Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-20 of E. Ping et al., App. No. 17/453,680 (Nov. 5, 2021) are pending. Claim 11 is withdrawn as not reading on the elected species. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are under examination and rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elects the claims of Group (II) (now, in view of the amendment, claims 2-20), without traverse, drawn a method of separating CO2 from a gas mixture, comprising: exposing a gas mixture to a porous structure having supported therein an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound. Applicant has cancelled claims to the invention of Group (I) and the invention of Group (I) is withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Pursuant to the Election of Species Requirement, Applicants elected, without traverse, the following species:
(1) a single disclosed species of alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound, Applicant elected tri-substituted propane diamine benzene
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and
(2) a single disclosed species of a “porous structure”, Applicant elected silica.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 read on the elected species. The elected species was searched and determined to be anticipated. The search was then further extended to the species cited below in the § 103 rejection over Zhou. Pursuant to MPEP § 803.02, the search was not further extended. The provisional election of species requirement is given effect and claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as not encompassing the elected species. See, MPEP § 803.02.
Effective Filing Date
The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. MPEP § 2152.01. The instant application is a continuation-in-part of US 17/338,060, which is a continuation-in-part of US 17/338,064.
Independent claim 15 (and its dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20) are not supported pursuant to § 112 by either of US 17/338,060 or US 17/338,064 as filed. Claims 2-20 all at least incorporate the unsupported claim 1 recitation of “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound” (as this term is interpreted below), which is much broader than parent applications’ disclosure regarding chemical structures disclosed. As such, claims 2-20 are not entitled to priority either of US 17/338,060, US 17/338,064 as filed. The effective filing date of claims 2-20 is the non-provisional filing date of November 5, 2021. MPEP § 2152.01(B). 1
Neither of US 17/338,060 or US 17/338,064 as filed recite the term “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound” as this term is interpreted in Claim Interpretation below. However, ipsis verbis disclosure is not necessary to satisfy the written description requirement; If a skilled artisan would have understood the inventor to be in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, even if every nuance of the claims is not explicitly described, then the adequate description requirement is met. MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) (citing Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the most relevant portion, US 17/338,060 teaches different types of alkyl-aryl amine-rich small molecules (Ph-XX-YY) of various compositions. US 17/338,060 at page 1, lines 21-24. US 17/338,060 teaches that Ph- stands for phenyl moiety, XX stands for number of substitutions on phenyl ring (3 or 6) and YY stands for ED (ethylene diamine) or PD (propane-1,3-diamine). US 17/338,060 at page 6, lines 25-29. This is clearly insufficient to support the much broader genus encompassed by “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”. MPEP § 2163.05(II); Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Ruschig, 392 F.2d 990, 994-95 (CCPA 1967). US 17/338,064 provides similar insufficient supporting disclosure. US 17/338,064 at page 4.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2173.01(I); § 2111.01. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. MPEP § 2173.01(I).
Interpretation of “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”
Claim 15 recites as “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound” in the following context:
15. A method of separating CO2 from a gas mixture, comprising:
exposing a gas mixture to a porous structure having supported therein
an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound; and
capturing the CO2 in the porous structure;
releasing the CO2 from the porous structure.
The specification does not provide a specific definition for this term. In the most relevant portions, first the specification defines “alkyl” as follows:
The term "alkyl" refers to straight or branched chain hydrocarbon groups having 1 to 20 carbon atoms such as methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, i-propyl, n-butyl, i-butyl, t-butyl, pentyl, hexyl, heptyl, octyl, and the like. In a particular aspect, he term "alkyl" refers to ethyl, n-propyl, i-propyl, n-butyl, i-butyl, and t-butyl. The alkyl group can be substituted (e.g., a halogen).
Specification at page 5 (emphasis added).
The specification defines “diamine” as follows:
The term "diamine" refers to an amine moiety that includes two amino groups. For example, diamine used in conjunction with alkyl diamine can include ethylenediamine moiety and propylenediamine moiety.
Specification at page 6 (emphasis added)2. The term “alkyl” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification, as an alkane, which may be optionally substituted with any chemical group. 3
The term “alkyl diamine” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification, as an alkyl group that comprises two amine groups, where either the alkyl portion and/or the amine portion of the “alkyl diamine” may be substituted with any chemical group. See footnote 2.
Respecting the meaning of “aryl”, claim 9 indicates that the aryl portion of “an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound” may be substituted with groups other than the required “alkyl diamine” group. The term “aryl” is therefore broadly and reasonably interpreted as a monoyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that comprises the “alkyl diamine” and may comprise other substituents. See footnote 2.
The specification provides an embodiment of alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compounds can be represented by Structure A and Structure B:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Each of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 can be independently selected from an alkyl diamine.
In an aspect, the alkyl moiety of the alkyl diamine can a C2 (ethyl moiety) to C4 group (butyl moiety), a C2 or C3 (propyl moiety) group, or a C2 group. In a particular aspect, for each of R1, R3, and R5 the alkyl moiety of the alkyl diamine can be a C2 or C3 group or a C2 group.
In another aspect, for each of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 the alkyl moiety of the alkyl diamine can be a C2 or C3 group or a C2 group.
As shown in Example 1, scheme 1, both Structure A or Structure B can include ethylenediamine or propylenediamine as the R1, R3, and R5 group or R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 group, respectively.
Specification at page 8 (emphasis added).
The specification provides the following four example species of “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specification at page 16.
In view of the forging, the claim term “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound” is broadly and reasonably interpreted, consistently with the specification, as an aryl group that is substituted with at least one “alkyl diamine” group, where the terms “alkyl”, “diamine” and “aryl” are interpreted above.
An “alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”, as so interpreted, can be represented by the following generic structure.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Improper Claim Numbering
Dependent claims 1-14 are objected to because they improperly precede independent base claim 15. Dependent claims should be numbered after respective independent claims. That is, a series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. MPEP § 608.01(n)(IV). This objection can be obviated by cancelling claims 1-14 and renumbering them as new claims 21 et seq.
Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Unclear Claim References to Positions
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the claimed positional relationship is unclear. For example, claim 8 recites “1, 3, and 5 positions” in the following context:
8. The method material of claim 7, wherein the 3 alkyl diamine moieties are in the 1, 3, and 5 positions on the alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound.
However, it is unclear what positions are referenced by “1, 3, and 5 positions” because these positions are not literally recited or inherent in the base claims. MPEP § 2173.05(e). As discussed in claim interpretation, the term “aryl” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as a monoyclic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that comprises the “alkyl diamine” and may comprise other substituents. Since the identity of the aryl group in claim 8 is unspecified, one of skill cannot know what the term “1, 3, and 5 positions” references. MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claim 9 has the same issues.
The Claim Term “about 10% to 80% based on thermogravimetric analysis” Is Unclear
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the meaning of “about 10% to 80% based on thermogravimetric analysis” is unclear. A percentage (%) can be quantitatively expressed in different forms. For example, the percentage of “the alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound on the porous structure” can be expressed as a molar percent or as weight percent of the total composition. It is not clear which applies to the claim 2 percentages. The specification does not clarify in this regard. Further, the recitation of “about” is unclear with respect to what ranges are encompassed. In determining the range encompassed by the term "about", one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(A). There is insufficient guidance in the specification as to what range is covered by the term "about”. See specification at page 39, lines 12-23. As such, claim 2 is unclear with respect to this term. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(A) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Unclear Claim Term “mesoporous”
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because the claim term “mesoporous” is unclear in view of the specification. With respect to the meaning of “mesoporous”, the specification teaches that
In an aspect, the mesopores of the porous structure can have pores having a diameter of about 5 nm to 100 nm, a length of about 10 nm to 10,000 nm, and a volume of 0.5-2 cc/g.
Specification at page 10, lines 6-8 (emphasis added). However, this disclosed aspect of “mesoporous” conflicts with the art known definition, where a mesoporous material is a material containing pores with diameters between 2 and 50 nm, according to IUPAC nomenclature. S. Kumar 4 Materials Today Proceedings, 350-357 (2017) (page 352, “IUPAC defines mesoporous material as material containing pores with diameters between 2 to 50 nm.”); see also, K. Egeblad et al, 20 Chem. Mater., 946-960 (2008) (page 947, col. 1). The § 112(b) issue arises because the specification statement indicates that it is only “an aspect” of the meaning of mesoporous. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. MPEP § 2173.05(a) (citing Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Because the specification provides only an exemplary aspect of the meaning of “mesoporous”, which conflicts with the art known meaning, the range of pore sizes encompassed by “mesoporous” is unclear to one of skill in the art. Note also that the term “about” in the cited specification portion is problematic for the same reasons discussed above.
Unclear Claim Term “about”
Claims 2, 16, 19, and 20 for recitation of “about” with respect to ranges. The recitation of “about” is unclear with respect to what ranges are encompassed. In determining the range encompassed by the term "about", one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(A). There is insufficient guidance in the specification as to what range is covered by the term "about”. See, specification at page 39, lines 12-23. As such, claim 2, 16, 19, and 20 are unclear with respect to the meaning of this term. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(A) (citing Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
§ 102(a)(1) over D. Kumar et al., ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10971-10982 (published July, 15 2020) (“Kumar”)
Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D. Kumar et al., ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10971-10982 (published July, 15 2020) (“Kumar”). Kumar was published more than one year before in the effective filing date of the claims of November 5, 2020. As such, although there are common inventors/authors, a prior art exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) is not available. MPEP § 2153.01(a).
Kumar teaches that Ph-X-YY molecules are impregnated into mesoporous silica support materials (SBA-15) at predetermined organic loadings (20%−60%). TGA and DSC analyses suggest that these sorbent materials have good thermal stability. An increase in the amine loading led to an increase in CO2 adsorption capacity measured under simulated dry direct air capture (DAC) conditions. Kumar at Abstract.
Kumar teaches the following compounds Ph-X-YY.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kumar at page 10973, Scheme 1. Kumar teaches that Ph-X-YY/mesoporous silica SBA-15 composite materials with various loadings of Ph-X-YY were prepared using the wet impregnation method. Kumar at page 10973, col. 1; see Kumar at S7-S8 for experimental details. Kumar’s compounds Ph-3-ED, Ph-3-PD, Ph-6-ED and Ph-6-PD supported on mesoporous silica SBA-15 meet the claim 15 limitation of “a porous structure having supported therein an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”. Kumar teaches the elected species. In this regard, with respect to the meaning of “supported therein”, the specification teaches that “in yet another aspect, the alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound is covalently bonded to the porous structure”. Specification at page 2, lines 1-8 (discussing the meaning of “supported”).
Kumar teaches that the CO2 adsorption performance of the Ph-X-YY/SBA-15 composites under dry CO2 conditions was investigated gravimetrically by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Kumar at page 10975, col. 1. Kumar teaches that the CO2 adsorption was performed at 35 °C for 12 h under dry 400 ppm of CO2 balanced with helium (CO2/He), under which the composites absorbed CO2 from the gas mixture. Kumar at page 10975, col. 1.
Kumar teaches the Ph-X-YY/SBA-15 composites were tested for CO2 adsorption/desorption under temperature-swing profile. Kumar at page 10976 et seq. (“Temperature-Swing Cycles”). Kumar teaches that adsorption was performed in 400 ppm CO2/He at 35 °C, desorption was performed in UHP He at 90 °C for 10 min and the number of cycles was 25. Kumar at page S3, 1st paragraph. Kumar teaches the temperature-swing adsorption−desorption cycles demonstrated a stable working capacity for these sorbents without any loss in CO2 capacity and amine efficiency, which indicates no significant deactivation or volatilization of alkyl-aryl amine-rich molecules in the DAC process for the duration of the experiments. Kumar at page 10979, col. 1.
Kumar’s swing cycle experiment (CO2 absorption/desorption) with Ph-X-YY/SBA-15 composites on a gaseous mixture of CO2/He meets each and every limitation of claim 15:
15. A method of separating CO2 from a gas mixture, comprising:
exposing a gas mixture to a porous structure having supported therein
an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound; and
capturing the CO2 in the porous structure;
releasing the CO2 from the porous structure.
Claim 15 is therefore anticipated.
The limitations of claim 2 are met because Kumar teaches that the resulting Ph-X-YY molecules are impregnated into mesoporous silica support materials (SBA-15) at predetermined organic loadings (20%−60%), which loading falls within the claimed range.
The limitations of claim 3 are clearly met because the ligand L is physically impregnated in the porous structure.
The limitations of claim 4 are clearly met because ligand L is covalently bonded to the porous structure.
The limitations of claim 5 are clearly met, Kumar teaches the elected species of tri-substituted propane diamine benzene
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and elected silica.
The limitations of claims 6-10 are clearly met by Kumar’s Ph-6-PD. It is noted that the limitations of withdrawn claim 11 are also met by Kumar’s Ph-6-PD.
The limitations of claims 12 and 14 are clearly met by Kumar’s support of mesoporous silica SBA-15.
The limitations of claim 13 are clearly met.
