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for Inter Partes Review was denied institution by the PTAB, meaning the Board decided not to initiate a trial on the merits of the challenged claims.)
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available without access to the full PTAB record, but typically includes three Administrative Patent Judges.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (e.g., § 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly available in the provided structured data or general search results for a discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied. The last modification date was 2026-04-01, which likely corresponds to the denial decision. The denial was "Discretionary Denial," indicating the PTAB exercised its discretion not to institute the IPR, rather than denying it on the merits of the prior art arguments alone. The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial is not publicly available in the general information.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR at the institution phase. This indicates that an IPR challenge on similar grounds (whatever those may have been) or under similar procedural circumstances that led to the discretionary denial would be difficult. Any future defendant considering an IPR on this patent would need to carefully analyze the basis for this discretionary denial to avoid a similar outcome.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10343114 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits, as the sole IPR filed against it, IPR2025-01118, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained through an IPR Final Written Decision. The patent has not been narrowed through PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01118 is minimal due to the discretionary denial. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), a petitioner is estopped from asserting invalidity in a civil action or before the International Trade Commission on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during the inter partes review. Since the IPR was never instituted, the full scope of "grounds raised or reasonably could have raised" for estoppel purposes might be limited. However, the petitioner (UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.) and its privies would likely face some form of estoppel regarding the specific arguments and prior art presented in their petition, even without institution on the merits. This means that for a defendant not privy to the petitioner, all prior-art grounds remain theoretically available.

There is no clear pattern of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals from the patent owner based on the single proceeding. The petitioner, UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., does not appear to be a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10343114 today, the primary recommendation is to obtain and thoroughly review the Petition and the PTAB's Decision denying institution for IPR2025-01118. Understanding the specific prior art, arguments, and, critically, the reasoning for the discretionary denial (e.g., timing, parallel litigation, quality of the petition, specific type of prior art) is paramount. This will inform whether a future IPR challenge could circumvent the issues that led to the denial in IPR2025-01118.

Given the absence of instituted IPRs, the patent's claims are considered valid from a PTAB perspective, making any IPR-based defense a fresh challenge. If considering an IPR, extensive prior art searching and careful claim construction analysis are essential to formulate grounds that avoid the pitfalls of the previous petition.

The absence of PTAB activity leading to claim invalidation suggests the patent owner has either strong claims, has avoided assertion against parties likely to file strong IPRs, or has been effective in defending against initial challenges.## Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10343114. This proceeding, IPR2025-01118, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the PTAB chose not to proceed with a full review of the challenged claims. Consequently, no claims were invalidated or sustained on the merits in this proceeding. This gives a defendant a posture where the patent's claims remain untested by the PTAB in a full inter partes review.

IPR2025-01118 — UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. v. Edwin S. Olson et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-06
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The petition for Inter Partes Review was denied institution by the PTAB.)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided structured data or general search results for a discretionary denial.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) contained in the petition are not publicly available within the provided information or general search results.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-04-01. The PTAB issued a "Discretionary Denial," meaning the Board exercised its authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or § 325(d) (or other discretionary grounds) to not institute the IPR, rather than denying it solely on the merits of the patentability challenge. The exact reasoning for the discretionary denial is not publicly available in this overview.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as there was no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against this IPR challenge at the institution phase. This means that an IPR-based defense on the same grounds or under the same procedural circumstances that led to the discretionary denial would face significant hurdles. Any defendant considering an IPR on US10343114 would need to thoroughly understand the reasons for this discretionary denial to avoid a similar outcome.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10343114 are currently UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits. The single IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01118, concluded with a discretionary denial of institution. This means no claims were invalidated or sustained in a Final Written Decision. Consequently, the patent has not been narrowed through PTAB proceedings, and all claims remain nominally valid from a PTAB perspective.

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01118 is limited. While the petitioner (UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.) and its privies would generally be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in other forums any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised during an IPR that resulted in a final written decision, the impact of a discretionary denial on estoppel can be narrower. Depending on the specific grounds for the discretionary denial, a court may or may not find estoppel. For a defendant not affiliated with UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., all prior-art grounds remain available for potential challenge.

There is no discernable pattern of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner, nor any record of the patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals aggressively, as this is the sole proceeding and it did not reach a Final Written Decision. The petitioner does not appear to be a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US10343114, your immediate next step should be to obtain and rigorously analyze the PTAB's Decision denying institution for IPR2025-01118. Understanding the specific reasoning behind the "Discretionary Denial" is critical. This decision will be publicly available through the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-documents). The denial might have been based on factors such as timing relative to parallel litigation, the strength of the petitioner's preliminary invalidity showing, or other procedural considerations. Knowing these details is crucial for assessing whether a new IPR petition could be successful by addressing the deficiencies or circumstances that led to the prior denial. Since no PTAB activity exists that led to claim invalidation, a new IPR would be a primary avenue to challenge the patent's validity.

Inventors

• Edwin S. Olson (Midwest Energy Emissions Corp)
• Michael J. Holmes (Midwest Energy Emissions Corp)
• John H. Pavlish (Midwest Energy Emissions Corp)

It's unclear from the provided information if all inventors departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp.
Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (MEEC) develops and delivers mercury emissions capture technologies and services. They appear to ship products embodying the claims, specifically sorbents and related systems for mercury removal from flue gas streams. Their current status is operating, as indicated by their continued presence in assignment records and litigation.

Assignment timeline

• 2019-03-20 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-20 — Reel 049115/0132
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OLSON, EDWIN S., PAVLISH, JOHN H., HOLMES, MICHAEL J.
  • Assignee: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER FOUNDATION
  • Correspondent: KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP (121 SW SALMON STREET, SUITE 1600, PORTLAND, OREGON, 97204)
  • Context: Internal transfer from inventors to a foundation
• 2019-05-08 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-08 — Reel 049115/0136
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER FOUNDATION
  • Assignee: MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.
  • Correspondent: KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP (121 SW SALMON STREET, SUITE 1600, PORTLAND, OREGON, 97204). This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer from foundation back to operating company
• 2019-05-08 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-08 — Reel 049115/0132
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: OLSON, EDWIN S., PAVLISH, JOHN H., HOLMES, MICHAEL J.
  • Assignee: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER FOUNDATION
  • Correspondent: KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP (121 SW SALMON STREET, SUITE 1600, PORTLAND, OREGON, 97204). This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Duplicate record of previous assignment, likely for correction or clarification.
• 2020-03-11 (executed) / recorded 2020-03-11 — Reel 049115/0132
  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER FOUNDATION
  • Assignee: MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.
  • Correspondent: KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP (121 SW SALMON STREET, SUITE 1600, PORTLAND, OREGON, 97204). This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Corrective assignment for previously recorded assignment to correct assignee address.
• 2024-11-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-11-07 — Reel 061803/0200
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.
  • Assignee: BIRCHTECH CORP.
  • Correspondent: BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC (One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219).
  • Context: Change of name from Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. to Birchtech Corp.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10343114
    2018 : Filed by Midwest Energy
    2019 : Inventors to EERC Foundation
         : EERC Fndn to Midwest Energy
         : Inventors to EERC Foundation (dup)
    2020 : EERC Fndn to Midwest Energy (correction)
    2024 : Midwest Energy to Birchtech Corp (name change)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The transfers involve Midwest Energy Emissions Corp, which is an operating company, and the Energy and Environmental Research Center Foundation, which appears to be a research-focused entity. The final transfer is a change of name for the operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the named assignees (Midwest Energy Emissions Corp, Energy and Environmental Research Center Foundation, Birchtech Corp) are identified as known NPEs from public lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP appears as the correspondent for multiple assignments from 2019 to 2020 (Reel 049115/0132, 049115/0136).
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The initial transfers in 2019 are close in time, but appear to be internal reorganizations/corrections rather than a series of transfers through different shell entities. The subsequent change of name is much later.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While Google Patents indicates litigation, the specific dates of the first infringement suit are not provided in this context, so a definitive call cannot be made.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Midwest Energy Emissions Corp or Birchtech Corp.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information in the provided data to suggest privateering activity.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The assignment chain primarily shows transfers between the inventors, a related research foundation, and the operating company, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (now Birchtech Corp.). The presence of a recurring correspondent (KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP) for internal transfers is consistent with an operating company managing its patent portfolio, not necessarily indicative of NPE behavior. The company appears to be an operating entity with a product embodying the claims, suggesting direct assertion rather than shell-entity litigation.

For verification, see USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

USPTO Search for Patent 10343114

A search of the USPTO database for patent number US10343114B2 (which is the granted patent, rather than an application) confirms its existence and details. The patent is titled "Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury" and lists Edwin S. Olson, Michael J. Holmes, and John H. Pavlish as inventors, with Birchtech Corp. as the current assignee.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 10343114

The following prior art references are identified as relevant, based on the citations within US10343114B2 and their descriptions. These references potentially anticipate claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

U.S. Patent No. 6,808,692 (US6808692B2)

• Full Citation: US6808692B2, "Enhanced mercury control in coal-fired power plants"
• Publication/Filing Date: The priority date for US10343114B2 is August 30, 2004, which is after the publication date of US6808692B2 (October 26, 2004, assuming the provided publication date from Google Patents is the original). The filing date of US6808692B2 is May 14, 2002.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for reducing mercury emissions in coal-fired power plants by injecting a molecular halogen or a thermolabile molecular halogen precursor (like calcium hypochlorite) into the flue gas. The halogen converts elemental mercury to mercuric halide, which is then adsorbable by alkaline solids (e.g., fly ash, dry FGD solids) and captured by particulate control devices. The invention also aims to produce mercury-containing fly ash suitable for cementitious applications.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The use of halogens/halides for mercury oxidation and removal from flue gas. (e.g., Claims 1, 17, 26, 40, 43, 46).
  • The injection of such materials into a mercury-containing gas stream. (e.g., Claims 26, 36, 40, 43, 46).
  • The capture of oxidized mercury by alkaline solids in flue gas.
  • The concept of in-situ conversion of mercury in flue gas.

