DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 February 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31-32, 34, 37, 39-41, and 49-50 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 June 2025.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 19 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 25 are amended; claims 5 and 29 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 18, 25-26, 28, 30-32, 34, 37, 39-41, and 49-50 remain pending in the application with claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 18, 25-26, 28, and 30 considered in this Office Action. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 26 November 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 02/19/2026 and 02/24/2026 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
the text (in the probes) in Fig. 3 is illegible;
the text in Fig. 14 is illegible;
the shapes/shading of the variables are similar and therefore it is unclear which line/bar refers to which variable, and the text is blurry in Fig. 4-11 and 15.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitarai (US 5,039,424) in view of Graff (US 9,155,990).
Regarding Claim 1, Mitarai discloses a method for treating an amine-containing waste water (amine-containing waste water necessarily has a first concentration of amines) by contacting the waste water with active carbon (active carbon meets the limitation of activated carbon adsorbent material) and adsorbing amines on the active carbon (adsorbing amines on the active carbon meets the limitation of retaining at least a portion of the amines and necessarily provides a stream having a second, reduced concentration of amines, and therefore, meeting the limitation of a method for reducing the concentration of amines; Col. 2, lines 6-24). Mitarai further discloses flowing the waste water through an active carbon packed column (Col. 7, lines 2-6; Col. 15, lines 8-10). Mitarai further discloses the active carbon adsorbent has a working capacity of 145 mg amine/g active carbon (Table 1), which is equivalent to 0.145 g-amine/g-adsorbent, which is close to the claimed range of 0.15 g-amine/g-adsorbent to 0.5 g-amine/g-adsorbent such that the range taught by Mitarai obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Mitarai further discloses the method relates particularly to treating amine-containing waste water discharged from an amine production plant (Col. 1, lines 6-9).
Mitarai is silent to reducing the concentration of amines in a wash liquid stream exiting a wash section of an acid gas scrubbing process.
Mitarai, however, discloses there is no particular restriction as to the amine concentration in the waste water to be treated (Col. 3, lines 65-66) and adjusting the pH of the waste water prior to contacting with the adsorbent (Col. 14, lines 57-62), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the ability to remove amines from amine-containing waste waters with various amine concentrations and pHs using the process of Mitarai with reasonable success, absent a showing to the contrary. Mitarai further discloses the amines include monoethanolamine (Table 5) and piperazine (Col. 3, lines 36-45).
Graff discloses a method for reducing emission of amines from a plant for CO2 capture from a flue gas, where the CO2 is captured by an absorbent comprising an aqueous solution of amines in an absorption zone (CO2 is captured by an absorbent meets the limitation of an acid gas scrubbing process) to give a CO2 lean flue gas comprising amines (Col. 3, lines 20-32). Graff further discloses the CO2 lean flue gas is washed to remove or reduce the amount of amines in the gas (Col. 3, lines 29-32), which meets the limitation of a wash section of an acid gas scrubbing process. Graff further discloses a part of the washing solution is bled off and introduced into an amine reclaimer (introducing the washing solution into an amine reclaimer meets the limitation of a wash liquid stream exiting a wash section of an acid gas scrubbing process) where amines are liberated and reused for CO2 capture (Col. 3, line 64-Col. 4, line 1). Graff further discloses the amines may include monoethanolamine and piperazine (Col. 1, lines 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitarai to incorporate the teachings of Graff wherein the amine-containing waste water is a wash liquid stream exiting a wash section in an acid gas scrubbing process, because the characteristics of the amine-containing waste water of Mitarai, such as the concentration and pH, are not particularly limited, and it is well-known to remove amines such as monoethanolamine and piperazine from amine-containing waste water streams of both amine production and an acid gas scrubbing industrial processes, as recognized by Mitarai and Graff.
Regarding Claim 2, Mitarai is silent to utilizing a wash liquid.
Graff discloses washing in an acidic aqueous solution (Col. 3, line 30), such that the wash liquid comprises water. Graff further discloses one or more water washing zones prior to washing with the acidic aqueous solution (Col. 4, lines 50-64).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graff wherein the wash liquid is water, because using a water wash is well-known for removing amines from a CO2 lean flue gas from an acid gas scrubbing process, as recognized by Graff.
