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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/6/2026.
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 8-15 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim in two instances uses the exemplary language “such as” which renders the claim and dependent claims 13-14 indefinite as to whether the limitations following “such as” are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the claim uses the exemplary language “preferably” which renders the claim and dependent claims 13-14 indefinite as to whether the limitations following “preferably” are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the claim in two instances uses the exemplary language “such as” which renders the claim and dependent claims 10-13 indefinite as to whether the limitations following “such as” are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the claim uses the exemplary language “preferably” which renders the claim and dependent claims 10-12 indefinite as to whether the limitations following “preferably” are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the claim uses the exemplary language “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite as to whether the limitations following “preferably” are required. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Michels et al., “Intercalation and Retention of Carbon Dioxide in Smectite Clay promoted by Interlayer Cations”, Scientific Reports, 5 : 8775 (2015) (hereafter Michels 2015) in view of
Michels et al., “EXAFS and XRD studies in synthetic Ni-Fluorohectorite” Applied Clay Science 96 (2014) 60-66 (hereafter Michels 2014) with reference to Løvoll et al., “Dynamics of water intercalation fronts in a nano-layered synthetic silicate: A synchrotron X-ray scatter study,” Physica B: Condensed Matter Vol. 370, Is. 1-4, 15 December 2005, pg. 90-98.
Regarding claims 8, 13, and 15, Michels 2015 teaches contacting a bed of a fluorohectorite containing Na, Li, or with a gas mixture comprising carbon dioxide under pressure. See the Methods Section on page 7 of Michels 2015.
Michels 2015 does not teach preparing the nickel-fluorohectorite corresponding to claimed steps (i) and (ii). However, the preparation steps (i) and (ii) are known in the art from Michels 2014. Michels 2014 teaches a three month dialysis procedure adopted from Løvoll et al. at a pH of 9.5 and dried. The process includes using an aqueous solution with at least a 10-fold excess of the interlayer charge. See Michels 2014 at Section 2.1 with reference to Section 2. of Løvoll. The process is an aqueous process using a metal (in this case nickel) salt that forms a hydroxide. See the beginning sentence of Section 4 of Michels 2014 which discloses nickel hydroxide is formed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the process of Michels 2014 to the process of Michels 2015 in order to produce the Ni-fluorohectorite necessary for the process of Michels 2015.
Regarding claims 9-10, Michels 2015 teaches removing the clay minerals from the CO2 gas stream by releasing the CO2 pressure. The bed is then heated to release CO2. See the section titled “CO2 retention under ambient conditions on page 5.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Michels et al., “Intercalation and Retention of Carbon Dioxide in Smectite Clay promoted by Interlayer Cations”, Scientific Reports, 5 : 8775 (2015) (hereafter Michels 2015) in view of
Michels et al., “EXAFS and XRD studies in synthetic Ni-Fluorohectorite” Applied Clay Science 96 (2014) 60-66 (hereafter Michels 2014) with reference to Løvoll et al., “Dynamics of water intercalation fronts in a nano-layered synthetic silicate: A synchrotron X-ray scatter study,” Physica B: Condensed Matter Vol. 370, Is. 1-4, 15 December 2005, pg. 90-98, as applied to claims 8-10, 13, and 15 above, further in view of
Mitariten et al., US2014/0357925.
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, Michels 2015 and Michels 2014 do not teach redirecting said gas stream to contact a second bed of powder from step (ii). However, temperature and pressure swing absorption processes are known in the art. Mitariten teaches a process for adsorbing carbon dioxide from a natural gas stream (containing methane) with an adsorbent which can be an activated clay using thermal swing adsorption which uses two beds of sorbent and alternately regenerates them during use, switching the feed to contact one bed while the other is regenerated. See [0016]-[0018] of Mitariten. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ni-fluorohectorite of Michels 2015 in the process of Mitariten since Mitariten suggests using clays and in order to remove CO2 as desired by Mitariten. See [0014] and [0019].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chouikhi et al., Minerals 2019, is cited as it discusses using metal modified clays to adsorb carbon dioxide from mixtures with methane. See Section 3.1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J ZIMMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM - 6 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
ANTHONY J. ZIMMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights