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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase of “an indole-based molecule” recited in claim 2 is considered indefinite because the word “based” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of these terms is impossible to determine.
Appropriated corrections are required.
The phrase of “an analog of at least one compound” recited in claim 3 is considered indefinite because the word “analog” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of these terms is impossible to determine.
Appropriated corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 102 ()(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (Biomimetics, 2019, 4, 66).
Regarding claim 1, a catalyst comprising zinc tris(2-pyridylmethyl)amine (TPA) for catalyzing CO2 hydration reaction (H2O+CO2→H++HCO3-) (the instant claimed facilitate interaction between CO2 and water) (Abstract).
The phrase of “for concrete repair… and to precipitate concrete repairing calcium carbonate crystals” recites in claim 1 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of performing concrete repair and to precipitate concrete repairing calcium carbonate crystals reactions as per applicant claim 1. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 2-3, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Park et al. is zinc TPA as the instant claims.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, the catalyst taught by Park et al. further contains CO2 as the instant claim (page 5-9 of 12).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “sequesters atmospheric carbon dioxide”, recites in claim 6 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of performing sequester atmospheric CO2 as claim 6. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of “the catalyst is configured to operate at a pH of 6.5 to 13”, recites in claim 7 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of operating at a pH of 6.5 to 13 as claim 7. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of “the catalyst is configured to operate at a temperature of up to 75 0C” recites in claim 8 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of operating at a temperature up to 75 0C as claim 8. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of “the catalyst is configured to retains its catalytic activity for at least 1 year, at least 5 years, at least 10 years, at least 20 years” recites in claim 9 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of configuring its it catalytic activity for 1 year, at least 5 years, at least 10 years, at least 20 years as claim 9. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 10-11, as discussed above, the limitations of “incorporated with concrete” as recites in claim 10 and “applied to concrete” recites in claim 11 are interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of performing incorporated with and applied to concrete as per applicant claims 10-11. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, the limitations of “incorporated in a calcium solution” as recites in claim 12 is interpreted as intended use.
Per MPEP 2111, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Since Park et al. teach the same non-naturally catalyst as the instant claim, the zinc TPA catalyst would expect to be capable of performing incorporated in a calcium solution as per applicant claim 12. Therefore it meets the claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738