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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-22 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-13 were elected without traverse in the response dated 28 January 2026. As such claims 14-22 are withdrawn by the Examiner as they are non-elected. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line “a formic acid-amine adduct” should read --the formic acid-amine adduct--. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE10202012112060 to Pazicky et al. (hereinafter, “Pazicky at __”; cited and provided by Applicants with citations to the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Pazicky discloses a method for preparing calcium formate (Pazickky at [0007]) comprising:
Preparing a formic acid-amine adduct via a hydrogen reaction involving carbon dioxide ([0009]);
Forming calcium formate by reacting the formic acid-amine adduct and a calcium compound (calcium hydroxide, [0012]) to produce calcium formate and an amine ([0102]); and
A separation step of separating the prepared calcium formate ([0131]).
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 2 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacizky as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of KR 20200057644 to Jung et al. (hereinafter, “Jung at __”; cited and provided by Applicants with citations made to the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Pacizky discloses a hydrogenation reaction between carbon dioxide and an amine, but does not expressly state that ammonium bicarbonate is reacted with the carbon dioxide, amine, and water and then hydrogenation of the ammonium bicarbonate in the presence of a catalyst to form the formic acid-amine adduct occurs.
Jung in a method of forming a formic acid—amine adduct (Jung at 1) discloses production of ammonium bicarbonate by reacting carbon dioxide, a tertiary amine, and water (as the amine can be in aqueous solution, Jung at “1) Carbonation Step”); and
A hydrogenation step of reacting the ammonium bicarbonate with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst to form a formic acid-amine adduct (Jung at “2) Hydrogenation” and “Example of catalyst activity experiment⟩”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Pacizky in view of the carbonation of ammonium bicarbonate of Jung. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being enabling the recycling of products (Jung at “4) Formic acid separation step”).
As to claims 6 and 7, triethylamine can be utilized (Jung at “Example of catalyst activity experiment”).
Turning to claims 8-10, the catalyst is iridium or ruthenium and is supposed on a porous carrier of a COF containing nitrogen (Jung at 4).
With respect to claim 11, during the carbonation step the CO2 is supplied to an absorption tower containing the amine (Jung at 6 & “1) Carbonation step”).
As to claim 12, recycling is enabled by the combination of references and Jung discloses that the materials produced can be discharged and as such this would cover everything from the combination of references (Jung at 5).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacizky in view of CN104722189 to Xu (citations to the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Pacizky does not expressly state the source of the calcium.
Xu in a method of forming calcium formate from a calcium source and formic acid discloses that the source can be lime (Xu at “Example 2” from an industrial process meeting “waste lime”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Pacizky in view of the lime as the calcium source of Xu. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being usage in a regenerative cyclic desulfurization process (Xu at 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
As to claim 5, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses adding to a formic acid-amine adduct calcium oxide and calcium sulfate to produce calcium formate, calcium sulfate, and an amine compound. Pazicky is the closest piece of prior art and it does not add calcium sulfate at all.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected. Claim 5 is objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights