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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 3, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 30th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12-16, 19-21, and 31 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 23rd, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed January 30th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 5, 12-16, 19, 26, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0039047 A1 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kimura) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kimura, and further in view of Nigar, H. et al. Amine-Functionalized Mesoporous Silica: A Material Capable of CO2 Adsorption and Fast Regeneration by Microwave Heating, AIChE Journal, Vol. 62 (November 2015), pp. 547-555 (hereinafter referred to as Nigar).
It should be noted that Applicant has argued that claim 1 as amended would not be obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Kimura, and further in view of Nigar, as Nigar “teaches away from using microwave heating on the non-grafted amine sorbents taught in Kimura” (See Pg. 7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed January 30th, 2026). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts that Nigar teaches that grafted amines are suitable for microwave-based regeneration while impregnated amines, such as those taught by Kimura, are “prone to leaching and capacity loss and thus unsuitable for microwave swing adsorption” (See Pg. 7 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed January 30th, 2026). However, Applicant relies on teachings that are not present in the Nigar reference. Specifically, Applicant cites evidence from pages 11 and 14-15 of Nigar, which do not exist, as the reference is only 9 pages in its entirety. Furthermore, Nigar makes no reference to impregnated amines, amine leaching, or the differences between grafted versus impregnated amines. For these reasons, the Examiner believes that the Nigar reference does not teach away from using microwave heating on amine sorbents as taught by Kimura and may still be relied upon in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, “between an ethylamine carbonate and dimethyl carbonate” should read “between an ethylamine
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.
Claims 1, 5, 13-16, 19, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0039047 A1 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter referred to as Kimura), and further in view of Nigar, H. et al. Amine-Functionalized Mesoporous Silica: A Material Capable of CO2 Adsorption and Fast Regeneration by Microwave Heating, AIChE Journal, Vol. 62 (November 2015), pp. 547-555 (hereinafter referred to as Nigar), as evidenced by Tundo, P. et al. Synthesis of Carbamates from Amines and Dialkyl Carbonates: Influence of Leaving and Entering Groups, Synlette, Vol. 10 (2010), pp. 1567-1571 (hereinafter referred to as Tundo).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a cabin filter system (¶0094 “Other systems that utilize the sorbents described herein include air purification systems in residential and commercial buildings, automobile cabin air HVAC systems”), comprising: a sorbent material configured to remove gas and water from a cabin (Abstract “Disclosed in certain embodiments are carbon dioxide and VOC sorbents” ; ¶0016 “In one embodiment, the porous support comprises one or more of … silica” ; ¶0096 “Although the sorbents are often referred to throughout this application as “CO2 sorbents”, it is to be understood that such sorbents may be capable of adsorbing other compounds as well” ; silica is capable of removing both gas (CO2) and water), wherein the sorbent material comprises about 35 wt% to about 55 wt% of an amine component and about 45 wt% to about 65 wt% of a silica component (¶0121 “In certain embodiments, after drying, a weight percent of one or more amine compounds impregnated onto the porous support ranges from 20% and 60% of a total weight of the sorbent, from 30% to 50% of the total weight of the sorbent, or from 38% to 45% of the total weight of the sorbent.”); and at least one heater configured to transmit energy directly to the sorbent material (¶0100 “The CO2 scrubber may apply heat (e.g., using a heating element) to the CO2 sorbent to promote desorption of the adsorbed CO2”). It should be noted that although Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the sorbent material is configured to remove both gas (CO2) and water, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP § 2112.01(I). Kimura does not teach wherein the one heater comprises a microwave resonator configured to transmit microwave energy directly to the sorbent material.
However, Nigar teaches that amine-functionalized materials resulted in the fastest microwave heating, significantly accelerating the adsorbent regeneration (Abstract “In particular, functionalization with a tri-amino silane derivative gave the highest CO2 adsorption and the fastest microwave heating, resulting in a fourfold acceleration of adsorbent regeneration.”). Nigar further teaches that the use of microwave irradiation for desorption is a highly efficient process (Introduction, Pg. 547 “In the last two decades, microwave irradiation has emerged as a highly effective way to supply energy”) and that microwaves have the advantage of a direct transfer of energy (Introduction, Pg. 547-548 “The main advantage of MWSA relates to the fact that, unlike conventional heating where solids heat through conduction and convection, microwaves are able to provide energy to susceptible materials in a direct manner”).
Kimura and Nigar are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorption and sorbent regeneration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the cabin filter system as taught by Kimura could be regenerated using microwave irradiation as taught by Nigar, resulting in an accelerated regeneration step and an increase in efficiency of the system. Furthermore, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the sorbent material comprises a plurality of units, and wherein the plurality of units comprise at least one of powder, beads, extrudates, tablets, pellets, agglomerates, granules, shaped bodies, compressed shapes and combinations thereof (¶0128 “a sorbent is formed by producing a granule from the powder impregnated with the second amine compound.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein a first amine compound is reacted with a carbonate ester to form a second amine compound, and wherein the second amine compound is impregnated onto a porous support to produce the sorbent (¶0005 “In one aspect of the present disclosure, a method of preparing a sorbent comprises preparing a reaction solution comprising a first amine compound and a reactant, wherein the reactant comprises a carbonate ester compound or a ketone compound, and wherein the first amine compound reacts with the reactant to produce a second amine compound; and impregnating the second amine compound onto a porous support to produce the sorbent.”). More specifically, Kimura teaches that the carbonate ester compound may comprise an alkyl carbonate (¶0010 “In one embodiment, the carbonate ester compound comprises an alkyl carbonate. The method of claim 11, wherein the alkyl carbonate comprises one or more of dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate.”). As evidenced by Tundo, a reaction between an amine and a dialkyl carbonate will produce a carbamate (Abstract “A number of carbamates were synthesized through a halogen-free process by reacting amines with symmetrical and unsymmetrical carbonates.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in certain embodiments as taught by Kimura, the second amine compound which is impregnated onto a porous support to produce the sorbent would be a carbamate when the initial reaction occurs between a first amine compound and a reactant such as an alkyl carbonate.
Regarding claim 14, Kimura and Nigar, as evidenced by Tundo, teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 13 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the carbamates comprise the product of a reaction between an ethylamine and dimethyl carbonate (¶0008 “In one embodiment, the first amine compound comprises … alkylamines” ethylamine is an alkylamine ; ¶0010 “In one embodiment, the carbonate ester compound comprises an alkyl carbonate. The method of claim 11, wherein the alkyl carbonate comprises one or more of dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate.”).
Regarding claim 15, Kimura and Nigar, as evidenced by Tundo, teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 13 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the high surface area substrates comprise a pore volume of greater than about 0.8 cc/g (¶0140 “A BJH average pore volume of the silica powder ranged from 0.8 cc/g to 1.2 cc/g.”).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura and Nigar, as evidenced by Tundo, teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 13 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the high surface area substrates comprise a mean pore diameter of greater than about 100 Å (¶0133 “In certain embodiments, the resulting sorbents formed according to any of methods 300, 400, or 500 were formed having … a BET average pore radius from 100 angstroms to 300 angstroms.”).
Regarding claim 19, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the sorbent material comprises about 40 wt% to about 50 wt% of the amine component and about 50 wt% to about 60 wt% of the silica component (¶0121 “In certain embodiments, after drying, a weight percent of one or more amine compounds impregnated onto the porous support ranges from 20% and 60% of a total weight of the sorbent, from 30% to 50% of the total weight of the sorbent, or from 38% to 45% of the total weight of the sorbent.”).
Regarding claim 31, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura further teaches wherein the cabin is in a vehicle, an electric automobile, a truck, a van, a plane, a helicopter, a train or a spacecraft (¶0094 “Other systems that utilize the sorbents described herein include air purification systems in residential and commercial buildings, automobile cabin air HVAC systems”).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Nigar, and further in view of International Patent Publication No. WO 2018/156020 A1 to Smith et al. (hereinafter referred to as Smith).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura and Nigar do not teach wherein the sorbent material comprises an alumino-silicate material, optionally an alumino-silicate gel.
However, Smith teaches a cabin filter system for the removal of carbon dioxide (Pg. 3, lines 6-7 “The present invention relates to a process and apparatus for separating carbon dioxide from air in a confined space such as a passenger cabin of a vehicle”) with the use of an amine-functionalized sorbent (Pg. 3, lines 10-11 “using an amine-containing particulate material which can be processed to selectively adsorb and subsequently desorb the CO2.”), wherein the sorbent material comprises an alumino-silicate material, optionally an alumino-silicate gel (Pg. 7, lines 7-8 “Suitable sorbents include zeolites, ceramic based materials, such as alumina, silica, and silica alumina, titanium dioxide, silica gel”).
Kimura, Nigar, and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorbent systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabin filter system as taught by Kimura and Nigar to include the alumino-silicate material as taught by Smith. Such a substitution of materials would result in a predictable result (successful capture of carbon dioxide); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 1 above. Kimura and Nigar do not teach wherein the sorbent material further comprises at least one of alumina or a metal organic framework.
However, Smith teaches a cabin filter system for the removal of carbon dioxide (Pg. 3, lines 6-7 “The present invention relates to a process and apparatus for separating carbon dioxide from air in a confined space such as a passenger cabin of a vehicle”) with the use of an amine-functionalized sorbent (Pg. 3, lines 10-11 “using an amine-containing particulate material which can be processed to selectively adsorb and subsequently desorb the CO2.”), wherein the sorbent material comprises an alumino-silicate material, optionally an alumino-silicate gel (Pg. 7, lines 7-8 “Suitable sorbents include zeolites, ceramic based materials, such as alumina, silica, and silica alumina, titanium dioxide, silica gel”).
Kimura, Nigar, and Smith are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorbent systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabin filter system as taught by Kimura and Nigar to include the alumino-silicate material as taught by Smith. Such a substitution of materials would result in a predictable result (successful capture of carbon dioxide); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura and Nigar, and further in view of Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20180117023 A to Hong et al. (hereinafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding claim 20, Kimura and Nigar teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 19 above. Kimura and Nigar do not teach wherein the gas sorbent material comprises one or more binders.
However, Hong teaches an amine-grafted metal-organic framework used for carbon dioxide adsorption (Abstract “The present invention relates to an amine-functionalized metal- organic framework-based carbon dioxide adsorbent”), wherein the gas sorbent material comprises one or more binders (Technical Field, Pg. 1 “The present invention relates to an amine-functionalized MOF-based carbon dioxide adsorbent comprising a binder”). Hong further teaches that the mechanical strength of the sorbent can be improved with the use of a binder, which allows for the adsorption capability of the sorbent to be maintained through multiple reuses (Pg. 3 “As a result of the improvement of the mechanical strength of the porous metal- organic skeleton through the introduction of the binder, the carbon dioxide adsorbing ability can be maintained even when reused.”)
Kimura, Nigar, and Hong are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gas adsorption and regenerating sorbent materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cabin filter system as taught by Kimura and Nigar to include the carbon dioxide adsorbent with a binder as taught by Hong so that the mechanical strength and subsequent adsorption capabilities of the sorbent is maintained throughout multiple uses of the sorbent.
Regarding claim 21, Kimura, Nigar, and Hong teach the cabin filter system as applied to claim 20 above. Hong further teaches wherein the one or more binders comprise at least one of an organic binder, a styrene acrylic polymer, an inorganic binder, or sodium silicate (Pg. 2 “The binder may be selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, hydrotalcite, sucrose, cellulose, fumed silica, silica sol and alumina sol.”; aluminum oxide and hydrotalcite are inorganic binders and sucrose and cellulose are organic binders).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776