Regarding Claim 4, Mitarai is silent to acid gas scrubbing.
Graff discloses a method for reducing emission of amines from a plant for CO2 capture from a flue gas, where the CO2 is captured by an absorbent comprising an aqueous solution of amines in an absorption zone (CO2 is captured by an absorbent meets the limitation of an acid gas scrubbing process) to give a CO2 lean flue gas comprising amines (Col. 3, lines 20-32), such that the acid gas being scrubbed is CO2.
Regarding Claim 8, Mitarai discloses the waste water treating method by means of the active carbon may be conducted by a continuous fixed bed system (Col. 4, lines 34-36), such that the adsorbent material is in the form of a fixed adsorbent bed to which the wash liquid stream having the first concentration of amines is introduced.
Regarding Claim 18, Mitarai discloses an amine removal rate of 8.0 to 82.5% (Table 1). The amine removal rate is the same as the adsorption efficiency. Therefore, 8.0 to 82.5% taught by Mitarai, in the alternative, overlaps the claimed range of an average adsorption efficiency of at least 30% such that the range taught by Mitarai obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Mitarai further discloses adsorption equilibrium is reached by contacting the amine-containing waste water and the active carbon for 15 minutes to 24 hours (Col. 4, lines 47-49), which overlaps the claimed range of a run time of 1 hour to 15 hours such that the range taught by Mitarai obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitarai (US 5,039,424) in view of Graff (US 9,155,990) and Yazawa (US 4,612,290).
Regarding Claim 7, Mitarai and Graff teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Mitarai discloses the amine compound in the waste water to be treated is not particularly limited so long as it is a compound having an amino group in its molecule (Col. 3, lines 37-39).
Mitarai is silent to the amines comprising hydrophobic amines.
Yazawa discloses hydrophobic amines include primary amines such as heptylamine, octylamine and nonylamine; secondary amines such as dicyclohexylamine, benzylmethylamine, and (trialkylmethyl) long-chain secondary amines (such as, for example, lauryl(tributylmethyl)amine, and dodecenyl(tributylmethyl)amine); and tertiary amines such as p-methyl-N,N-diethylaniline, benzyldimethylamine, N-phenylmorpholine, dioctylmethylamine, and trioctylamine (Col. 5, lines 8-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitarai to incorporate the teachings of Yazawa to remove hydrophobic amines, as the amines of Mitarai are not limited (Col. 3, lines 347-39), and primary, secondary, and tertiary amines may be hydrophobic, as recognized by Yazawa (Col. 5, lines 8-17).
Claims 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitarai (US 5,039,424) in view of Graff (US 9,155,990) and Kato (JP 2019135034) and Widger (“Selective Removal of Nitrosamines from a Model Amine Carbon-Capture Waterwash Using Low-Cost Activated-Carbon Sorbents”).
Regarding Claim 25, Mitarai discloses a method for treating an amine-containing waste water (amine-containing waste water necessarily has a first concentration of amines) by contacting the waste water with active carbon (active carbon meets the limitation of activated carbon adsorbent material) and adsorbing amines on the active carbon (adsorbing amines on the active carbon meets the limitation of retaining at least a portion of the amines and necessarily provides a stream having a second, reduced concentration of amines, and therefore, meeting the limitation of a method for reducing the concentration of amines; Col. 2, lines 6-24). Mitarai further discloses flowing the waste water through an active carbon packed column (Col. 7, lines 2-6; Col. 15, lines 8-10). Mitarai further discloses the active carbon adsorbent has a working capacity of 145 mg amine/g active carbon (Table 1), which is equivalent to 0.145 g-amine/g-adsorbent, which is close to the claimed range of 0.15 g-amine/g-adsorbent to 0.5 g-amine/g-adsorbent such that the range taught by Mitarai obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Mitarai further discloses the method relates particularly to treating amine-containing waste water discharged from an amine production plant (Col. 1, lines 6-9).
Mitarai is silent to reducing the concentration of amines in a wash liquid stream exiting a wash section of an acid gas scrubbing process.