U.S. Patent No. 6,719,828 (US6719828B1)

• Full Citation: US6719828B1, "High capacity regenerable sorbent for removal of mercury from flue gas"
• Publication/Filing Date: This patent claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/287,939, filed April 30, 2001. The issue date is April 13, 2004.
• Brief Description: This patent broadly relates to compositions for gas treatment and processes for making and using them, specifically mentioning the removal of mercury from flue gas. It discusses various sorbents, including activated carbon, fuller's earth, bentonite, and montmorillonite clays, as well as processes involving contacting gas containing HCl with dry alkaline material and a sorbent followed by solids separation. The patent mentions difficulties with regenerating certain sorbents after exposure to flue gas contaminants.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The use of various base sorbent materials (e.g., activated carbon, clays) for mercury removal (e.g., Claims 1, 17, 40, 43, 46).
  • The general concept of a high-capacity sorbent for mercury removal from flue gas.
  • The use of a sorbent in conjunction with alkaline materials for mercury capture.

U.S. Patent No. 8,168,147 (US8168147B2)

• Full Citation: US8168147B2, "Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury"
• Publication/Filing Date: This patent is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/201,595 filed on Aug. 29, 2008, which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/209,163, filed on Aug. 22, 2005 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,435,286), which claims priority from provisional application 60/605,640, filed on Aug. 30, 2004. Notably, US10343114B2 claims priority from provisional application Ser. No. 60/605,640 filed on Aug. 30, 2004, making US8168147B2 a family member.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a halogen/halide promoted activated carbon sorbent for mercury removal from flue gas. The sorbent contains a halide-modified carbon form produced by the reaction of bromine (or other halogen) with carbon. It also mentions optional secondary components and alkali to increase reactivity and capacity. The patent discusses in-flight preparation of the sorbent and the use of continuous monitoring for control.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a patent family member, this patent contains very similar if not identical subject matter. It directly anticipates many claims, including:
  • Promoted carbon sorbents with halogens/halides. (e.g., Claim 1, 40, 46).
  • Methods for preparing such sorbents. (e.g., Claim 17).
  • Methods for reducing mercury in flue gas using such sorbents, including in-flight preparation and monitoring. (e.g., Claims 26, 36, 40, 43, 46).
  • The use of optional alkaline materials for enhanced mercury capture.

U.S. Patent No. 4,814,152 (Yan)

• Full Citation: US4814152, "Composition and process for removing mercury vapor"
• Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated within the provided text, but cited by US6719828B1. (A quick search reveals an issue date of March 21, 1989).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a mercury sorbent comprising elemental sulfur and a metal catalyst on a carbon support. The patent text explicitly states that this method "did not appear to employ a halide."
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The use of carbonaceous supports (e.g., activated carbon) for mercury removal. (e.g., Claims 1, 40, 46).
  • However, due to the explicit statement regarding the lack of halide, it is less likely to anticipate claims specifically directed to halogen/halide-promoted sorbents.

U.S. Patent No. 5,891,324 (Nelson)

• Full Citation: US5891324, "Process for the removal of mercury contained in an aqueous phase"
• Publication/Filing Date: Not explicitly stated within the provided text. (A quick search reveals an issue date of April 6, 1999).
• Brief Description: This patent describes activated carbon containing an acid (HCl, H2SO4, or H3PO4) for the removal of mercury contained in a liquid phase, such as in the oil industry. The mercury is adsorbed from the liquid into the solid carbon phase at relatively low temperatures.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The use of activated carbon for mercury removal. (e.g., Claims 1, 40, 46).
  • The use of acid-treated activated carbon.
  • However, the primary limitation is its focus on mercury removal from a liquid phase, which distinguishes it from US10343114B2's focus on gas streams.

U.S. Patent Application 2002/0150516

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application 2002/0150516, "Method for removal of mercury from flue gas"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication date is October 17, 2002.
• Brief Description: This application describes a process of injecting manganese oxide sorbent particles for mercury removal from flue gas. Regeneration is claimed by removal of spent oxide particles from the reaction zone and rinsing with dilute aqueous acid.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This application could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The injection of sorbent particles into a flue gas stream for mercury removal. (e.g., Claims 26, 36).
  • The general concept of regenerating sorbent particles.
  • However, the specific sorbent material (manganese oxide) differs from the halogen/halide-promoted carbon/non-carbon sorbents of US10343114B2.

U.S. Patent Application 2001/0003116

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent Application 2001/0003116, "Method for regeneration of mercury sorbents"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication date is June 14, 2001.
• Brief Description: This application describes the regeneration of a plate or honeycomb material composed of transition metal oxides used for sorption of mercury in flue gas. The claimed process involves heating the sorbent in a reducing gas stream to remove poisons, followed by impregnation with a polyfunctional complex-forming reagent containing the catalyst active component to restore mercury capture capacity.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): This application could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The regeneration of sorbents for mercury capture from flue gas.
  • The use of transition metal oxides as sorbents.
  • However, the specific regeneration method and the composition of the active component differ from the halogen/halide promotion of US10343114B2.

U.S. Patent No. 7,435,286 (US7435286B2)

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,435,286, "Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury"
• Publication/Filing Date: This patent issued on October 14, 2008, and claims priority from provisional application Ser. No. 60/605,640 filed on Aug. 30, 2004.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a halogen/halide promoted activated carbon sorbent for mercury removal from flue gas streams, very similar in description to US8168147B2 and US10343114B2, as they share the same priority date and are part of the same patent family.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a direct family member, this patent is highly likely to anticipate most, if not all, of the claims in US10343114B2. It would likely cover the promoted sorbents, their preparation, and their use in mercury removal from gas streams.

U.S. Patent No. 8,652,235 (US8652235B2)

• Full Citation: US8652235B2, "Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury"
• Publication/Filing Date: This patent issued on February 18, 2014, and claims priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/429,058 filed on April 23, 2009. It also shares priority with the August 30, 2004 provisional application, making it a family member.
• Brief Description: This patent is another family member sharing the same ultimate priority date and similar description regarding promoted sorbents for mercury oxidation and removal.
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): As a direct family member, this patent is highly likely to anticipate most, if not all, of the claims in US10343114B2. It would likely cover the promoted sorbents, their preparation, and their use in mercury removal from gas streams.

JP 49-43197 and JP 50-6438 (Japanese Patents)

• Full Citation: Japanese Patent JP 49-43197 and JP 50-6438
• Publication/Filing Date: JP 49-43197 (1974), JP 50-6438 (1975).
• Brief Description: JP 49-43197 describes the treatment of Hg-contaminated electrolysis cell gas using a metal iodide salt on a support. JP 50-6438 describes a similar treatment using a resin impregnated with a metal iodide. The US10343114B2 patent explicitly states that "These patents do not appear to represent a carbon bromide compound as specified in this patent application."
• Potentially Anticipating Claims (35 U.S.C. § 102): These patents could potentially anticipate claims related to:
  • The general concept of using supported metal halides for mercury removal from gas streams.
  • However, their specificity to metal iodides and the explicit distinction made in US10343114B2 concerning carbon bromide compounds would limit their anticipatory scope against claims focused on bromide-promoted carbon sorbents.

I'll ground this analysis with a few verification searches on the key references before building the § 103 combinations.

Let me verify a few discrepancies I'm seeing (Berkshire Hathaway IPRs referencing the '760 file history) and confirm the claim language.

Obviousness Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — US 10,343,114

0. Corrections and contradictions vs. the previously generated sections (flagged first, per instruction)

Before the merits, four items in the earlier sections are either contradicted by the ground-truth patent text or by the search results, and they materially affect a § 103 analysis:

(a) The Prior Art section omitted the two references that actually drove the prosecution. The prior-art section listed the '114 patent's own family members (US 7,435,286; US 8,168,147; US 8,652,235) as the closest § 102 art, but did not list US 6,953,494 (Nelson) or US 5,435,980 (Felsvang) — the pair the Examiner actually used in a § 103 rejection during prosecution of the application that became this patent. The '760 file history is available as an exhibit in the BHE IPRs and shows the Office Action rejecting claims "under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. patent no. 5,435,980 ('Felsvang') in view of U.S. patent publication no. 2004/0003716 ('Nelson')", with the applicant traversing and submitting a 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declaration by inventor Pavlish on unexpected results.
Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558250](/patent/1558250)/download-documents (Exhibit 1019/1026, '760 file history); https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/[PTAB](/ptab)/IPR2025-00422/Berkshire_Hathaway_Energy_Company/docs/02-11-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1026-File_History_of_US_Patent_Application_No_15978,760,_Part_1.pdf

(b) Family members cannot be § 102/§ 103 prior art to claims entitled to the same priority. US 7,435,286, US 8,168,147 and US 8,652,235 share the 30 Aug 2004 provisional lineage. They are not prior art unless the challenged claims lose that priority (see § 1 below). The earlier section's treatment of them as anticipating art is legally incorrect as written — although, as shown below, it becomes correct under one specific and currently-contested scenario.

(c) US 6,808,692 details in the earlier section are wrong. The inventor is Klaus H. Oehr, not "Johnson"; it was filed 14 Feb 2002, published as US 2003/0161771, and issued 26 Oct 2004 — i.e., both the pre-grant publication and the patent predate the '114 priority chain. The earlier section's hedge that its publication date might fall after the '114 priority date is incorrect.
Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6808692](/patent/6808692)

(d) The PTAB section's "only one AIA trial proceeding on file" statement is contradicted by search results. Google Patents' own listing for the '114 shows IPR2025-00274 and IPR2025-00278, and BHE's mandatory notices expressly identify those two proceedings as directed to U.S. Patent No. 10,343,114, in a coordinated multi-patent campaign (IPR2025-00274/-00278 → '114; -00280/-00281 → US 10,596,517; -00422/-00423 → US 10,668,430; plus -00424/-00425). The Board has already engaged the priority-date question at length (IPR2025-00424, Paper 28 at 40), and the parties have been granted extra pages "limited to addressing priority date issues."
Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557059](/patent/1557059)/download-documents; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00422/Berkshire_Hathaway_Energy_Company_v._MES_Inc/docs/01-20-2026-Board/Exhibit-3004-Ex_3004.pdf

Also note the '114 is listed as Expired – Lifetime, anticipated expiration 22 Aug 2025 (patent text). That does not bar IPR (the Board applies Phillips to expired claims) but caps any forward-looking damages theory.

---

1. The threshold issue that determines everything: effective filing date

Every § 103 conclusion below is contingent on one binary question.

Scenario B is close to self-invalidating: the '114 specification's non-carbon subject matter (perlite/pumacite tectosilicates, bentonite, Lewis-acid/Lewis-base site activation, metastable dihalogen/M–O–M complexes) is described in the specification as later-added material, and BHE's petitions are expressly built on the argument "that the challenged claims are not entitled to priority because the continuation applications do not support the challenged claims." A § 103 analysis that is robust in Scenario A is overwhelming in Scenario B.

---

2. Framework and POSITA

Standards. Graham v. John Deere; KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (combining known elements with predictable results; a known technique applied to a known device ready for improvement; "obvious to try" with a finite number of identified, predictable solutions). Motivation may come from the references themselves, the knowledge of a POSITA, or the nature of the problem. All references here are (i) in the same field of endeavor (removal of mercury from coal-combustion flue gas), and (ii) reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventors faced, so they are analogous art.

POSITA (my construction). A person with an M.S. or Ph.D. in chemistry or chemical/environmental engineering and 2–5 years of experience in flue-gas mercury speciation and control, or a B.S. with 5+ years of equivalent experience — a person familiar with activated carbon injection economics, halogen chemistry in flue gas, ESP/baghouse particulate control, and commercial mercury CEMs. This is consistent with the level reflected in the Nalco Mobotec/Nelson/Felsvang disclosures.

Claim scope caveat. I was given summaries of the independent claims (1, 17, 26, 36, 40, 43, 46) and selected specification embodiments, not the full issued claim set. The analysis below is directed to those independent claims; dependent-claim limitations visible in the specification (1–30 g promoter/100 g sorbent; >40 µm mass mean diameter; >60 µm preferred; secondary component at 1–15 wt% of promoter; alkali co-injection; S/Se/H₂S/SO₂/CS₂/P₂S₅ stabilizing reagent; regeneration) are addressed where they appear.

---

3. Prior art qualification

Note the important second-order point: US 6,808,692, US 6,953,494 and US 6,719,828 are all cited on the face of, or in the specification of, the '114 itself ("Yan… did not appear to employ a halide"; the Nelson method discussed; the Ghorishi and Lanci references). Applicant's own characterization of these references is useful § 103 evidence.

---

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Nelson alone (or Nelson as primary) against claims 1, 17, 40 (carbon), and the method steps of 26

Mapping.

Motivation. None needed for a single-reference case; Nelson's own stated purpose is mercury removal from combustion gas.

Why the overlap matters. Under In re Peterson, a claimed numerical range overlapping a prior-art disclosed range is prima facie obvious absent unexpected results. Because 1–30 g/100 g is broad and Nelson discloses 1–15 wt% with an express teaching that higher loadings work, the range limitation is unlikely to save claim 1 standing alone.

Ground 2 — Nelson + Oehr (the core § 103 combination; and the reason the application drew a § 103 rejection)

What Oehr adds. (i) Injection of molecular halogen into flue gas to oxidize elemental Hg to mercuric halide; (ii) the express selection of bromine (Oehr claim 2: "chlorine, bromine and iodine"); (iii) "providing alkaline solid particles in said flue gas ahead of a particulate collection device, in order to adsorb at least a portion of said mercuric halide" — this is the capture half of the mechanism; (iv) claim 18: the mercury-bearing alkaline solids remain suitable for cementitious products (i.e., an express motivation to manage ash contamination, which is also the '114's stated problem).

Motivation to combine. Both references are directed to the same problem in the same industrial process (Hg emissions from coal-fired flue gas), and each addresses a complementary half of the chemistry POSITA would recognize as necessary: Oehr oxidizes and provides an adsorbent for the oxidized species; Nelson provides a halogen-preactivated carbon whose entire purpose is to adsorb mercury species, including at hot-side ESP temperatures. KSR rationale (C): using a known technique (halogen promotion of a carbon sorbent) to improve a known process (halogen injection + sorbent injection) in the same way. Rationale (F): the EPA's December 2000 decision to regulate utility mercury (recounted in both Oehr's and Lovell's backgrounds) supplied a strong market/regulatory impetus.

The teaching-away counterargument (patentee's best point) is that Oehr's own corporate successor (Nalco Mobotec, US 8,145,548) criticized Nelson's carbon-based approach as contaminating fly ash. That reference, however, was filed in 2007 and is not available as prior art in Scenario A; and its criticism goes to ash quality, not to operability of the combination.

Ground 3 — Nelson (or Oehr) + Lovell, for the non-carbon species of the Markush groups (claims 1, 17, 26, 36, 43, 46)

Claims 1, 17, 26, 36, 43 and 46 all recite a base sorbent that is carbon, non-carbon, or a combination, or recite the non-carbon alternative expressly (claims 43, 46). A claim to a genus of alternatives is obvious where the art teaches species within the genus and the remaining alternatives are obvious.

What Lovell adds. Non-carbon (clay/phyllosilicate/vermiculite/montmorillonite) sorbent particles; injection and entrainment into a flue gas stream containing ionic and elemental mercury; removal by filtration, ESP, inertial or wet-scrubbing means; and a regenerator (claim 7). Lovell's background supplies the exact motivation the '114 asserts as its own: activated carbon's cost, its consumption at high sorbent-to-Hg ratios, and the fact that carbon in the ash "can convert the fly ash from an asset to a liability." The '114 specification's non-carbon list (clay-based compounds, alkaline compounds, calcium hydroxide, sodium acetate, bicarbonates, porous/vesicular felsic and basaltic materials — perlite, pumacite, bentonite) is comprised of known low-cost alkaline/clay materials, several of which are literally the alkaline solids Oehr injects to adsorb mercuric halide.

Motivation. (i) Simple substitution of a known element for another (KSR rationale B): substituting a cheaper, ash-compatible clay or alkaline base for PAC in a known halogen-promotion process, to solve the ash-salability problem both references identify; (ii) known technique to improve similar devices in the same way: halogen/promoter treatment of a sorbent surface to create oxidizing sites is disclosed for carbon (Nelson) and, by Oehr, is applied in an alkaline-solid system; a POSITA would expect a Lewis-basic clay/alkaline surface to be at least as suitable for complexing an electrophilic halogen as a carbon surface.

Ground 4 — Felsvang + Nelson (Exam-in-Chief combination during prosecution)

Felsvang discloses adding chloride (halogen) to the coal/furnace while injecting activated carbon into the flue gas for Hg removal. Combined with Nelson's teaching that pretreating carbon with Br₂/HBr dramatically improves its mercury capacity, the combination yields: halogen introduced to the combustion system + a halogen-promoted carbon sorbent contacting the mercury-containing gas. This is the combination the Examiner used against the parent-family claims. The applicant overcame it with the "in-flight promotion is unexpectedly superior to pre-treatment" evidence. That argument is powerful but, as explained in § 5, it does not reach the claims as summarized, which are not limited to in-flight promotion.

Ground 5 — Ground 1/2/3 + Nelson [0065] for claim 36 (size separation and reinjection)

Mapping. Claim 36 requires promoted sorbent particles with mass mean size >40 µm, separation of sorbent from ash on the basis of size, and reinjection.

• 40 µm / physical separability: the '114 specification itself states the rationale as an established design choice ("such that it is physically separable therefrom"; "greater than about 40 micrometers… such that the activated carbon and ash can be separated by physical means"). A POSITA's selection of a particle size above the fly-ash size distribution to enable physical separation is design-choice obviousness with a recognized, articulated motivation.

• Separation and reinjection: Nelson [0065] expressly discloses injecting sorbent after the ESP so the filter cake "would predominantly be mercury sorbent, allowing a longer residence time, higher utilization levels, and the possibility of recovering and reinjecting the sorbent to lower costs." Lovell claim 7 discloses a regenerator; the '114 itself incorporates by reference commonly owned PCT/US04/12828, "Process for Regenerating a Spent Sorbent."

Counter to watch for: Lovell claim 1 requires a largest dimension "less than about twenty micrometers," which the patentee may characterize as a teaching away from >40 µm. That is a weak teaching-away argument, because Lovell's small size is driven by its sulfide/ion-exchange chemistry (surface-area kinetics), not by any disparagement of larger particles, and because Lovell's own background identifies ash-salability as the problem that larger, separable or post-ESP-injected sorbents solve.

Ground 6 — Grounds 1–3 + Yan (and/or Oehr) for the optional "mercury-stabilizing reagent" claims

Dependent claims reciting a stabilizing reagent selected from S, Se, H₂S, SO₂, H₂Se, SeO₂, CS₂, P₂S₅ are directly suggested by Yan's sulfur-plus-metal-catalyst-on-carbon sorbent, which the '114 specification itself cites and distinguishes only on the ground that it "did not appear to employ a halide." Combining Yan's sulfur functionality with Nelson's brominated carbon to produce a bifunctional sorbent (oxidize + stabilize/immobilize) is a predictable combination of two known mercury-capture mechanisms directed to the same problem, with the additional motivation the '114 itself supplies: "a second compound… generates a Lewis base with greater ability to stabilize the developing positive charge on the mercury."

Ground 7 — The monitoring/feedback-control claims (40, 43, 46) — the weakest link for a challenger on the current record

Claims 40, 43 and 46 add only one element beyond the composition/contact steps: monitoring the mercury content of the cleaned gas, and (in the described embodiments) adjusting the sorbent/promoter feed rate in response.

The identified art in the prior-art section does not squarely disclose closed-loop mercury CEM → sorbent-injection-rate feedback. However, three non-art points materially weaken this as a validity anchor:

1. The '114 specification itself treats the control layer as conventional: signals from the optional mercury CEM are fed to an optional controller which adjusts flow controllers "according to control algorithms well known in the art"; the same passage says the flow controllers "can also be adjusted manually."
2. The specification's own examples rely on an off-the-shelf commercial mercury CEM (a "Sir Galahad mercury CEM") and on a pilot-scale CEM-based mass-balance methodology measured "inlet flue gas and the outlet flue gas."
3. Continuous emissions monitoring of mercury and closed-loop control of reagent feed rate in flue-gas treatment is a classic "applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement" scenario (KSR rationale D), particularly given the express regulatory-compliance driver.