The limitations of claim 16 are clearly met because Kumar conducts CO2 absorption at 35 °C.
The limitations of claim 18 are clearly met.
The limitations of claim 20 are met for the following reasons. The claim 20 limitation of “capturing about 10% to 100% of the CO2 present in the gas mixture” is interpreted merely as an intended result that cannot differentiate over the cited art. This claim 20 limitation does not limit the structure of how the claim 15 method is practiced. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04 (citing In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a ‘whereby clause’ in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited). Respecting the claim 20 limitation of “wherein the gas mixture has a concentration of about 100 ppm to 20% of CO2” is met because Kumar teaches 400 ppm of CO2 in the CO2/He mixture.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 Rejections Over H. Zhou et al., US 2015/0182903 (2015)
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. Zhou et al., US 2015/0182903 (2015).
Alternatively, claim 19 rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou as above in further view of W. Li et al., 3 ChemSusChem, 899-903 (2010).
H. Zhou et al., US 2015/0182903 (2015)
Zhou teaches that which have high storage capacities, for gases such as H2, CH4 and CO2. Zhou at page 1, [0009]. Zhou teaches that polyamine-tethered PPNs have extremely high CO2 capacity at very low pressures because of the multiple adsorption sites, which is desired for CO2 capture from flue gas or air and that polyamine-tethered PPNs show high thermal and chemical stability (higher even than for amine-tethered PPNs), especially when considering the sensitivity of the material to water and air. Zhou at page 6, [0110].
Zhou teaches a method of separating a gas from a gaseous mixture, comprising a step of contacting the gaseous mixture with a porous polymer network according to the present invention such that a selected gas is incorporated into the porous polymer network and is thereby separated from the gaseous mixture. Zhou at page 3, [0042].
Zhou teaches a porous polymer network (termed by Zhou “PPN”) comprising a moiety of Formula (A). Zhou at page 1, [0010].
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhou at page 1, [0010]. Where, in an embodiment, at least one of R1 to R16 is CHQ, where Q is a polyamine and the polyamine may be N(A1)A2. Zhou at page 2, [0018]-[0019], [0021]. Zhou teaches that preferably, N(A1)A2 is selected from the group consisting of:
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhou at page 2, [0022].
In Fig. 1, Zhou teaches the following porous polymer networks: PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA, where PPN stands for porous polymer network.
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Zhou at page 4, [0064], referencing Fig. 1. Zhou’s complexes PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA each meet the claim 15 limitation of “a porous structure having supported therein an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”. In this regard, with respect to the meaning of “supported therein”, the specification teaches that “in yet another aspect, the alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound is covalently bonded to the porous structure”. Specification at page 2, lines 1-8 (discussing the meaning of “supported”).
Zhou teaches that the polyamine-tethered PPNs are particularly advantageous as they have been found to show unprecedented CO2 removal from systems of high and low concentrations of CO2 and show high thermal and chemical stability (higher even than for amine-tethered PPNs). Zhou at page 4, [0078].
Zhou’s working Example 2.2 teaches gas sorption measurements where about 200 mg of PPN-4 was loaded into the sample holder and high-pressure excess adsorption of H2, CH4 and CO2 within PPN-4 were measured at 77 K or 295 K; the results are shown in Table 3. Zhou at page 9, [0143]-[0144]. As a result, Zhou teaches that exceptionally high surface area combined with excellent stability make PPN-4 an attractive candidate for gas storage applications, particularly for the storage of gas molecules such as H2, CH4 and CO2. Zhou at page 9, [0145]
In working Example 7, Zhou teaches that CO2, sorption isotherms were collected at 295 K for PPN-6-CH2Cl, PPN-6-CH2EDA, PPN-6-CH2TAEA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2DETA. Zhou at page 10, [0162]. Zhou teaches that although PPN-6-CH2DETA has the lowest surface area, it exhibits the highest CO2 uptake capacity among all of the polyamine-tethered PPNs, which indicates that the CO2-uptake capacity is closely correlated to amine loading instead of surface area under these conditions. Zhou at page 10, [0162].
In working Example 8, Zhou teaches that PPN-6-CH2DETA is predicted to exhibit selectivity for CO2 adsorption. Zhou at page 10, [0164]-[0165].
In working Example 9, Zhou teaches that CO2 can be desorbed from PPN-6-CH2DETA by treatment under vacuum. Zhou page 10, [0166]-[0167].
Differences between Zhou and the Instant Claims
Zhou teaches each and every limitation of claim 15:
15. A method of separating CO2 from a gas mixture, comprising:
exposing a gas mixture to a porous structure having supported therein
an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound; and
capturing the CO2 in the porous structure;
releasing the CO2 from the porous structure.
Zhou differs only to the extent that Zhou does not provide a working example where a mixture of a gas comprising CO2 was treated with a disclosed polyamine-tethered PPN, the CO2 was adsorbed from the mixture and the CO2 was thereafter released.
Obviousness Rational
As discussed above, Zhou’s polyamine-tethered PPNs: PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA each meet the claim 15 limitation of “a porous structure having supported therein an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound”.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to employ any of Zhou’s polyamine-tethered PPNs in the method of claim 15, for example, to separate CO2 from a mixture of flue gas (as specifically suggested by Zhou). Zhou at page 10, [0163]. One of ordinary is thereafter motived to release the CO2 from the polyamine-tethered PPNs as taught by Zhou. Zhou page 10, [0166]-[0167]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to release the CO2 for disposal, use in other applications, and to regenerated the polyamine-tethered PPNs for additional uses. All limitations of claim 15 are met and claim 15 is therefore obvious over Zhou.
The limitations of claim 2 are met for the following reasons. Zhou teaches that elemental analysis of the PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA indicates a range of nitrogen 7.53-11.95 % and that PPN-6-CHDETA had the highest nitrogen content of 11.95%, corresponding to a loading of 0.3 functional groups per phenyl ring. Zhou at page 9, [0151]-[0152]. Thus, the polyamine-tethered PPNs as taught by Zhou necessarily mee the claim 2 limitation of “the organic loading of the alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound on the porous structure is about 10% to 80% based on thermogravimetric analysis”. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). Note that Zhou further teaches that CO2-uptake capacity is closely correlated to amine loading instead of surface area under these conditions. Zhou at page 10, [0162].
The limitations of claim 3 are clearly met because the ligand L is physically impregnated in the porous structure.
The limitations of claim 4 are clearly met because ligand L is covalently bonded to the porous structure.
The limitations of claim 5 are clearly met by Zhou’s PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA, where the alkyl group is ethyl.
The limitations of claims 6, 7. The claim 6 transitional phrase “includes” is interpreted as open ended. MPEP § 2113.03(I). Note that claims 6 and 7 do not require that the “alkyl diamine moieties” be attached to the same aryl group. It is noted that the laminations of withdrawn claim 11 are also clearly met under the same rational.
Claim 8 is obvious for the following reasons. Zhou teaches a porous polymer network (termed by Zhou “PPN”) comprising a moiety of Formula (A). Zhou at page 1, [0010].
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhou at page 1, [0010].
Where, in an embodiment, at least one of R1 to R16 is CHQ, where Q is a polyamine and the polyamine may be N(A1)A2. One of ordinary skill is motivated to include Q (i.e., N(A1)A2) at the 1, 3, and 5 positions in above formula (A) (for example in the terminal phenyl ring) because Zhou effectively teaches one of ordinary skill than any of these positions are suitable. Further, Zhou teaches that CO2-uptake capacity is closely correlated to amine loading instead of surface area under these conditions. Zhou at page 10, [0162]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to increase the amine loading by maximizing the amine substitution on the phenyl ring. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Further, this limitation is inherently met by Zhou’s PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA. The addition of Cl to the PPN polymer followed by reaction with the amine is non-specific resulting in multiple diamine substitution patterns on different phenyl rings of the underlying PPN. See Zhou at page 9, working Example 3, [0146]-[0152]. At least some of the phenyl rings of the PPN would necessarily have the 1, 3, and 5 positions of one or more of the phenyl rings substituted with the diamine. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). In this regard, claim 8 does not require that the “alkyl diamine moieties” be attached to the same aryl group.
The limitations of claim 9 are clearly met.
The limitations of claim 10 are clearly met by Zhou’s PPN-6-CH2EDTA, PPN-6-CH2DETA, PPN-6-CH2TETA, and PPN-6-CH2TAEA, for the same reasons as claim 6 and where the alkyl group is ethyl.
Respecting claim 12, Zhou teaches pore size ranges of about 10 Å (1 nm) to 20 Å (2 nm). Zhou at page 2698, col. 2. These pore sizes meet meaning of mesoporous in view of the § 112(b) rejection above. See discussion of “mesoporous” in the above § 112(b) rejection; see also, specification at page 10, lines 6-8 defining an embodiment of “mesoporous” using the term “about”.
The limitations of claim 13 are clearly met.
The limitations of claim 14 are met because the porous structures (PPNs) disclosed by Zhou are metal organic frameworks or a porous polymer structure.
The limitations of claim 16 are clearly met because Zhou conducts CO2 absorption at 298 K (25 °C).
The limitations of claim 17 are met because Zhou teaches flue gas.
The limitations of claim 18 are clearly met.
Claim 19 is obvious over Zhou alone for the following reasons. Zhou teaches that CO2 may be displaced from the polyamine-tethered PPNs by vacuum. Zhou page 10, [0166]-[0167]. Zhou teaches that the polyamine-tethered PPNs have extremely high CO2 capacity at very low pressures because of the multiple adsorption sites, which is desired for CO2 capture from flue gas or air and show high thermal and chemical stability (higher even than for amine-tethered PPNs), especially when considering the sensitivity of the material to water and air. Zhou at page 6, [0110]. One of ordinary skill apprised that CO2 is released from the Zhou by physical processes, such as vacuum, is motivated to experiment with other physical processes such as gas flow or water vapor flow to displace the CO2. The rational is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I). Respecting claim 19 temperature and pressure ranges, the specification does not teach any criticality regarding these ranges. See e.g., specification at page 6, 3rd paragraph; Id. at page 12. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Further motivation to practice Zhou in combination with the steam-mediated CO2 desorption limitations of claim 19 is provided by W. Li et al., 3 ChemSusChem, 899-903 (2010). Li teaches that steam stripping of supported amine-Based CO2 adsorbents, is promising because steam stripping provides both (1) a thermal driving force for desorption; and (2) a partial pressure driving force, as in the case of inert gas temperature swing and the product stream, containing only CO2 and water, can be easily purified by compression and condensation, removing the water as a liquid to produce a highly concentrated CO2 gas stream, suitable for sequestration or other use. Li at page 899, col. 2.
The limitations of claim 20 are met for the following reasons. The claim 20 limitation of “capturing about 10% to 100% of the CO2 present in the gas mixture” is interpreted merely as an intended result that cannot differentiate over the cited art. This claim 20 limitation does not limit the structure of how the claim 15 method is practiced. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04 (citing In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a ‘whereby clause’ in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited). Respecting the claim 20 limitation of “wherein the gas mixture has a concentration of about 100 ppm to 20% of CO2”, one of ordinary skill is motivated to capture CO2 from such gas streams.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 Rejections Over D. Kumar et al., ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10971-10982 (published July, 15 2020)
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D. Kumar et al., ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10971-10982 (published July, 15 2020) (“Kumar”) in further view of H. Zhou et al., US 2015/0182903 (2015).
Alternatively, claim 19 rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar and Zhou as above in further view of W. Li et al., 3 ChemSusChem, 899-903 (2010).
The above cited references were discussed in detail above.
Differences between Kumar and the Instant Claims
As discussed in the above § 102 rejection, Kumar teaches each and every limitation of claim 15:
15. A method of separating CO2 from a gas mixture, comprising:
exposing a gas mixture to a porous structure having supported therein
an alkyl diamine-substituted aryl compound; and
capturing the CO2 in the porous structure;
releasing the CO2 from the porous structure.
Kumar does not teach the claim 17 recitation of ambient air or flue gas. Kumar does not teach the claim 19 recitations regarding steam desorption of CO2 from the complexes.
Obviousness Rational
Claim 17 is obvious over Kumar in further view of Zhou because one of ordinary skill is motivated to employ the any of Kumar’s amines Ph-3-ED, Ph-3-PD, Ph-6-ED and Ph-6-PD supported on mesoporous silica SBA-15 in Zhou’s method of gas separation, for example, in a flue gas stream as specifically suggested by Zhou. Zhou at page 6, [0110].
Claim 19 is obvious over Kumar in view of Zhou for the same reasons discussed above for Zhou alone or discussed above Zhou in further view of W. Li et al., 3 ChemSusChem, 899-903 (2010).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Havlin can be reached on (571) 272-9066. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 If the application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application. Any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of that earlier parent application. MPEP § 2139.01(¶ B)
2 The term including is interpreted as open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. MPEP § 2111.03(I).
3 See, IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, Gold Book, pages 60, 73, 108-110, 114 (2014) (defining alkyl, aryl, and amine).