DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Page 6, line 18; Page 25, line 22; and Page 27, line 10 of the specification, “Error! Reference source not found.” should read “FIG. 8”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“Liquid-solid phase-change absorption of acidic gas by polyamine in nonaqueous organic solvent”) in view of Lail et al. (US 2013/0164200 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Zhao teaches a non-aqueous solvent system configured to remove an acidic gas from a gas stream, comprising a chemical absorption component comprising a nitrogenous base, wherein the nitrogenous base has a structure such that it reacts with a portion of the acidic gas (Abstract, the phase-change absorption behavior of linear polyamines including ethylenediamine (EDA), diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine, tetraethylenepentamine, and cyclic diamines including piperazine (PZ) and triethylene diamine (DABCO) in organic solvents was investigated in the present work. The result indicated that polyamines could react with CO2 to form carbamate precipitates).
Zhao teaches the nitrogenous base comprising 1,4-diazabicyclo-undec-7-ene ("DBU"); 1,4-diazabicyclo-2,2,2-octane; piperazine ("PZ"); triethylamine ("TEA"); 1,1,3,3-tetramethyl guanidine ("TMG"); 1,8-diazabicycloundec-7-ene; monoethanolamine ("MEA"); diethylamine ("DEA"); ethylenediamine ("EDA"); 1,3-diamino propane; 1,4-diaminobutane; hexamethylenediamine; 1, 7-diaminoheptane; diethanolamine; diisopropylamine ("DIPA"); 4-aminopyridine; pentylamine; hexylamine; heptylamine; octylamine; nonylamine; decylamine; tert-octylamine; dioctylamine; dihexylamine; 2-ethyl-1-hexylamine; 2-fluorophenethylamine; 3-fluorophenethyl amine; 3,5-difluorobenzylamine; N-methylbenzylamine; 3-fluoro-N-methylbenzylamine; 4-fluoro-N-methylbenzylamine; imidazole; benzimidazole; N-methyl imidazole; 1-trifluoroacetylimidazole; 1,2,3-triazole; 1,2,4-triazole; or mixtures thereof (Abstract, the phase-change absorption behavior of linear polyamines including ethylenediamine (EDA), diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine, tetraethylenepentamine, and cyclic diamines including piperazine (PZ) and triethylene diamine (DABCO) in organic solvents was investigated in the present work. The result indicated that polyamines could react with CO2 to form carbamate precipitates).
Zhao teaches the solvent system comprising a physical absorption component comprising an organic diluent that is non-reactive with the acidic gas and that has a structure such that it absorbs a portion of the acidic gas at a pressure above atmospheric pressure, wherein the organic diluent consists of polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether and optionally one or more additional polyethylene glycol dialkyl ethers different from polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether (Page 70, we systematically investigated the absorption behavior of linear polyamines including ethylenediamine (EDA), diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), and cyclic polyamines including piperazine (PZ) and triethylene diamine (DABCO) in organic solvent such as ethanol, diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (DGDE), N-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) as representatives of alcohols, ethers, ketones and esters, respectively).
Zhao is silent to the solvent system having a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water.
Lail teaches the solvent system having a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water (Paragraph 0012, the solvent system has a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water). Lail discloses that using diluents with low water solubility result in energy efficient and water tolerant solvent systems (Paragraph 0045, Using diluents with low water solubility may result in solvent systems that display one or more of the following attributes: they may require less energy for regeneration; may have high CO2 loading capacities; may be able to tolerate water in the gas stream; and/or may be able to be separated from water without a large energy penalty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Zhao to teach the solvent system having a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water, as taught by Lail, since using diluents with low water solubility results in energy efficient and water tolerant solvent systems.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayer et al. (“Absorption rates of carbon dioxide in amines in hydrophilic and hydrophobic solvents”) in view of Lail et al. (US 2013/0164200 A1) and Zhao et al. (“Liquid-solid phase-change absorption of acidic gas by polyamine in nonaqueous organic solvent”).
With regard to Claim 1, Rayer teaches a non-aqueous solvent system configured to remove an acidic gas from a gas stream (Page 515, Although aqueous systems are the most prevalent in literature, the reaction kinetics of CO2 with amines in non-aqueous solvents has also been studied to design an optimum solvent with lower vapor pressure, lower heat capacities, and faster reaction rates).
Rayer teaches the solvent system comprising a chemical absorption component comprising a nitrogenous base, wherein the nitrogenous base has a structure such that it reacts with a portion of the acidic gas (Page 516; In this work, a benzene substituted amine in the family of BZA (i.e., N-methyl benzyl amine, NMBZA [20]) was chosen as the reactive component in aqueous and non-aqueous solvents for evaluating its reaction rates with CO2).
Rayer teaches the nitrogenous base comprising 1,4-diazabicyclo-undec-7-ene ("DBU"); 1,4-diazabicyclo-2,2,2-octane; piperazine ("PZ"); triethylamine ("TEA"); 1,1,3,3-tetramethyl guanidine ("TMG"); 1,8-diazabicycloundec-7-ene; monoethanolamine ("MEA"); diethylamine ("DEA"); ethylenediamine ("EDA"); 1,3-diamino propane; 1,4-diaminobutane; hexamethylenediamine; 1, 7-diaminoheptane; diethanolamine; diisopropylamine ("DIPA"); 4-aminopyridine; pentylamine; hexylamine; heptylamine; octylamine; nonylamine; decylamine; tert-octylamine; dioctylamine; dihexylamine; 2-ethyl-1-hexylamine; 2-fluorophenethylamine; 3-fluorophenethyl amine; 3,5-difluorobenzylamine; N-methylbenzylamine; 3-fluoro-N-methylbenzylamine; 4-fluoro-N-methylbenzylamine; imidazole; benzimidazole; N-methyl imidazole; 1-trifluoroacetylimidazole; 1,2,3-triazole; 1,2,4-triazole; or mixtures thereof (Page 516; In this work, a benzene substituted amine in the family of BZA (i.e., N-methyl benzyl amine, NMBZA [20]) was chosen as the reactive component in aqueous and non-aqueous solvents for evaluating its reaction rates with CO2).
Rayer teaches the solvent system comprising a physical absorption component comprising an organic diluent that is non-reactive with the acidic gas and that has a structure such that it absorbs a portion of the acidic gas at a pressure above atmospheric pressure (Page 516; Widely used stopped-flow apparatus and a stirred-tank reactor were utilized to study the reaction kinetics of CO2 with NMBZA in water (0.52–3.97 kmol.m−3) and NMBZA in ethereal hydrophobic solvents (i.e., in tetra ethylene glycol dibutyl ether and polyethylene glycol dibutyl ether (Genosorb 1843))).
Rayer is silent to the solvent system having a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water.
Lail teaches the solvent system having a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water (Paragraph 0012, the solvent system has a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water). Lail discloses that using diluents with low water solubility result in energy efficient and water tolerant solvent systems (Paragraph 0045, Using diluents with low water solubility may result in solvent systems that display one or more of the following attributes: they may require less energy for regeneration; may have high CO2 loading capacities; may be able to tolerate water in the gas stream; and/or may be able to be separated from water without a large energy penalty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Rayer to teach the solvent system having a solubility with water of less than about 10 g of solvent per 100 mL of water, as taught by Lail, since using diluents with low water solubility results in energy efficient and water tolerant solvent systems.
However, Rayer is silent to the solvent system wherein the organic diluent consists of polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether and optionally one or more additional polyethylene glycol dialkyl ethers different from polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether, instead teaching the organic diluent comprising polyethylene glycol di-butyl ether (Page 516; Widely used stopped-flow apparatus and a stirred-tank reactor were utilized to study the reaction kinetics of CO2 with NMBZA in water (0.52–3.97 kmol.m−3) and NMBZA in ethereal hydrophobic solvents (i.e., in tetra ethylene glycol dibutyl ether and polyethylene glycol dibutyl ether (Genosorb 1843))).
Zhao teaches the organic diluent consisting of polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether and optionally one or more additional polyethylene glycol dialkyl ethers different from polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether (Page 70, we systematically investigated the absorption behavior of linear polyamines including ethylenediamine (EDA), diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), and cyclic polyamines including piperazine (PZ) and triethylene diamine (DABCO) in organic solvent such as ethanol, diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (DGDE), N-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) as representatives of alcohols, ethers, ketones and esters, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether for polyethylene glycol di-butyl ether, because these two compounds are known for the same use as organic diluents. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one compound for the other with a predictable result of removing acidic gas from a gas stream. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
With regard to Claim 3, Rayer teaches the nitrogenous base comprising N-methylbenzylamine (Page 516; In this work, a benzene substituted amine in the family of BZA (i.e., N-methyl benzyl amine, NMBZA [20]) was chosen as the reactive component in aqueous and non-aqueous solvents for evaluating its reaction rates with CO2).
With regard to Claims 8-13, Rayer teaches the solvent system wherein the concentration of chemical absorption component ranges from 1 to 50 wt% of the total system, from 5 to 30 wt% of the total system, and from 10 to 20 wt% of the total system, and wherein the concentration of physical absorption component ranges from 40 to 95 wt% relative to the total system, from 50 to 90% of the total system, and from 70 to 90 wt% of the total system (Page 523, Table 9; 0.61 kmol/m3 NMBZA, 1.30 kmol/m3 water, 1.38 kmol/m3 TEGDBE). 1 kmol/m3 = 1 mol/L. Using molar mass to convert to grams gives the following values: 0.61 mol/L * (121.18 g/mol) = 73.9198 g/L NMBZA; 1.30 mol/L * (18.015 g/mol) = 23.4195 g/L water; 1.38 mol/L * (306.44 g/mol) = 422.8872 g/L TEGDBE. This gives 81.28 wt% TEGDBE, 14.21 wt% NMBZA, and 4.50 wt% water. These values are within the ranges claimed.
With regard to Claim 14, Rayer teaches the solvent system further comprising water (Page 516; Widely used stopped-flow apparatus and a stirred-tank reactor were utilized to study the reaction kinetics of CO2 with NMBZA in water (0.52–3.97 kmol.m−3) and NMBZA in ethereal hydrophobic solvents (i.e., in tetra ethylene glycol dibutyl ether and polyethylene glycol dibutyl ether (Genosorb 1843))).
With regard to Claim 15, Rayer teaches water present in a concentration ranging from 1 to 10 wt% of the total system (Page 523, Table 9; 0.61 kmol/m3 NMBZA, 1.30 kmol/m3 water, 1.38 kmol/m3 TEGDBE). See discussion regarding Claims 8-13 above.
With regard to Claim 16, Rayer teaches the solvent system wherein the components are present in the following concentrations: 1 to 20 wt% chemical absorption component, 70 to 98 wt% physical absorption component, and 1 to 10 wt% water (Page 523, Table 9; 0.61 kmol/m3 NMBZA, 1.30 kmol/m3 water, 1.38 kmol/m3 TEGDBE). See discussion regarding Claims 8-13 above.
With regard to Claim 17, Rayer teaches the acidic gas comprising carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2), sulfur oxides (SOx) or a combination thereof (Page 515; Improving the efficiency of gas-liquid absorption systems for large scale Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the power sector as well as other industrial sectors with high CO2 emissions remains a technological challenge that can still be improved to be more energy efficient).
With regard to Claim 18, Rayer is silent to the solvent system having a dynamic viscosity ranging from 1 to 30 mPa s at a temperature of 10 to 60°C.
However, the product of Rayer and the product of the instant invention appear to be substantially identical and thus would have the same physical properties. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Both Rayer and the instant invention teach a non-aqueous solvent system configured to remove acidic gas from a gas stream, comprising a nitrogenous base and organic diluent wherein the organic diluent comprises polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether (see Claim 1 rejection), wherein the nitrogenous base comprises N-methylbenzylamine (see Claim 3 rejection), and comprising water (see Claim 14 rejection). Furthermore, both Rayer and the instant invention teach the ranges disclosed in Claims 8-13 and 15-16 (see Claims 8-13 and 15-16 rejections).
In this regard, Rayer teaches the solvent system having a dynamic viscosity ranging from 1 to 30 mPa s at a temperature of 10 to 60°C.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 4380, 483-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
With regard to Claim 19, Rayer is silent to the solvent system having a vapor pressure ranging from 0.02 to 0.03 mbar at 20°C.
However, the product of Rayer and the product of the instant invention appear to be substantially identical and thus would have the same physical properties. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Both Rayer and the instant invention teach a non-aqueous solvent system configured to remove acidic gas from a gas stream, comprising a nitrogenous base and organic diluent wherein the organic diluent comprises polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether (see Claim 1 rejection), wherein the nitrogenous base comprises N-methylbenzylamine (see Claim 3 rejection), and comprising water (see Claim 14 rejection). Furthermore, both Rayer and the instant invention teach the ranges disclosed in Claims 8-13 and 15-16 (see Claims 8-13 and 15-16 rejections).
In this regard, Rayer teaches the solvent system having a vapor pressure ranging from 0.02 to 0.03 mbar at 20°C.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 4380, 483-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
With regard to Claim 20, Rayer is silent to the solvent system having a boiling point ranging from 180 to 250°C.
However, the product of Rayer and the product of the instant invention appear to be substantially identical and thus would have the same physical properties. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Both Rayer and the instant invention teach a non-aqueous solvent system configured to remove acidic gas from a gas stream, comprising a nitrogenous base and organic diluent wherein the organic diluent comprises polyethylene glycol di-methyl ether (see Claim 1 rejection), wherein the nitrogenous base comprises N-methylbenzylamine (see Claim 3 rejection), and comprising water (see Claim 14 rejection). Furthermore, both Rayer and the instant invention teach the ranges disclosed in Claims 8-13 and 15-16 (see Claims 8-13 and 15-16 rejections).
In this regard, Rayer teaches the solvent system having a boiling point ranging from 180 to 250°C.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 4380, 483-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to claim 1 over Zhao et al. (“Liquid-solid phase-change absorption of acidic gas by polyamine in nonaqueous organic solvent”) in view of Lail et al. (US 2013/0164200 A1) and with respect to claims 1, 3, and 8-20 over Rayer et al. (“Absorption rates of carbon dioxide in amines in hydrophilic and hydrophobic solvents”) in view of Lail et al. (US 2013/0164200 A1) and Zhao et al. (“Liquid-solid phase-change absorption of acidic gas by polyamine in nonaqueous organic solvent”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guo et al. (“Nonaqueous amine-based absorbents for energy efficient CO2 capture”) teaches nonaqueous amine/glycol ether absorbents for CO2 capture.
Svensson et al. (“Solubility of carbon dioxide in mixtures of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol and organic solvents”) teaches an AMP/triethylene glycol dimethyl ether CO2 absorbent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736