A challenger should expect to have to supply a specific reference (or a § 1.132-ready secondary reference) teaching CEM-based feedback control of a flue-gas sorbent or reagent injection rate. This is the element most likely to survive a § 103 attack on the current record, and it is also the element most likely to be construed narrowly (as merely "monitoring," not closed-loop control, if the printed claim text reads as summarized).

---

5. The patentee's rebuttal case — and how strong it actually is

(1) Unexpected results / in-flight vs. pre-treatment (the real battleground)

The '760 file history shows the applicant submitted a § 1.132 declaration by inventor John Pavlish asserting: in-flight bromide promotion removes more mercury than pre-treating the sorbent outside the flue gas with the same promoter; in-flight bromide greatly outperforms in-flight chloride; and the conventional wisdom (Nelson's "essential element" of pre-treatment) taught away from in-flight promotion. The '114 issued over that record.

Strength of the rebuttal depends entirely on claim construction. Under the independent-claim summaries:

• Claims 1, 17, 40, 43, 46 are not limited to in-flight promotion. Nelson's pre-treated brominated carbon literally satisfies "a sorbent structure that has reacted with a promoter… such that the reaction product is effective for the removal of mercury from a gas stream" (claim 1) and "reacting the base sorbent with a promoter" (claim 17). For those claims, the "unexpectedly better in-flight" evidence is evidence of a property of an unclaimed embodiment — weak nexus, under In re Kao/nexus principles.
• Claim 26 covers both "by injection or in situ creation," so it is not saved either.
• If, however, the patent owner successfully reads an in-flight limitation into the claims from the specification and prosecution history, that construction (a) helps validity but (b) narrows infringement to in-flight practice and creates a § 265/prosecution-disclaimer problem for its parallel litigation theories. That is the strategic vice the defendant should exploit: a narrowing disclaimer that preserves validity may be fatal to the infringement case, and vice versa.

(2) Teaching away

The strongest teaching-away showing available to the patentee is Nelson's own text (per the file-history excerpt): bromine species "can be quite corrosive," carbon should be "uniformly exposed to and reacted with the bromine," carbon should be purged of H₂O "which interferes with bromination," and mixing times of 90 minutes or more. This is a genuine teaching away from in-flue-gas promotion (low promoter concentration, seconds of contact time, 7% H₂O, corrodible ductwork) — but it reinforces the § 103 case against pre-treatment claims, because Nelson is then squarely the primary reference for the pre-treatment species of the claims.

(3) Objective indicia

Available to the patentee: DOE recognition of the EERC work; widespread commercial adoption of in-flight halogen promotion in the U.S. utility fleet; ME2C's Delaware litigation success; and the notable fact that Nelson himself later advocated in-flight promotion citing EERC's work. Under WBIP/Volvo, this evidence must be tied by nexus to the claimed subject matter. Where the claim covers pre-treatment (Nelson's own disclosure), nexus is weak; where a claim is construed to require in-flight, nexus is strong and the obviousness case fails.

(4) Priority date

If BHE's priority argument succeeds in IPR2025-00424/-00425 and its siblings, the § 103 case upgrades from "strong" to "effectively dispositive," because the '114's own family publications (US 2006/0051274; US 2009/0260535; US 2014/0099244; US 7,435,286; US 8,168,147; US 8,652,235, each publishing the same promoted-sorbent disclosure) become § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art and § 103 base references, and the intervening art (including Nalco Mobotec US 8,145,548) becomes available too.

---

6. Bottom line by claim

Ranking of the § 103 theories by likelihood of success:

1. Nelson alone or Nelson + Oehr against claims 1, 17, 26, 40 (and 46 as to carbon) — highest confidence.
2. Ground 1/2 + Lovell against claims 1, 26, 36, 43, 46 — high confidence, especially with Oehr's alkaline-solid teaching supplying the motivation for a non-carbon base.
3. Felsvang + Nelson — historically the Examiner's ground; viable, but the in-flight evidence is its principal counter.
4. Yan + Nelson/Oehr for the stabilizing-reagent dependents — high confidence.
5. CEM-monitoring grounds for claims 40/43/46 — needs a specific secondary reference; currently the least developed ground.

If I had to name the single highest-value analytical task before relying on any of this: obtain the PTAB institution decisions and the parties' priority-date briefing in IPR2025-00424/-00425, and the full printed claim set of the '114. The priority determination in those decisions controls whether the family-member art and a decade of intervening references (Ground: Scenario B) come into play — a swing factor far larger than any individual reference combination discussed above.

Reliability caveats. (i) I have not reviewed the full issued claim text, only the independent-claim summaries supplied; element-by-element mapping should be re-run against the printed claims. (ii) The specific claims, statutory bases, and prior-art grounds in IPR2025-00274/-00278 and the Union Electric IPR2025-01118 are not available in the material I could retrieve; my statements about the '760 prosecution record come from petitioner exhibits and the applicant's traversal documents, which are party submissions. (iii) Whether IPR2025-00422 is directed to the '114 or to US 10,668,430 is settled by BHE's own mandatory notices (US 10,668,430), but one search result showed a 20 May 2026 institution date in that docket, which postdates the stated current date and should be verified before being relied on.

For US patent 10343114, the following details regarding its term, family, and status can be provided:

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

The provided patent information indicates an "Anticipated expiration" date of August 22, 2025. [cite: Original Patent Document]
The patent's earliest priority date is August 30, 2004, from which the 20-year patent term is typically calculated. Twenty years from August 30, 2004, would be August 30, 2024. The difference between this calculated date and the "Anticipated expiration" date of August 22, 2025, suggests that approximately 11 months and 23 days of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) were granted. The exact number of days of PTA is not explicitly stated in the provided text. [cite: Original Patent Document]

There is no indication in the patent document or general search results that this patent has received a Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156, which is typically granted for delays in regulatory review for certain products like pharmaceuticals.

Continuation and Divisional Applications

US patent 10343114 (application number US15/978,760, filed on May 14, 2018) is a continuing application that claims priority from earlier applications. The patent explicitly states priority from:

• US11/209,163, filed on August 22, 2005, which led to US7435286B2. [cite: Original Patent Document]
• US12/429,058, filed on April 23, 2009, which led to US8652235B2. [cite: Original Patent Document]

The earliest priority date for this family of patents is August 30, 2004, originating from application US10/930,071 (as referenced in the priority chain of US7435286B2 and US8652235B2). [cite: Original Patent Document] The specific type of continuing application (e.g., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) for US15/978,760 relative to its immediate parent applications (US11/209,163 or US12/429,058) is not explicitly detailed in the provided text.

Related Family Members

The patent family members explicitly mentioned or implied in the priority data include:

• US20180257031A1: This is the patent application publication for US15/978,760, which matured into US10343114B2. [cite: Original Patent Document]
• US7435286B2: A granted patent claiming priority from US11/209,163. [cite: Original Patent Document]
• US8652235B2: A granted patent claiming priority from US12/429,058. [cite: Original Patent Document]
• US11/209,163: An application from which priority was claimed, leading to US7435286B2 and serving as a priority basis for US12/429,058. [cite: Original Patent Document]
• US12/429,058: An application from which priority was claimed, leading to US8652235B2 and serving as a priority basis for US15/978,760. [cite: Original Patent Document]
• US10/930,071: The implied earliest non-provisional application, filed on August 30, 2004, from which the earliest priority date for the entire family originates. [cite: Original Patent Document]

Projected Expiration Date

The Google Patents record for US10343114B2 lists an "Anticipated expiration" date of August 22, 2025. [cite: Original Patent Document]

It is important to note that the same Google Patents record also states the "Legal status" as "Expired - Lifetime" as an "assumption and is not a legal conclusion." [cite: Original Patent Document] Given that the "Anticipated expiration" date of August 22, 2025, is in the past relative to today's date (May 16, 2026), the patent is considered to have expired on that date. The "Expired - Lifetime" status, therefore, accurately reflects that the patent has run its full adjusted term.

Defensive Disclosure Document for US Patent 10343114

This defensive disclosure document outlines various derivative concepts and implementations related to the "Sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury" described in US Patent 10343114. The goal is to establish prior art for potential future incremental improvements, rendering them obvious or non-novel, and thereby limiting the scope of any future patenting efforts by competitors. This document does not summarize the existing patent but focuses solely on new derivative works and technical disclosures.

Derivative Variations for Core Claims of US10343114

Derivative Variations for Claim 1: Promoted Sorbent Composition

(A promoted sorbent, which can be made of carbon, non-carbon material, or a combination. The sorbent is prepared by reacting a base sorbent structure with a "promoter" (like halogens or halides) to create a product that effectively removes mercury from gas streams.)

1. Material & Component Substitution: Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) Base Sorbent with Surface-Deposited Halide Promoter

   • Enabling Description: A promoted sorbent comprising a ZIF-8 (Zeolitic Imidazolate Framework-8) metal-organic framework as the non-carbon base sorbent. The ZIF-8 is synthesized with a high surface area (e.g., >1000 m²/g) and uniform pore size distribution (e.g., 0.3-1.0 nm). A promoter, such as gaseous molecular bromine (Br₂), is introduced to the MOF at 25-100°C for 30-120 minutes. The bromine preferentially adsorbs and reacts with the zinc ions and organic linkers within the MOF's pore structure, forming surface-deposited zinc bromide or brominated organic linkers acting as Lewis acid sites for mercury oxidation. The final sorbent material contains approximately 5-15 wt% bromine.

   graph TD
       A[ZIF-8 MOF Base Sorbent] --> B{Introduce Gaseous Br2};
       B --> C[Reaction at 25-100°C, 30-120 min];
       C --> D{Bromine Adsorption & Reaction with Zn/Linkers};
       D --> E[Promoted ZIF-8 MOF (5-15 wt% Br)];
       E --> F[Mercury Capture Lewis Acid Sites];
   

2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Nanoscale Graphene Oxide Sorbent with Electrophilic Halogen Surface Functionalization for Ultra-Trace Mercury Removal

   • Enabling Description: A sorbent consisting of exfoliated graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets, having an average lateral dimension of 50-200 nm and a thickness of 1-5 layers. The GO is prepared via a modified Hummers method to maximize oxygen-containing functional groups (hydroxyl, epoxy, carboxyl). This GO acts as the carbon base sorbent. The promoter is then introduced by electrophilic aromatic substitution using a mixture of N-bromosuccinimide (NBS) and trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TfOH) in dichloromethane at 0-25°C for 2-6 hours. This process covalently attaches bromine functionalities to the graphene basal planes and edges, creating highly reactive electrophilic sites. The resulting promoted nanoscale GO sorbent is suitable for capturing ultra-trace (ppt-level) mercury species in gas streams, operating at gas velocities up to 5 m/s.

   graph TD
       A[Exfoliated Graphene Oxide Nanosheets] --> B{Electrophilic Bromination with NBS/TfOH};
       B --> C[Reaction in Dichloromethane (0-25°C, 2-6h)];
       C --> D[Covalent Bromine Functionalization on GO];
       D --> E[Promoted Nanoscale GO Sorbent];
       E --> F[Ultra-Trace Mercury Capture];
   

3. Cross-Domain Application: Industrial Wastewater Treatment Sorbent for Dissolved Mercury Species

   • Enabling Description: A granular promoted sorbent, with a particle size distribution of 0.5-2.0 mm, derived from lignite coal-based activated carbon. The carbon is reacted with an aqueous solution of calcium bromide (CaBr₂) at 80°C for 4 hours, followed by drying and calcination at 400°C under nitrogen for 1 hour to enhance surface halogenation. This promoted sorbent is then packed into a fixed-bed reactor for continuous flow industrial wastewater treatment. The sorbent chemisorbs dissolved mercury ions (Hg²⁺) and organomercurials from the wastewater stream through ligand exchange and complexation with the surface-bound bromide species. The treated water effluent is monitored for mercury concentration below 10 ng/L.

   graph TD
       A[Granular Lignite Activated Carbon] --> B{React with Aqueous CaBr2 (80°C, 4h)};
       B --> C[Dry & Calcine (400°C, N2, 1h)];
       C --> D[Promoted Granular Carbon Sorbent];
       D --> E[Fixed-Bed Reactor];
       E --> F[Wastewater Inlet];
       E -- Mercury Capture --> G[Treated Water Outlet (<10 ng/L Hg)];
   

4. Integration with Emerging Tech: AI-Optimized Smart Sorbent with IoT-Enabled Real-time Response

   • Enabling Description: A promoted base sorbent (e.g., brominated activated carbon) is fabricated with embedded micro-RFID tags or quantum dot indicators that change fluorescence properties upon mercury capture. The sorbent is injected into the flue gas stream, and IoT sensors (spectrometers, RFID readers) downstream continuously monitor the mercury loading on the sorbent particles and the residual mercury in the cleaned gas. An AI-driven control system (e.g., a neural network model) processes this real-time data, along with flue gas parameters (temperature, flow rate, SOx, NOx), to dynamically adjust the promoter injection rate (e.g., Br₂ vapor) and base sorbent feed rate, as well as the sorbent composition in-flight through a variable-ratio mixing nozzle. This enables predictive optimization of mercury removal efficiency and sorbent utilization, maintaining desired mercury output with minimal reagent consumption.

   graph TD
       A[Base Sorbent Reservoir] --> B{Promoter Injection (Br2 vapor)};
       B --> C[In-flight Mixing/Reaction Chamber];
       C --> D[Smart Promoted Sorbent (with RFID/QD)];
       D --> E[Flue Gas Duct];
       E -- Inject Sorbent --> F[Mercury Capture Zone];
       F --> G[IoT Sensors (Spectrometers, RFID)];
       G --> H[AI Control System (Neural Network)];
       H -- Real-time Data --> G;
       H -- Adjust Rates --> B;
       H -- Optimize --> C;
       I[Cleaned Gas Outlet] --> J[Compliance Monitor];
   

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode: Regenerable Desorption-Oriented Sorbent for Controlled Mercury Recovery

   • Enabling Description: A base sorbent comprising a high-purity silica gel (pore size 6-10 nm, surface area 300-500 m²/g) is promoted with a precisely controlled loading of a temperature-sensitive bromide complex, such as a polymeric phosphonium bromide (e.g., poly(vinylbenzyltriphenylphosphonium bromide)) at 1-3 wt%. This sorbent is designed to chemisorb elemental mercury at typical flue gas temperatures (100-200°C) via formation of mercuric bromide complexes. However, unlike conventional irreversible sorbents, this sorbent is engineered to release a significant portion (e.g., >85%) of the captured mercury as elemental mercury vapor when heated to a specific, lower regeneration temperature (e.g., 250-350°C) under a reducing gas (e.g., H₂/N₂ mixture). This controlled desorption allows for the recovery of concentrated mercury vapor for subsequent condensation and safe disposal/recycling, rather than co-collection with ash. The phosphonium bromide acts as a reversible complexing agent, facilitating both capture and controlled release.

   stateDiagram-v2
       [*] --> Sorbent_Active: Sorbent Prepared
       Sorbent_Active --> Hg_Capture: Flue Gas Contact (100-200C)
       Hg_Capture --> Hg_Loaded_Sorbent: Chemisorption
       Hg_Loaded_Sorbent --> Regenerate: Heat (250-350C) + Reducing Gas
       Regenerate --> Hg_Vapor_Release: Controlled Desorption (>85% Hg)
       Hg_Vapor_Release --> Sorbent_Active: Regenerated Sorbent
       Sorbent_Active --> Hg_Loaded_Sorbent: Reuse
       Hg_Vapor_Release --> Hg_Condensation: For Recovery/Disposal
   

Derivative Variations for Claim 17: Method for Preparing Promoted Sorbent

(Providing a granular base sorbent and reacting it with a promoter (halogens, halides, or combinations) to produce a promoted sorbent that is effective for mercury removal from gas.)

1. Material & Component Substitution: In-Situ Plasma Halogenation of Alumina Spheres

   • Enabling Description: A method for preparing a promoted sorbent where the granular base sorbent consists of calcined gamma-alumina spheres (2-5 mm diameter, pore volume 0.4-0.6 cm³/g). Instead of conventional chemical impregnation, the promoter is introduced via an in-situ atmospheric pressure plasma jet reactor. A precursor gas containing a halogen (e.g., CF₃Br or Cl₂) is fed into the plasma jet, generating reactive halogen radicals. These radicals are contacted directly with the alumina spheres fluidized in the plasma zone for 10-30 minutes at ambient temperature. The plasma-generated radicals react with the alumina surface, forming stable surface aluminum halides (e.g., Al-Br bonds or Al-Cl bonds) that act as active sites for mercury oxidation. This dry, solvent-free process ensures uniform surface functionalization and avoids wastewater generation.

   graph TD
       A[Granular Gamma-Alumina Spheres] --> B[Fluidized Bed Reactor];
       C[Halogen Precursor Gas (e.g., CF3Br)] --> D[Atmospheric Plasma Jet];
       D -- Reactive Halogen Radicals --> B;
       B -- Plasma Treatment (10-30 min) --> E[Surface Halogenation];
       E --> F[Promoted Alumina Sorbent];
   

2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Microfluidic Synthesis of Promoted Nanoparticles

   • Enabling Description: A method for preparing a promoted sorbent wherein a suspension of non-carbon base sorbent nanoparticles (e.g., titania nanoparticles, 10-50 nm diameter) in an inert solvent (e.g., hexane) is fed into a microfluidic reactor. Simultaneously, a solution of a molecular halogen promoter (e.g., IBr in hexane) is introduced into a separate channel. The two streams are precisely mixed within the microfluidic channels, allowing for rapid, controlled reaction at the nanoscale interface. Reaction parameters (flow rates, temperature, residence time) are tightly controlled to achieve desired promoter loading (e.g., 0.5-2 wt% iodine/bromine) and minimize aggregation. The promoted nanoparticles are then separated via centrifugal filtration and dried. This method enables high-throughput, high-purity synthesis of uniformly promoted sorbent nanoparticles with enhanced surface area accessibility.

   sequenceDiagram
       participant NP as Nanoparticle Suspension Inlet
       participant P as Promoter Solution Inlet
       participant MFR as Microfluidic Reactor
       participant SF as Separation/Drying
       NP->>MFR: Base Sorbent Nanoparticles
       P->>MFR: Molecular Halogen Promoter
       MFR->>MFR: Controlled Reaction (mixing, T, t)
       MFR->>SF: Promoted Nanoparticles
       SF->>SF: Centrifugal Filtration & Drying
       SF->>PromotedNP: Finished Promoted Nanoparticles
   

3. Cross-Domain Application: Surface Functionalization for Bio-Scaffolding Mercury Detoxification

   • Enabling Description: A method involving a biodegradable, granular polymer (e.g., poly-lactic acid, PLA) matrix as the non-carbon base sorbent, formed into porous beads (0.8-1.5 mm). These beads are designed as bio-scaffolds. The PLA beads are subjected to surface hydrolysis to expose hydroxyl and carboxyl groups, followed by reaction with a dihalogen (e.g., Br₂ vapor) under UV irradiation to graft brominated functionalities onto the polymer surface. This promoted PLA sorbent, now capable of chemically capturing mercury, is then incorporated into a bioreactor system alongside mercury-detoxifying microorganisms (e.g., Pseudomonas putida strain KT2440 modified for mercury resistance). The sorbent acts as a primary mercury capture agent, reducing the immediate toxic load on the microbial population, while the microorganisms subsequently biotransform any residual mercury or metabolize the sorbent itself over time.

   graph TD
       A[Porous PLA Beads (Base Sorbent)] --> B{Surface Hydrolysis};
       B --> C{UV-Assisted Br2 Vapor Grafting};
       C --> D[Promoted PLA Sorbent (Hg Capture)];
       D --> E[Bioreactor System];
       F[Hg-Contaminated Input] --> E;
       G[Hg-Detoxifying Microorganisms] --> E;
       D -- Mercury Capture --> E;
       E --> H[Detoxified Output];
   

4. Integration with Emerging Tech: Automated Continuous Flow Promotion with AI-Driven Quality Control

   • Enabling Description: A granular carbon base sorbent (e.g., activated carbon pellets) is continuously fed into a screw-type reactor. A gaseous promoter (e.g., HBr vapor) is injected into the reactor at multiple points. In-line sensors (e.g., Raman spectroscopy, gas chromatography) continuously monitor the promoter concentration in the gas phase and the degree of halogenation on the sorbent particles as they traverse the reactor. An AI-driven quality control system (e.g., a convolutional neural network analyzing spectroscopic data) analyzes these sensor inputs in real-time. This system automatically adjusts the promoter injection rate, sorbent feed rate, reactor temperature, and residence time to maintain optimal and consistent promoter loading on the sorbent. The entire process is integrated with a blockchain ledger to record every batch's synthesis parameters and quality metrics, ensuring traceability and authenticity of the promoted sorbent.

   flowchart TD
       A[Carbon Sorbent Feed] --> B(Screw Reactor)
       P[HBr Vapor Inlet] --> B
       B -- Continuous Flow --> C{In-line Sensors (Raman, GC)}
       C --> D[AI QC System]
       D -- Real-time Analysis --> E[Process Control Unit]
       E -- Adjust Parameters --> A,P,B
       C --> F[Blockchain Ledger]
       B --> G[Promoted Sorbent Output]
   

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode: Preparation of a Passivated Sorbent for Selective Contaminant Shielding

   • Enabling Description: A method for preparing a base sorbent with intentionally reduced or modified mercury reactivity. A porous silicon carbide (SiC) foam (base sorbent) is initially functionalized with a dense monolayer of long-chain alkylsilanes (e.g., octadecyltrichlorosilane, OTS) via chemical vapor deposition. This creates a hydrophobic, non-polar surface that largely passivates the SiC surface's intrinsic reactivity towards mercury. Subsequently, a promoter (e.g., Br₂ vapor) is introduced at a low concentration (e.g., 0.1-0.5 wt% loading) and reacted under conditions designed to primarily functionalize only specific, deliberately unpassivated defect sites or embedded catalytic nanoparticles (e.g., Cu nanoparticles). This results in a "passivated" promoted sorbent that selectively reacts with other flue gas contaminants (e.g., SOx, NOx, acid gases) due to the predominant hydrophobic surface, but exhibits very low mercury capture capacity. This serves as a selective sacrificial layer or a sorbent for applications where mercury removal is not the primary goal, but where competing reactions need to be managed.

   graph TD
       A[Porous SiC Foam (Base)] --> B{Monolayer OTS Passivation};
       B --> C[Passivated SiC Surface (Hydrophobic)];
       C --> D{Low-Concentration Br2 Vapor Promotion};
       D --> E[Reaction at Defect Sites / Embedded Cu];
       E --> F[Passivated Promoted Sorbent (Low Hg Capture)];
       F --> G[Selective Capture of Other Contaminants];
   

Derivative Variations for Claim 26: Method for Reducing Mercury in Flue Gas - with recovery

(Introducing base sorbent into flue gas, collecting >70% mercury on promoted sorbent, and substantially recovering promoted sorbent.)

1. Material & Component Substitution: Bio-Derived Char Sorbent with Electrostatic Precipitation and Magnetic Recovery

   • Enabling Description: A method for reducing mercury in flue gas utilizing a bio-derived char (e.g., pyrolyzed switchgrass) as the base sorbent, which is then promoted with gaseous HBr to form a brominated char. The promoted char particles (mass mean diameter 20-50 µm) are injected into the flue gas. Following mercury capture, the mercury-laden sorbent and fly ash are collected together using a conventional electrostatic precipitator (ESP) operating at 300-400°C. To enhance recovery, the bio-char is further modified during pyrolysis to incorporate paramagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (e.g., Fe₃O₄, 1-5 wt%). After collection by the ESP, the solid particulate stream is subjected to a magnetic separation unit (e.g., a high-gradient magnetic separator) to substantially recover the magnetic, promoted bio-char from the non-magnetic fly ash. The recovered sorbent is then regenerated or processed. This aims for >70 wt% mercury capture.

   graph TD
       A[Pyrolyzed Switchgrass (Bio-char)] --> B{Incorporate Paramagnetic Fe3O4 NPs};
       B --> C{Promote with HBr Gas};
       C --> D[Magnetic Promoted Bio-char Sorbent];
       D --> E[Inject into Flue Gas];
       E --> F[Mercury Capture (>70% Hg)];
       F --> G[ESP Collection (Sorbent + Ash)];
       G --> H[Magnetic Separation Unit];
       H -- Recovered Sorbent --> I[Regeneration/Processing];
       H -- Separated Ash --> J[Disposal/Reuse];
   

2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Mercury Removal from Ultra-High Temperature Gasification Syngas with Ceramic Filter-Based Recovery

   • Enabling Description: A method for reducing mercury in syngas from an advanced gasification system, where gas temperatures can exceed 500°C and pressures are elevated (e.g., 5-15 atm). The base sorbent is a porous, thermally stable silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) ceramic powder, promoted by vapor-phase reaction with a refractory metal halide (e.g., TiBr₄ vapor) at 450°C. This promoted Si₃N₄ sorbent (average particle size 10-30 µm) is injected into the hot syngas stream. Mercury capture (>70 wt%) occurs at these elevated temperatures. The syngas, containing mercury-laden sorbent and fine particulate, then passes through a rigid ceramic candle filter system (e.g., made of SiC fibers) operating at 400-600°C and high pressure. The promoted sorbent particles are substantially recovered by the filter, with periodic back-pulsing for sorbent dislodgement and collection.

   graph TD
       A[Porous Si3N4 Ceramic Powder] --> B{Promote with TiBr4 Vapor (450C)};
       B --> C[Thermally Stable Promoted Si3N4 Sorbent];
       C --> D[Inject into Hot Syngas Stream (500C+, 5-15 atm)];
       D --> E[Mercury Capture (>70% Hg)];
       E --> F[Rigid Ceramic Candle Filter System (400-600C, High P)];
       F -- Recovered Sorbent --> G[Collection & Regeneration];
       F -- Clean Syngas --> H[Downstream Processing];
   

3. Cross-Domain Application: Semiconductor Fabrication Exhaust Mercury Scavenging and Inline Catalytic Regeneration

   • Enabling Description: A method applied to ultra-clean exhaust gases from semiconductor fabrication plants, containing trace elemental mercury (e.g., <100 ppb). The base sorbent is highly porous activated alumina spheres (0.2-0.5 mm), promoted with gaseous HCl to form surface aluminum chlorohydrates. The promoted sorbent is introduced into the exhaust gas stream. Mercury capture (>70 wt%) occurs via chemisorption. The exhaust gas then passes through a catalytic filter assembly, which not only collects the sorbent but also acts as an inline regeneration unit. The filter element itself is coated with a noble metal catalyst (e.g., Pt/Pd on ceramic support). Periodically, or continuously in small sections, a dilute oxidizing agent (e.g., O₂/H₂O vapor) is introduced into the filter at slightly elevated temperatures (e.g., 200°C), causing the captured mercury to be catalytically oxidized and then desorbed as a more concentrated stream for targeted capture, while simultaneously regenerating the sorbent surface.

   graph TD
       A[Porous Activated Alumina] --> B{Promote with Gaseous HCl};
       B --> C[Promoted Alumina Sorbent];
       C --> D[Inject into Semiconductor Exhaust];
       D --> E[Mercury Capture (>70% Hg)];
       E --> F[Catalytic Filter Assembly (Pt/Pd coated)];
       F -- Clean Exhaust --> G[Stack];
       F -- Periodic Oxidizing Agent/Heat --> H[Mercury Desorption/Regeneration];
       H --> I[Concentrated Hg Capture Unit];
   

4. Integration with Emerging Tech: IoT-Enabled Adaptive Sorbent Injection and Autonomous Robotic Recovery

   • Enabling Description: A system for flue gas mercury reduction integrating IoT sensors, AI, and robotics. Multiple IoT nodes are deployed throughout the flue gas duct to monitor local mercury concentrations, temperature, and sorbent particle density. This data feeds into a central AI control system that dynamically adjusts the base sorbent and promoter injection rates and locations based on real-time conditions and predictive models of mercury excursions. After capture, the mercury-laden sorbent and ash are collected by a baghouse. Autonomous mobile robots equipped with optical scanners and gripper systems navigate within a designated collection area, identifying and retrieving specialized, promoted sorbent particles (e.g., visually distinct, encoded with QR codes) from the collected material. The robots transport the identified sorbent to a regeneration facility, with all recovery and regeneration steps logged on a distributed ledger for verifiable chain of custody.

   sequenceDiagram
       participant Sensor as IoT Sensors (Hg, T, Density)
       participant AI as AI Control System
       participant Inj as Sorbent/Promoter Injection
       participant Duct as Flue Gas Duct
       participant BH as Baghouse Collection
       participant Robot as Autonomous Robots
       participant Regen as Regeneration Facility
       Sensor-->>AI: Real-time Flue Gas Data
       AI->>Inj: Adjust Injection Rates/Locations
       Inj->>Duct: Inject Sorbent (Carbon/Non-carbon)
       Duct->>Duct: Mercury Capture (>70%)
       Duct->>BH: Sorbent + Ash Collection
       BH->>Robot: Present Collected Material
       Robot->>Robot: Identify/Retrieve Promoted Sorbent
       Robot->>Regen: Transport Sorbent
       Regen->>Regen: Regenerate Sorbent
       Regen-->>AI: Regeneration Metrics
   

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode: Fail-Safe Diversion and Emergency Sorbent Deposition System

   • Enabling Description: A method for managing mercury emissions in flue gas in a fail-safe manner. A promoted sorbent (e.g., brominated fly ash or spent FCC catalyst) is continuously injected into the flue gas for routine mercury capture. A primary mercury CEM continuously monitors the cleaned gas. In the event of an unexpected, rapid increase in mercury emissions (e.g., >95th percentile baseline) that indicates a system failure (e.g., sorbent injection malfunction, sudden spike in fuel mercury content) beyond the capacity of the active sorbent injection system, the control system triggers an emergency protocol. Instead of attempting to increase sorbent injection which might be futile or overload downstream equipment, the system automatically diverts a portion of the flue gas (e.g., 5-10%) through a bypass duct equipped with a large, fixed bed of highly reactive, single-use, high-capacity promoted sorbent (e.g., a thick layer of brominated activated alumina pellets). Simultaneously, an emergency "sorbent shower" system initiates, rapidly depositing a large volume of promoted sorbent directly onto the primary particulate collection device (e.g., ESP plates or baghouse filters) to act as an immediate, high-surface-area adsorptive layer, buying time for system diagnosis and repair. No recovery of this emergency sorbent is attempted; it's designed for single, high-load deposition.

   graph TD
       FG[Flue Gas Inlet] --> A{Routine Sorbent Injection};
       A --> B[Mercury Capture Zone];
       B --> C[Primary Particulate Collector];
       C --> D[Cleaned Gas];
       D --> E(Primary Hg CEM);
       E -- Hg Exceedance --> F{Emergency Protocol Triggered};
       F -- Divert Gas --> G[Bypass Duct Fixed-Bed Sorbent];
       F -- Activate --> H[Emergency Sorbent Shower onto Collector C];
       G --> I[Emergency Treated Gas];
       H --> J[High-Capacity Adsorption Layer];
       D --> K[Stack (Monitored)];
   

Derivative Variations for Claim 36: Method for Reducing Mercury and Ash - with size separation and reinjection

(Injecting promoted sorbent particles (>40 µm) into the gas, removing mercury, separating sorbent from ash by size, and reinjecting sorbent.)

1. Material & Component Substitution: Encapsulated Promoted Sorbent with Hydro-Cyclone Separation

   • Enabling Description: A method where the promoted sorbent consists of micron-sized (e.g., 50-100 µm) capsules with a polymeric shell (e.g., poly(methyl methacrylate) PMMA) encapsulating a core of brominated activated carbon. These capsules are designed with a specific density and surface charge for enhanced separation. After injection into the gas stream and mercury capture, the mercury-laden capsules and ash particles are collected. Instead of conventional air classification, the mixture is fed into a wet hydro-cyclone separation system. The density difference between the polymer-encapsulated sorbent and the ash, along with the hydrodynamic properties of the capsules, enables highly efficient separation based on size and specific gravity. The recovered sorbent slurry is then dewatered and reinjected, or a portion is diverted for regeneration.

   graph TD
       A[Brominated AC Core] --> B{PMMA Encapsulation};
       B --> C[Promoted Sorbent Capsules (>50µm)];
       C --> D[Inject into Gas Stream];
       D --> E[Mercury Capture];
       E --> F[Collection (Capsules + Ash)];
       F --> G[Wet Hydro-cyclone Separator];
       G -- Recovered Sorbent Slurry --> H[Dewatering & Reinjection/Regeneration];
       G -- Ash Slurry --> I[Disposal];
   

2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Multi-Stage Vibratory Sieving for Ultra-Fine Particle Separation in High-Solids Gas Streams

   • Enabling Description: A method for mercury reduction in gas streams with very high ash loading and where precise size separation is critical. The promoted sorbent particles are engineered to have a narrow particle size distribution (e.g., 45-63 µm, >98% purity). After mercury removal, the mixture of sorbent and ash is passed through a multi-stage vibratory sieving system (e.g., utilizing ultrasonic excitation for mesh cleaning). Each stage employs progressively finer mesh sizes, specifically tuned to the sorbent's narrow size range, ensuring separation from both larger ash agglomerates and finer sub-micron ash particles that might otherwise adhere. This highly controlled mechanical separation operates at significantly higher throughputs (e.g., 5-10 tons/hour) compared to traditional air classifiers and is robust to high solids concentrations. The separated sorbent is then reinjected.

   graph TD
       A[Sorbent + Ash Mixture] --> B[Stage 1 Sieving (Coarse Mesh)];
       B -- Coarse Ash Removal --> C[Cleaned Stream to Stage 2];
       C --> D[Stage 2 Sieving (Finer Mesh)];
       D -- Fine Ash Removal --> E[Cleaned Stream to Stage 3];
       E --> F[Stage 3 Sieving (Precision Mesh)];
       F -- Promoted Sorbent (>45µm) --> G[Reinjection];
       F -- Ultra-Fine Ash --> H[Disposal];
   

3. Cross-Domain Application: Pharmaceutical Ingredient Purification via Selective Adsorption and Micro-Sieve Separation

   • Enabling Description: A method for purifying pharmaceutical ingredients (e.g., active pharmaceutical intermediates) from trace heavy metal contaminants, analogous to mercury removal. The promoted sorbent comprises functionalized polymeric beads (e.g., ion-exchange resin beads promoted with a thiocyanate ligand, >100 µm diameter) designed to selectively bind specific heavy metal ions (e.g., lead, cadmium). The contaminated ingredient in a carrier gas stream is contacted with these sorbent beads. After adsorption, the mixture of beads and purified ingredient is passed through a micro-sieve or membrane filtration system, designed to physically separate the larger sorbent beads from the much smaller, purified ingredient particles. The recovered beads are then either regenerated or safely disposed of, and a portion may be reinjected into a continuous purification loop.

   graph TD
       A[Contaminated API + Carrier Gas] --> B[Adsorption Chamber (with Promoted Polymeric Beads)];
       B --> C[Heavy Metal Capture];
       C --> D[Micro-Sieve / Membrane Separation];
       D -- Purified API + Gas --> E[Next Process Step];
       D -- Recovered Promoted Beads --> F[Regeneration / Disposal / Reinjection];
   

4. Integration with Emerging Tech: AI-Vision-Assisted Opto-Pneumatic Sorbent-Ash Separation with Blockchain Traceability

   • Enabling Description: A method leveraging AI-driven optical sorting for precise separation. After mercury capture, the mixture of promoted sorbent particles and ash is introduced onto a high-speed conveyor belt. An array of high-resolution cameras, coupled with an AI vision system (e.g., a deep learning model trained on particle morphology and color), identifies and distinguishes the promoted sorbent particles (e.g., intentionally colored or fluorescently tagged) from the ash particles in real-time. Based on AI analysis, precisely timed pneumatic jets eject the identified sorbent particles into a recovery chute, while ash proceeds to another. This optical sorting technique allows for separation of particles with similar sizes but different visual characteristics. The recovered sorbent's batch ID and purity metrics are automatically logged onto a blockchain ledger, ensuring an immutable record for quality control and environmental compliance.

   graph TD
       A[Sorbent + Ash Mixture] --> B[High-Speed Conveyor Belt];
       B --> C[AI Vision System + Cameras];
       C -- Identify Sorbent --> D[Pneumatic Jet Array];
       D -- Eject Sorbent --> E[Recovered Sorbent Chute];
       B -- Continue --> F[Ash Disposal Chute];
       E --> G[Sorbent Reinjection / Regeneration];
       E --> H[Blockchain Ledger (Purity, Batch ID)];
   

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode: Programmable Sorbent Degrader for Ash Compatibility

   • Enabling Description: A method designed for scenarios where sorbent regeneration is not feasible or desired, and the goal is to make the sorbent fully compatible with existing ash disposal/utilization streams. Promoted sorbent particles (e.g., brominated activated carbon, >40 µm) are injected and capture mercury. After collection with ash, instead of separation for reinjection, the combined ash-sorbent mixture is subjected to a "programmable degradation" step. This step involves a mild thermal treatment (e.g., 400-600°C) in a controlled, oxygen-limited atmosphere, optionally with specific catalysts. This treatment is precisely engineered to thermally degrade the carbonaceous sorbent structure (e.g., to char, or to further oxidize residual carbon) and immobilize the captured mercury within the remaining ash matrix or convert it to a stable, non-leachable form (e.g., mercuric sulfide by injecting H₂S during the process). The degradation process targets the sorbent for destruction while ensuring the ash remains suitable for applications like concrete admixture, preventing contamination by the sorbent itself. No reinjection occurs.

   stateDiagram-v2
       [*] --> Sorbent_Injection: Inject Promoted Sorbent (>40µm)
       Sorbent_Injection --> Hg_Capture: In Gas Stream
       Hg_Capture --> Collection: Sorbent + Ash Mixture
       Collection --> Programmable_Degradation: Apply Mild Thermal Treatment
       Programmable_Degradation --> Sorbent_Degrades: Carbon Degradation
       Programmable_Degradation --> Hg_Immobilization: Hg Stabilization in Ash Matrix
       Hg_Immobilization --> Ash_Compatible: Modified Ash for Disposal/Reuse
       Ash_Compatible --> [*]
   

Derivative Variations for Claim 40/43/46: Method for Reducing Mercury to Desired Level - with Monitoring

(Reacting a carbon/non-carbon base sorbent with at least one promoter to produce a promoted sorbent; allowing said promoted sorbent to interact with a mercury-containing gas to capture mercury; and monitoring the mercury content of the cleaned gas. Includes variations for carbon, non-carbon, and combinations.)

1. Material & Component Substitution: Zeolite-Supported Promoter with Quantum Cascade Laser (QCL) Monitoring

   • Enabling Description: A method using a non-carbon base sorbent comprising a molecular sieve zeolite (e.g., ZSM-5) that is ion-exchanged with bromide salts (e.g., KBr), serving as the promoter. This promoted zeolite interacts with the mercury-containing gas. For monitoring, instead of a conventional CEM, a highly sensitive Quantum Cascade Laser (QCL) based mercury analyzer is employed. This QCL system, operating in the mid-infrared range, performs continuous, in-situ spectroscopic analysis of the cleaned gas for elemental and oxidized mercury species at ppb-level concentrations with millisecond response times. The data from the QCL is fed directly to a control algorithm that adjusts the promoted zeolite injection rate and residence time to maintain the mercury content at a dynamically desired level.

   graph TD
       A[Zeolite Base Sorbent] --> B{Ion-Exchange with KBr (Promoter)};
       B --> C[Promoted Zeolite Sorbent];
       C --> D[Inject into Mercury-Containing Gas];
       D --> E[Mercury Capture];
       E --> F[Cleaned Gas];
       F --> G(QCL Mercury Analyzer);
       G --> H[Control Algorithm];
       H -- Adjust Injection/Residence Time --> C;
   

2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Integrated Micro-Reactor System with Picomolar Sensitivity Monitoring

   • Enabling Description: A method for achieving extremely precise mercury control in specialized, low-volume gas streams (e.g., lab exhaust, highly sensitive industrial processes). The base sorbent (e.g., activated carbon micro-spheres, 10-20 µm) is promoted with a volatile halogen compound (e.g., BrCl gas) within a dedicated micro-reactor located immediately upstream of the interaction zone. The mercury-containing gas passes through this micro-reactor, ensuring very short, high-efficiency contact with the freshly prepared sorbent. The cleaned gas is then continuously analyzed by a highly specialized, picomolar-sensitivity mercury detector (e.g., a gold amalgamation atomic fluorescence spectrophotometer, AFS), coupled with a fast-response dilution system. This allows for real-time monitoring of mercury content down to sub-ppb levels, with feedback to control the micro-reactor's parameters (e.g., promoter flow, temperature) for ultra-fine adjustment of removal efficiency.

   sequenceDiagram
       participant GR as Gas Inlet (Hg-Contaminated)
       participant MR as Micro-Reactor
       participant AC as Activated Carbon Micro-spheres
       participant PR as Promoter Gas (BrCl)
       participant Sorbent as Promoted Sorbent
       participant IC as Interaction Chamber
       participant CG as Cleaned Gas
       participant AFS as Picomolar AFS Detector
       participant CA as Control Algorithm
       GR->>MR: Mercury Gas In
       AC->>MR: Base Sorbent In
       PR->>MR: Promoter Gas In
       MR->>IC: Sorbent (In-situ Promoted)
       IC->>CG: Mercury Capture
       CG->>AFS: Cleaned Gas Analysis
       AFS->>CA: Picomolar Hg Data
       CA->>PR: Adjust Promoter Flow (MR)
       CA->>MR: Adjust Temp (MR)
   

3. Cross-Domain Application: Volcanic Emission Monitoring & Mitigation with Autonomous Sorbent Deployment

   • Enabling Description: A method for reducing and monitoring mercury emissions from volcanic plumes, an environmental hazard. An autonomous drone or ground-based robotic system deploys a promoted non-carbon sorbent (e.g., clay-based pellets functionalized with elemental sulfur and iodide, >2 mm diameter) into dilute, mercury-containing volcanic gas plumes. The sorbent's interaction captures mercury. The drone is equipped with an array of multi-spectral cameras and miniature gas sensors, including a rapid-response mercury vapor analyzer. This onboard system continuously monitors the mercury content of the surrounding air and the efficacy of mercury capture by the deployed sorbent. An AI guidance system on the drone analyzes this data, mapping mercury plume dispersion and adjusting sorbent deployment patterns and rates in real-time to mitigate environmental impact in specific zones.

   flowchart TD
       A[Volcanic Plume (Hg-Contaminated)] --> B(Autonomous Drone/Robot);
       C[Promoted Clay-Sulfur-Iodide Sorbent] --> B;
       B -- Deploy Sorbent --> A;
       A -- Sorbent Interaction / Hg Capture --> D[Reduced Hg Plume];
       D --> E(Onboard Hg Vapor Analyzer);
       E --> F[AI Guidance System];
       F -- Real-time Data --> E;
       F -- Adjust Deployment --> B;
       G[Multi-Spectral Cameras] --> F;
       H[Gas Sensors] --> F;
   

4. Integration with Emerging Tech: AI-Driven Predictive Sorbent Optimization and Blockchain-Verified Compliance

   • Enabling Description: A system where the entire mercury removal process is governed by an AI-driven predictive control model. This AI continuously analyzes historical and real-time data inputs including fuel composition, boiler load, upstream emissions, ambient conditions, and measured mercury outputs. It uses this information to predict future mercury loads and optimize the type, blend ratio, and injection rates of multiple promoted sorbent formulations (e.g., brominated carbon for elemental Hg, iodized non-carbon for oxidized Hg), as well as promoter addition rates. IoT sensors provide the real-time data. All adjustments, mercury measurements, and operational parameters are immutably recorded on a public or consortium blockchain. This allows for transparent, verifiable compliance with emission regulations, automated reporting, and dynamic adjustment to maintain optimal performance at minimal cost while providing an auditable record of all interventions and measured outcomes.

   sequenceDiagram
       participant Plant as Power Plant Operations
       participant IoT as IoT Sensors (T, Flow, Hg, Fuel)
       participant AI as AI Predictive Optimizer
       participant Sorbent as Sorbent Injection System
       participant FlueGas as Flue Gas Duct
       participant CEM as Mercury CEM
       participant Blockchain as Blockchain Ledger
       Plant->>IoT: Operational Data
       IoT->>AI: Real-time Data Stream
       AI->>AI: Predict Hg Load & Optimize Sorbent Strategy
       AI->>Sorbent: Adjust Sorbent Type/Rate/Promoter
       Sorbent->>FlueGas: Inject Promoted Sorbent
       FlueGas->>FlueGas: Mercury Capture
       FlueGas->>CEM: Cleaned Gas
       CEM->>AI: Measured Hg Output
       AI->>Blockchain: Log Optimized Parameters
       CEM->>Blockchain: Log Measured Hg (Verified Compliance)
   

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode: Threshold-Triggered Sorbent Bypass for System Preservation

   • Enabling Description: A method where the system is designed to preserve sorbent integrity and avoid catastrophic failure modes rather than maintaining mercury reduction at all costs. A promoted sorbent (e.g., brominated activated carbon) is used for mercury removal. The mercury content of the cleaned gas is monitored, along with other critical flue gas parameters (e.g., SO₂ concentration, temperature spikes, pressure differentials). If the mercury concentration in the cleaned gas exceeds a critical threshold for a sustained period, OR if an unacceptable operating condition (e.g., severe SO₂ spike that rapidly poisons the sorbent) is detected, the system initiates a "sorbent bypass" mode. In this mode, the base sorbent and/or promoter injection is temporarily halted or significantly reduced, and the flue gas is routed around the primary sorbent interaction zone, minimizing sorbent exposure to highly damaging conditions. While mercury capture efficiency temporarily drops, this prevents irreversible sorbent poisoning or excessive consumption under unmanageable conditions, allowing for a planned restart or repair rather than an uncontrolled failure.

   stateDiagram-v2
       [*] --> Normal_Operation: Routine Hg Removal
       Normal_Operation --> Monitoring: Hg CEM + Flue Gas Sensors
       Monitoring --> Critical_Threshold_Exceeded: (Hg Out > X) OR (SO2 Spike > Y) OR (T > Z)
       Critical_Threshold_Exceeded --> Sorbent_Bypass_Mode: Divert Flue Gas & Halt/Reduce Sorbent Injection
       Sorbent_Bypass_Mode --> System_Preservation: Prevent Irreversible Sorbent Damage
       Sorbent_Bypass_Mode --> Alarm_Diagnostic: Alert Operators for Review/Repair
       Alarm_Diagnostic --> Normal_Operation: (After Repair/Reset)
   

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

1. Sorbent Preparation & IoT/MQTT Integration:

   • Scenario: A system for "in-flight" preparation of promoted sorbents (as described in US10343114, e.g., in claims 17, 26, 46) is enhanced by integrating IoT sensors within the pneumatic transport lines and mixing chambers. These sensors monitor parameters critical to sorbent promotion, such as temperature, humidity, base sorbent flow rate, and promoter concentration. The sensor data is transmitted using the MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) protocol, an open-source lightweight messaging protocol widely used for IoT devices. An edge computing device processes this data to provide real-time feedback to flow controllers, ensuring optimal and consistent promotion, while data is also pushed to a central cloud platform for historical analysis and predictive maintenance.
   • Prior Art Combination: US10343114 (in-flight sorbent preparation) + MQTT Protocol (open standard for IoT messaging) + Generic IoT sensor technology (e.g., temperature, flow sensors).

2. Mercury Monitoring & OPC UA Integration:

   • Scenario: The continuous emission monitoring (CEM) of mercury in the cleaned gas (as described in US10343114, e.g., in claims 40, 43, 46) is integrated into a larger industrial control system. The mercury CEM, along with flow controllers for sorbent and promoter injection, communicates with the plant's Distributed Control System (DCS) or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system using OPC UA (Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture). OPC UA is an open-source, platform-independent, and extensible industrial interoperability standard. This allows for standardized and secure exchange of mercury emission data and control commands across different vendors' hardware and software, enabling precise feedback control loops and automated compliance reporting based on real-time data.
   • Prior Art Combination: US10343114 (mercury CEM and feedback control) + OPC UA (open industrial communication standard) + Generic industrial control systems (DCS/SCADA).

3. Sorbent Regeneration & ISA-88 Batch Process Control:

   • Scenario: The regeneration process for mercury-laden promoted sorbent (as described in US10343114, e.g., with reference to FIG. 3, block 160) is implemented following the ISA-88 standard (ANSI/ISA-88.00.01-2010), an open standard for batch control systems. The regeneration facility defines the sorbent regeneration as a series of "recipes" (e.g., thermal desorption, chemical washing, re-promotion) with specific "phases" and "operations" that can be executed on flexible "process cells" (e.g., fluidized bed regenerators, chemical mixing tanks). This application of ISA-88 ensures modularity, reusability, and consistent execution of regeneration procedures for different sorbent types and mercury loadings, allowing for efficient management of the regeneration cycle and integration with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems.
   • Prior Art Combination: US10343114 (sorbent regeneration methods) + ISA-88 Standard (open standard for batch control) + Generic batch reactor/processing equipment.