Mitarai, however, discloses there is no particular restriction as to the amine concentration in the waste water to be treated (Col. 3, lines 65-66) and adjusting the pH of the waste water prior to contacting with the adsorbent (Col. 14, lines 57-62), such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the ability to remove amines from amine-containing waste waters with various amine concentrations and pHs using the process of Mitarai with reasonable success, absent a showing to the contrary. Mitarai further discloses the amines include monoethanolamine (Table 5) and piperazine (Col. 3, lines 36-45).
Graff discloses a method for reducing emission of amines from a plant for CO2 capture from a flue gas (flue gas meets the limitation of exhaust gas containing acid gas), where the CO2 is captured by an absorbent (CO2 is captured by an absorbent meets the limitation of an acid gas scrubbing process and whereby at least a portion of the acid gas from the exhaust gas is absorbed by the solvent) comprising an aqueous solution of amines in an absorption zone (absorption zone meets the limitation of an absorber vessel containing a solvent comprising a solution having one or more amines) to give a CO2 lean flue gas comprising amines (Col. 3, lines 20-32), such that the exhaust gas is flowed through the solvent. Graff further discloses Graff further discloses the CO2 lean flue gas (CO2 lean flue gas meets the limitation of an acid gas scrubbing process gas effluent) is washed to remove or reduce the amount of amines in the gas (Col. 3, lines 29-32), such that the CO2 lean flue gas comprises amines, meeting the limitation wherein at least a portion of the solvent is absorbed by the exhaust gas thereby forming a gas having an increased concentration of amine and a reduced concentration of acid gas. Washing the CO2 lean flue gas to remove or reduce the amount of amines in the gas meets the limitation of washing the gas with the increased concentration of amine with a wash liquid in a wash section thereby removing at least a portion of the amine from the gas and absorbing the removed amine into the wash liquid. Graff further discloses a part of the washing solution is bled off and introduced into an amine reclaimer (introducing the washing solution into an amine reclaimer meets the limitation of a wash liquid stream exiting a wash section of an acid gas scrubbing process) where amines are liberated and reused for CO2 capture (Col. 3, line 64-Col. 4, line 1). Graff further discloses the amines may include monoethanolamine and piperazine (Col. 1, lines 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitarai to incorporate the teachings of Graff wherein the amine-containing waste water is a wash liquid stream exiting a wash section in an acid gas scrubbing process, because the characteristics of the amine-containing waste water of Mitarai, such as the concentration and pH, are not particularly limited, and it is well-known to remove amines such as monoethanolamine and piperazine from amine-containing waste water streams of both amine production and an acid gas scrubbing industrial processes, as recognized by Mitarai and Graff.
Mitarai and Graff are further silent to the concentration of the solution in the absorber vessel.
Kato discloses acid gas recovery [0014], wherein an absorption tower takes in exhaust gas containing CO2 and absorbs the CO2 into an absorbent containing amine [0016]. Kato further discloses the absorbing solution is an aqueous solution containing 10 to 70% by weight of an amine compound [0019]. Kato further discloses amines accompanying the exhaust gas leaving the absorption unit [0023], such that Kato meets the limitation wherein at least a portion of the solvent is absorbed by the exhaust gas thereby forming a gas having an increased concentration of amine and a reduced concentration of acid gas. Kato further discloses recovering the amine accompanying the exhaust gas using a cleaning liquid [0023], which meets the limitation of washing the gas with the increased concentration of amine with a wash liquid in a wash section thereby removing at least a portion of the amine from the gas and absorbing the removed amine into the wash liquid.
Regarding the percentage of water in the amine solution in the absorber in claim 25, it appears that 10 to 70% by weight of an amine compound taught by Kato overlaps the claimed range of a solution having less than 50% water such that the range taught by Kato obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitarai to incorporate the teachings of Graff and Kato wherein the absorber vessel contains a solvent comprising a solution having less than 50% water and one or more amines, because using a solution having less than 50% water and one or more amines is a process parameter well-known in the art of absorbing CO2 with amine-containing solutions.
Mitarai is further silent to recycling the wash stream having the second, reduced concentration of amines to the wash section in order to be reused therein, whereby providing a recycled wash stream with a relatively low concentration of amines to the wash section improves effectiveness of amine removal in the wash section thereby reducing the concentration of amines in the acid gas scrubbing process gas effluent.
