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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12, 14, 18, and 25 are amended.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilmer (US 20130143768 A1).
In claim 1, Wilmer discloses a computer implemented method (Par. 9 “computer processor”) for post combustion carbon capture (par. 143 “synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture”) comprising: characterizing sorbent materials (Par. 106 “Hypothetical MOF structures generated” Par. 7 “A range of material properties can be predicted for these MOFs…”, “adsorption capability”) with a molecular model workflow (Par. 107-108 Table 1 “modeled” “optimizations”) that generates microscopic figures of merit for materials by microscopic properties (Par. 111, 128 “methane adsorption isotherms are computationally predicted for the hypothetical MOFs” “nanoscopic” “microporous”, Par. 120 “screening the promising MOFs for high pressure methane storage”); evaluating the materials from the molecular model workflow with a process model workflow that generates macroscopic figures of merit (Par. 106 “comparing coordinates of the atoms in the MOF structures against the coordinates of the atoms in the experimental and energetically optimized structures”) for process steps of a carbon recovery process (Par. 143); and ranking the materials for applicability as a sorbent material (Par. 131 “rank”) using a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that ranks the materials according to the microscopic figures of merit for materials and the macroscopic figures of merit for the process steps (Fig. 11, Par. 131 “rank-ordered”) and performing a chemical separation process using the materials ranked for applicability as sorbent materials (Par. 143 “subsequently synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture, hydrogen storage, and chemical separations”).
In claim 3, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic figures of merit include data from an adsorption isotherm for a particular sorbent material (Par. 126 “a complete isotherm was calculated (over a wide range of pressures) for the four MOFs”).
In claim 4, Wilmer discloses wherein the macroscopic figures of merit for the carbon recovery process employing at least one of temperature swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 149) and pressure swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 169) are selected from the group consisting of recovery, purity, production, specific energy and combinations thereof for the product stream of interest (Par. 144 “purity” Par. 57 “release” Par. 179 “volume” Par. 109 “energetic minimum or at a reduced energy”).
In claim 5, Wilmer discloses selecting highest ranked materials from the ranking for integration as sorbent materials (Par. 131, 134 “best to worst”, “identifying promising candidates”) into at least one of a desorber and an adsorber (Par. 57 “storing and releasing”) of a carbon capture process (Par. 7 “carbon dioxide adsorption capability”) employing at least one of pressure swing adsorption cycles (Par. 169) and temperature swing adsorption cycles (Par. 149); and performing carbon recapture using the at least one of the desorber and adsorber with the sorbent materials (Par. 143).
In claim 6, Wilmer discloses wherein the sorbent material is selected from a group consisting of zeolites, metal organic frameworks (MOF), zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIF), porous polymer networks (PPN) and combinations thereof (Par. 3-4, 36, and 124).
In claim 7, Wilmer discloses wherein a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator comprises of a multi-step and multi-criteria optimizer (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that orders the materials using combined trade-off metrics considering different dimensions of performance enhancement (“allow the user to compare the potential MOFs in order to decide which MOFs to produce”).
In claim 8, Wilmer discloses a system for post combustion carbon capture (Par. 143 “applications such as carbon capture”) comprising: a hardware processor (Par. 9 “processor”); and a memory that stores a computer program product (Par. 9 “memory”), which, when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to: rank materials for post combustion carbon capture (par. 143 “synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture”) comprising: characterize sorbent materials (Par. 106 “Hypothetical MOF structures generated” Par. 7 “A range of material properties can be predicted for these MOFs…”, “adsorption capability”) with a molecular model workflow (Par. 107-108 Table 1 “modeled” “optimizations”) that generates microscopic figures of merit for materials by microscopic properties (Par. 111, 128 “methane adsorption isotherms are computationally predicted for the hypothetical MOFs” “nanoscopic” “microporous”, Par. 120 “screening the promising MOFs for high pressure methane storage”); evaluate the materials from the molecular model workflow with a process model workflow that generates macroscopic figures of merit (Par. 106 “comparing coordinates of the atoms in the MOF structures against the coordinates of the atoms in the experimental and energetically optimized structures”) for process steps of a carbon recovery process (Par. 143); and rank the materials for applicability as a sorbent material (Par. 131 “rank”) using a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that ranks the materials according to the microscopic figures of merit for materials and the macroscopic figures of merit for the process steps (Fig. 11, Par. 131 “rank-ordered”) and performing a chemical separation process using the materials ranked for applicability as sorbent materials (Par. 143 “subsequently synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture, hydrogen storage, and chemical separations”).
In claim 10, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic figures of merit include data from an adsorption isotherm for a particular sorbent material (Par. 126 “a complete isotherm was calculated (over a wide range of pressures) for the four MOFs”).
In claim 11, Wilmer discloses wherein the macroscopic figures of merit for the carbon recovery process employing at least one of temperature swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 149) and pressure swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 169) are selected from the group consisting of recovery, purity, production, specific energy and combinations thereof for a product stream of interest (Par. 144 “purity” Par. 57 “release” Par. 179 “volume” Par. 109 “energetic minimum or at a reduced energy”).
In claim 12, Wilmer discloses selecting highest ranked materials from the ranking for integration as sorbent materials (Par. 131, 134 “best to worst”, “identifying promising candidates”) into at least one of a desorber and an adsorber (Par. 57 “storing and releasing”) of a carbon capture process (Par. 7 “carbon dioxide adsorption capability”) employing at least one of pressure swing adsorption cycles (Par. 169) and temperature swing adsorption cycles (Par. 149); and performing carbon recapture using the at least one of the desorber and adsorber with the sorbent materials (Par. 143).
In claim 13, Wilmer discloses wherein a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator comprises of a multi-step and multi-criteria optimizer (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that orders the materials using combined trade-off metrics considering different dimensions of performance enhancement (“allow the user to compare the potential MOFs in order to decide which MOFs to produce”).
In claim 14, Wilmer discloses a computer program (Par. 9) product post combustion carbon capture (par. 143 “synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture”) comprising a computer readable storage medium (Par. 9 “memory”) having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the program code executable by a processor to cause the processor to (Par. 9 “processor”): characterize, using the processor, sorbent materials (Par. 106 “Hypothetical MOF structures generated” Par. 7 “A range of material properties can be predicted for these MOFs…”, “adsorption capability”) with a molecular model workflow (Par. 107-108 Table 1 “modeled” “optimizations”) that generates microscopic figures of merit for materials by microscopic properties (Par. 111, 128 “methane adsorption isotherms are computationally predicted for the hypothetical MOFs” “nanoscopic” “microporous”, Par. 120 “screening the promising MOFs for high pressure methane storage”); evaluate, using the processor, the materials from the molecular model workflow with a process model workflow that generates macroscopic figures of merit (Par. 106 “comparing coordinates of the atoms in the MOF structures against the coordinates of the atoms in the experimental and energetically optimized structures”) for process steps of a carbon recovery process (Par. 143); and rank, using the processor, the materials for applicability as a sorbent material (Par. 131 “rank”) using a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that ranks the materials according to the microscopic figures of merit for materials and the macroscopic figures of merit for the process steps (Fig. 11, Par. 131 “rank-ordered”) and perform a chemical separation process using the materials ranked for applicability as sorbent materials (Par. 143 “subsequently synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture, hydrogen storage, and chemical separations”).
In claim 16, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic figures of merit include data from an adsorption isotherm for a particular sorbent material (Par. 126 “a complete isotherm was calculated (over a wide range of pressures) for the four MOFs”).
In claim 17, Wilmer discloses wherein the macroscopic figures of merit for the carbon recovery process employing at least one of temperature swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 149) and pressure swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 169) are selected from a group consisting of recovery, purity, production, specific energy and combinations thereof for a product stream of interest (Par. 144 “purity” Par. 57 “release” Par. 179 “volume” Par. 109 “energetic minimum or at a reduced energy”).
In claim 18, Wilmer discloses selecting highest ranked materials from the ranking for integration as sorbent materials (Par. 131, 134 “best to worst”, “identifying promising candidates”) into at least one of a desorber and an adsorber (Par. 57 “storing and releasing”) of a carbon capture process (Par. 7 “carbon dioxide adsorption capability”) employing at least one of pressure swing adsorption cycles (Par. 169) and temperature swing adsorption cycles (Par. 149); and performing carbon recapture using the at least one of the desorber and adsorber with the sorbent materials (Par. 143).
In claim 19, Wilmer discloses A method for separation process implementation comprising: characterizing sorbent materials (Par. 106 “Hypothetical MOF structures generated” Par. 7 “A range of material properties can be predicted for these MOFs…”, “adsorption capability”) with a molecular model workflow (Par. 107-108 Table 1 “modeled” “optimizations”) that generates microscopic figures of merit for materials by microscopic properties (Par. 111, 128 “methane adsorption isotherms are computationally predicted for the hypothetical MOFs” “nanoscopic” “microporous”, Par. 120 “screening the promising MOFs for high pressure methane storage”); evaluating the materials from the molecular model workflow with a process model workflow that generates macroscopic figures of merit (Par. 106 “comparing coordinates of the atoms in the MOF structures against the coordinates of the atoms in the experimental and energetically optimized structures”) for chemical separation process steps of interest (Par. 143); and ranking the materials for applicability as a sorbent material (Par. 131 “rank”) using a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that ranks the materials according to the microscopic figures of merit for materials and the macroscopic figures of merit for the process steps (Fig. 11, Par. 131 “rank-ordered”); selecting highest ranked materials from the ranking for integration as sorbent materials (Par. 131, 134 “best to worst”, “identifying promising candidates”) into at least one of a desorber and an adsorber (Par. 57 “storing and releasing”) of a chemical separation process (Par. 7 “carbon dioxide adsorption capability”) employing at least one of pressure swing adsorption cycles (Par. 169) and temperature swing adsorption cycles (Par. 149); and performing the chemical separation process using the at least one of the desorber and adsorber with the sorbent materials (Par. 143 “subsequently synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture, hydrogen storage, and chemical separations”).
In claim 21, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic figures of merit include data from an adsorption isotherm for a particular sorbent material (Par. 126 “a complete isotherm was calculated (over a wide range of pressures) for the four MOFs”).
In claim 22, Wilmer discloses wherein the macroscopic figures of merit for the chemical separation process employing at least one of temperature swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 149) and pressure swing adsorption cycle processes (Par. 169) are selected from a group consisting of recovery, purity, production, specific energy and combinations thereof for a product stream of interest (Par. 144 “purity” Par. 57 “release” Par. 179 “volume” Par. 109 “energetic minimum or at a reduced energy”).
In claim 23, Wilmer discloses wherein the sorbent material is selected from a group consisting of zeolites, metal organic frameworks (MOF), zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIF), porous polymer networks (PPN) and combinations thereof (Par. 3-4, 36, and 124).
In claim 24, Wilmer discloses wherein the chemical separation process is selected from a group consisting of carbon recovery, carbon capture, air separation, natural gas separation, hydrogen purification, ammonia separation, N2 purification, 02 purification, H20 removal, bio gas separation and combinations thereof (Par. 110, 124, 151, and 158).
In claim 25, Wilmer discloses a computer implemented method (Par. 9 “computer processor”) for ranking materials for post combustion carbon capture (par. 143 “synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture”) comprising: characterizing sorbent materials (Par. 106 “Hypothetical MOF structures generated” Par. 7 “A range of material properties can be predicted for these MOFs…”, “adsorption capability”) with a molecular model workflow (Par. 107-108 Table 1 “modeled” “optimizations”) that generates microscopic figures of merit for materials by microscopic properties (Par. 111, 128 “methane adsorption isotherms are computationally predicted for the hypothetical MOFs” “nanoscopic” “microporous”, Par. 120 “screening the promising MOFs for high pressure methane storage”); evaluating the materials from the molecular model workflow with a process model workflow that generates macroscopic figures of merit (Par. 106 “comparing coordinates of the atoms in the MOF structures against the coordinates of the atoms in the experimental and energetically optimized structures”) for process steps of a carbon recovery process (Par. 143); and ranking the materials for applicability as a sorbent material (Par. 131 “rank”) using a combined microscopic performance and macroscopic process feasibility generator (Par. 115-116 “MOFs that can be created after attempting various combinations of the building blocks to identify those MOFs that are feasible”) that ranks the materials according to the microscopic figures of merit for materials and the macroscopic figures of merit for the process steps (Fig. 11, Par. 131 “rank-ordered”) and performing a chemical separation process using the materials ranked for applicability as sorbent materials (Par. 143 “subsequently synthesizing improved materials for applications such as carbon capture, hydrogen storage, and chemical separations”).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmer in view of Steingrimsson (US 20200257933 A1) hence forth Stein.
In claim 2, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic properties are selected from a group consisting of loading, heat transfer and combinations thereof (Par. 111 “absorption”, “heat of adsorption”).
Wilmer does not explclity disclose a group consisting of heat capacity.
Stein teaches the group consisting of heat capacity (Par. 21 Table 1 “heat capacity”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have a group consisting of heat capacity based on the teaching of Stein to the group in Wilmer as the parameter that impacts the ultimate quality of the finished part (Stein Par. 21) thus improving the modeling and therefore accuracy of Wilmer.
In claim 9, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic properties are selected from a group consisting of loading, heat transfer and combinations thereof (Par. 111 “absorption”, “heat of adsorption”).
Wilmer does not explclity disclose a group consisting of heat capacity.
Stein teaches a group consisting of heat capacity (Par. 21 Table 1 “heat capacity”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have a group consisting of heat capacity based on the teaching of Stein to the group in Wilmer as the parameter that impacts the ultimate quality of the finished part (Stein Par. 21) thus improving the modeling and therefore accuracy of Wilmer.
In claim 15, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic properties are selected from a group consisting of loading, heat transfer and combinations thereof (Par. 111 “absorption”, “heat of adsorption”).
Wilmer does not explicitly disclose a group consisting of heat capacity.
Stein teaches the group consisting of heat capacity (Par. 21 Table 1 “heat capacity”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have a group consisting of heat capacity based on the teaching of Stein to the group in Wilmer as the parameter that impacts the ultimate quality of the finished part (Stein Par. 21) thus improving the modeling and therefore accuracy of Wilmer.
In claim 20, Wilmer discloses wherein the microscopic properties are selected from a group consisting of loading, heat transfer and combinations thereof (Par. 111 “absorption”, “heat of adsorption”).
Wilmer does not explclity disclose a group consisting of heat capacity.
Stein teaches a group consisting of heat capacity (Par. 21 Table 1 “heat capacity”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to have a group consisting of heat capacity based on the teaching of Stein to the group in Wilmer as the parameter that impacts the ultimate quality of the finished part (Stein Par. 21) thus improving the modeling and therefore accuracy of Wilmer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted in the previous advisory action, the 112 and 101 rejections are withdrawn. Regarding applicant’s 102 arguments on pages 14-16, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding a “process model workflow” examiner notes that the applicant has not cited or described any inherent features required by the term. A processor processing calculations and determinations is inherently operating under a process model workflow, the steps to make said calculations and determinations are a “molecular model workflow”. Further, “generates macroscopic figures of merit” does not describe the process model workflow, it describes the results of “evaluating the materials from the molecular model workflow” using the process model workflow, i.e. “with a process model workflow”, thus does not limit or describe a process model workflow, it simply requires that the results be macroscopic figures of merit. Further carbon capture is not claimed as part of the process model workflow.
Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments on pages 16-17, as stated above, the rejection is correct thus the 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11119033 B2, Conformation Analysis Device, Analysis Method, Conformational Notation Device And Notation Method; US 20180204992 A1, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ENHANCING FIGURE OF MERIT IN COMPOSITE THERMOELECTRIC MATERIALS WITH AEROGEL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857