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/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claims 1-12 , drawn to a sorbent . Group II , claims 13-15 , drawn to a system comprising a sorbent . Group III, claims 16-17 , drawn to a gas capture method. Group IV, claims 18-20 , drawn to a use of a sorbent. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: the Groups lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of the G roups require the common technical feature s of claim 1’s sorbent , th e s e common technical features do not make for a special technical feature as t hey do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Asprion et al., US 7,004,997 (2006) (“ Asprion ”). Asprion discloses an aq. liquid sorbent composition for sorbing H 2 S or CO 2 , particularly preferably containing at least 30 wt % and at most 70 wt % total amine content, of which particularly preferably at least 15 wt % and at most 40 wt % is piperazine (“PZ”, the 1 st amine compound as claimed) whereas the remainder of the amine content is methyldiethanolamine (“MDEA”, the 2 nd amine compound as claimed); a specific aq. composition is disclosed comprising 20 wt % PZ and 40 wt % MDEA. See Asprion at, e.g. , col. 3, ln. 36-41 and 60-63, and col. 4, ln. 4-7 and 24-34; Ex. 1 (60 wt % total aq. amine content, 20 wt % PZ, remainder MDEA). The requisite unity of invention is thus lacking a posteriori . During a 12/16/25 phone conversation with Michael Wasco, Esq., a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 are thus withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner per 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17( i ). This Restriction Requirement (“R/R”) is between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the R/R between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability per 37 CFR 1.104. To be allowable, rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability, including those of 35 U.S.C. 101-103 & 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper R/R between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Also, for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that 35 U.S.C. 121’s prohibition against double patenting rejections does not apply where the R/R is withdrawn by the examiner before the/any patent issues. See MPEP 804.01. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Fig. 3’s abbreviated component labels ( e.g. V104, HV34, etc.) are not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation Claim 1’s recitation “suitable for use… bed gas capture system” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao , 535 F.2d 67 (CCPA 1976); Kropa v. Robie , 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951). See also MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Kropa v. Robie , Rowe v. Dror , 112, F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”) , and Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (similar statement). Intended-use language within the body of a claim likewise raises a question/doubt as to the limiting effect thereof. See MPEP 2103 I. C . Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article’s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987); MPEP 2111.02 II, citing Rowe v. Dror , 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (stating that “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”) . See also In re Zierden , 411 F.2d 1325, 1328 (CCPA 1969) (stating that “a mere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable”). Thus, i f the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ( citing, inter alia, In re Zierden ) . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 4-12 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. A broad range / limitation together with a narrow range / limitation fall ing within the broad range / limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. MPEP 2173.05(c). H ere, claims 4-12 recite broad recitations, i.e. the initial lists of components, concentrations, etc., and then also recite preferred, more preferred, most preferred, etc. lists/values, i.e. the narrower statement of the ranges/limitations. Claims 4-12 are rejected for indefinite ness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2 nd par. as there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature s introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and th us not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. While interpretation (a) has been applied per the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (MPEP 2111.03), these rejections require addressing. 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- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1 ) as being anticipated by Asprion et al., US 7,004,997 (2006) (“ Asprion ”). Regarding claim s 1 , 4-8, and 10-11 , Asprion discloses an aq. liquid sorbent composition for sorbing H 2 S or CO 2 , particularly preferably containing at least 30 wt % and at most 70 wt % total amine content, of which particularly preferably at least 15 wt % and at most 40 wt % is piperazine (“PZ”, the 1 st amine compound as claimed) whereas the remainder of the amine content is methyldiethanolamine (“MDEA”, the 2 nd amine compound as claimed) ; a specific aq. composition is disclosed comprising 20 wt % PZ and 40 wt % MDEA (i.e. 1:2 ratio by wt.%) . See Asprion at, e.g. , col. 3, ln. 36-41 and 60-63, and col. 4, ln. 4-7 and 24-34; Ex. 1 (60 wt % total aq. amine content, 20 wt % PZ, remainder MDEA). Asprion’s disclosure that “the solubility of [PZ] in aqueous solution is low” ( see id. at, e.g. , col. 2, ln. 2-3), coupled with its silence as to MDEA (not to mention MDEA’s two hydroxyl groups promoting the solubility thereof in water, as ‘like dissolves like’), is considered to meet the claim ed comparative solubility limitation. MPEP 2112 (use of reasonable inferences drawn from prior art disclosures may properly be used in anticipation rejections). As to the claimed comparative reaction rate limitation, Asprion’s cited composition is reasonably regarded as meeting/possessing such a property , especially given Asprion’s anticipation of claims 10-11, which depend from claim 1 and thus require all of its limitations. MPEP 2112 I-II. Regarding claim s 2 -3 , given Asprion’s aforementioned disclosure as to PZ’s low aq. solubility, and the fact that Asprion’s overall aq. liquid sorbent composition is in solution phase rather than suspension phase, claim 2’s comparative solubility property limitation is reasonably expected to be met/present, i.e. the presence of MDEA assists in solubilizing the PZ in the aq. solvent ( e.g. via MDEA’s also comprising lone-pair-bearing heteroatoms as PZ does, etc.; ‘like dissolves like’); PZ and MDEA are thus also reasonably expected to meet claim 3’s solubility limitation(s) for the same reasons . MPEP 2112 , MPEP 2112 I-II . Regarding claim 9 , as detailed above vis-à-vis claim 1 (from which claim 9 depends), Asprion’s cited composition is reasonably regarded as meeting/possessing such a comparative reaction rate property when measured at the claimed T values, especially given Asprion’s anticipation of employing PZ (claim 10’s “most prefer[red]” 1 st amine) and MDEA (one of claim 11’s two “more prefer[red]” 2 nd amines), which depend from claim 1 and thus require all of its limitations. MPEP 2112 I-II. Regarding claim 12 , Asprion employs its aq. liquid sorbent composition at a 40-100 o C operating T and does not disclose any phase separation and/or amine decomposition. See Asprion at, e.g. , col. 4, ln. 53-56. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9161 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anthony Zimmer can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3591 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /DANIEL BERNS/ December 18, 2025 Primary Examiner Art Unit 1736