Widger discloses removal of amines (MEA) from simulated amine-based CCS washwater (pg. 10918, Col. 2, par. 3). Widger further illustrates recycling a cleaned wash water to the wash water section in order to be reused therein (Abstract figure), which meets the limitation of recycling the wash stream, having the second, reduced concentration of amines to the wash section in order to be reused therein. Widger teaches recycling wash water such that the limitation whereby providing a recycled wash stream with a relatively low concentration of amines to the wash section improves effectiveness of amine removal in the wash section thereby reducing the concentration of amines in the acid gas scrubbing process gas effluent is necessarily present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitarai to incorporate the teachings of Widger to recycle the wash stream having the second, reduced concentration of amines to the wash section in order to be reused therein, whereby providing a recycled wash stream with a relatively low concentration of amines to the wash section improves effectiveness of amine removal in the wash section thereby reducing the concentration of amines in the acid gas scrubbing process gas effluent, in order to reduce the cost and resources of supplying additional wash water.
Regarding Claim 26, Mitarai is silent to utilizing a wash liquid.
Graff discloses washing in an acidic aqueous solution (Col. 3, line 30), such that the wash liquid comprises water. Graff further discloses one or more water washing zones prior to washing with the acidic aqueous solution (Col. 4, lines 50-64).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Graff wherein the wash liquid is water, because using a water wash is well-known for removing amines from a CO2 lean flue gas from an acid gas scrubbing process, as recognized by Graff.
Regarding Claim 28, Mitarai is silent to acid gas scrubbing.
Graff discloses a method for reducing emission of amines from a plant for CO2 capture from a flue gas, where the CO2 is captured by an absorbent comprising an aqueous solution of amines in an absorption zone (CO2 is captured by an absorbent meets the limitation of an acid gas scrubbing process) to give a CO2 lean flue gas comprising amines (Col. 3, lines 20-32), such that the acid gas being scrubbed is CO2.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitarai (US 5,039,424) in view of Graff (US 9,155,990) and Kato (JP 2019135034) and Widger (“Selective Removal of Nitrosamines from a Model Amine Carbon-Capture Waterwash Using Low-Cost Activated-Carbon Sorbents”) and Yazawa (US 4,612,290).
Regarding Claim 30, Mitarai, Graff, Kato, and Widger teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 25.
Mitarai discloses the amine compound in the waste water to be treated is not particularly limited so long as it is a compound having an amino group in its molecule (Col. 3, lines 37-39).
Mitarai is silent to the amines comprising hydrophobic amines.
Yazawa discloses hydrophobic amines include primary amines such as heptylamine, octylamine and nonylamine; secondary amines such as dicyclohexylamine, benzylmethylamine, and (trialkylmethyl) long-chain secondary amines (such as, for example, lauryl(tributylmethyl)amine, and dodecenyl(tributylmethyl)amine); and tertiary amines such as p-methyl-N,N-diethylaniline, benzyldimethylamine, N-phenylmorpholine, dioctylmethylamine, and trioctylamine (Col. 5, lines 8-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitarai to incorporate the teachings of Yazawa to remove hydrophobic amines, as the amines of Mitarai are not limited (Col. 3, lines 347-39), and primary, secondary, and tertiary amines may be hydrophobic, as recognized by Yazawa (Col. 5, lines 8-17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kato does not route that wash liquid through activated carbon, and Kato’s activated-carbon "impurity removal unit" treats gas streams and is engineered to avoid moisture on the activated carbon, which is the opposite of the claimed liquid-phase wash-water contact such that Kato cannot supply the missing "wash liquid stream exiting a wash section" being flowed through "activated carbon" as the adsorbent.
However, Kato is not relied upon for teaching introducing the wash liquid stream to an adsorbent material. Kato is only relied upon for teaching the concentration of the of the solution in the absorber vessel (see the rejection of claim 25).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Remarks", pg. 7, par. 4-pg. 9, par. 3, filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 18, 25-36 and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mitarai (US 5,039,424) and Graff (US 9,155,990) for independent claim 1, and Mitarai (US 5,039,424) and Graff (US 9,155,990) and Kato (JP 2019135034) and Widger (“Selective Removal of Nitrosamines from a Model Amine Carbon-Capture Waterwash Using Low-Cost Activated-Carbon Sorbents”) for independent claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights