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 .
Finality
Upon reconsideration of the reply filed on 02/18/2026, the following action is set forth. In light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, the following action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khalit et al. (Development of bimetallic nickel-based catalysts supported on activated carbon for green fuel production, RCS Advances, 2020), hereinafter ‘Khalit’.
Regarding Claim 1, Khalit discloses A composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration comprising:
a porous carrier; a metal material supported on a surface or inside of the porous carrier; and an acid site that donates a proton (H+) to decompose a carbamate derived from an amine-based carbon dioxide absorbent, wherein the metal material is a metal element, a metal oxide, or a combination of the metal element and the metal oxide, and wherein the porous carrier comprises activated carbon (2.2 Synthesis of catalysts: activated carbon is impregnated with solutions of Ni and Fe salts; Table 2: the catalysts have measured acidic sites, which would be capable of donating a proton to decompose a carbamate derived from an amine-based carbon dioxide absorbent).
Regarding Claim 2, Khalit discloses the metal material is elements or oxides of one or more metals selected from a transition metal group consisting of Fe, Ni and Mo or a combination of the elements and the oxides (as discussed above, Khalit discloses the metal contains Fe and Ni).
Regarding Claim 3, Khalit discloses a BET surface area of the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration is 400 to 600 m2/g (Table 2: NiFe/AC surface area is 441 m2/g).
Regarding Claim 4, Khalit discloses a pore volume of the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration is less than 0.7 cm3/g (Table 2: NiFe/AC pore volume is .4 cm3/g).
Regarding Claim 5, Khalit discloses a metal content in the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration is 5 to 12 wt % (Table 3: the NiFe/AC sample contains 7.0 wt% Ni and 6.1 wt% Fe, which individually meet the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 6, Khalit discloses an acidity (total acid sites; TAS) of the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration is 2.5 to 6.5 mmol/g (Table 2: the TAS of the NiFe/AC sample is 5981μmol g−1, or 5.981 mmol/g).
Regarding Claim 8, Khalit discloses a carbon dioxide desorption capacity of the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration expressed by the claimed Formula 1 is 1500 to 3000 mmol·m2/g2 (as discussed above, for the NiFe/AC sample, the BET surface area is 441 and the TAS is 5.981 mmol/g. Therefore, the value of formula 1 for this sample is 2,637.6 mmol·m2/g2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 7, which requires in a NH3-temperature programming desorption acidity curve of the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration, a peak intensity of a strong acid site assigned to a temperature range of more than 400° C. is larger than a peak intensity of a pure porous carrier by 1.3 to 4 times. Khalit discloses a NH3-temperature programming desorption acidity curve of the disclosed catalyst (Fig. 3), but it does not include data for a pure porous carrier, such that it is not possible to compare the two.
Further, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 9, which requires an amount of carbon dioxide desorbed by the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration is 69 to 73 mmol. Khalit discloses an amount of CO2 adsorbed, but not desorbed, and there is not a reasonable basis to conclude the desorption amount would be within the claimed range.
Further, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 10, which requires a heat duty of the composite catalyst for carbon dioxide absorbent regeneration is 77% to 83% of a heat duty in a desorption reaction not involving the catalyst. Khalit is silent regarding the heat duty for carbon dioxide adsorbent regeneration in comparison to the reaction not involving the catalyst.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
