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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of 16, 17, 19 under 35 U.S.C 112(b). The amendments to claims 16 and 17 have been considered. The applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Remarks, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to Claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of 12/15/2025 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of 16, 17, 19 under 35 U.S.C 101. The amendments to claims 16 and 17 have been considered. The applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of Remarks, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to Claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of 12/15/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1-3 and 11-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive Applicant alleges Kang does not disclose or suggest an impregnated nanostructured hierarchical zeolitic material wherein each zeolite nanotube comprises a zeolitic wall perforated by a plurality of pores, the zeolitic wall defining a single longitudinal lumen (Remarks of 03/13/2026 at . However this is an allegation presented without proof, and attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence. See MPEP 716.01(c). Contrary to applicant's assertion, Kang teaches pore size distributions and micropore surface areas of their nanotubes (Kang 3, interior surface properties).
The rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
(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) 1-3, 11-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (“Direct synthesis of single-walled aminoaluminosilicate nanotubes with enhanced molecular adsorption selectivity,” 2007).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “an impregnated nanostructured hierarchical zeolitic material.” Kang teaches internal functionalization (impregnation) of aminoaluminosilicate (zeolite) to make a single-walled nanotube (Kang, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “material comprising a plurality of zeolite nanotubes.” Kang teaches synthesis of single-walled aminoaluminosilicate (a zeolite) nanotubes with pores (Kang, Title) (Kang, Fig 3).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein each zeolite nanotube comprises a zeolitic wall perforated by a plurality of pores and the zeolitic wall defining a single longitudinal lumen.” Kang teaches synthesis of single-walled Aminoaluminosilicate comprising pores (zeolite) nanotubes (Kang, Title) (Kang, Fig 3).
Claim 1 further requires “wherein at least a portion of the plurality of zeolite nanotubes are impregnated with an amine.” Kang teaches the amine moiety grafted only on the interior surface of ANT (amine nanotubes) (Kang 5, amine moiety).
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches Si-CH2NH2 (Kang 2, Si-CH2NH2).
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches use of aminomethyltriethoxysilane, which is an amino acid compound (Kang 7, Methods, Synthesis of aminomethyltriethoxysilane).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kang teaches amine-functionalized aluminosilicate
nanotubes with contents of up to 15% (Kang 2, Table 8).
Regarding claim 13, Kang teaches aluminosilicate as an adsorbent material (Kang, table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kang teaches a similar zeolite structure, an MFI zeolite structure, or a combination thereof (Kang 2, fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kang teaches a pore size distribution in figure 3c where the majority of pores have diameters less 2 nm and greater than 0.6 nm therefore the average pore would fall between these values and meet the claim limitation requiring the plurality of pores have an average diameter of 0.2 to 2 nm (Kang 4, Fig 3c).
Regarding claim 17, Kang teaches contacting the nanotubes with a gas containing carbon dioxide, see page 6 under gas adsorption. Kang is silent on the amount of CO2 or the rate of CO2 capture. However, the method of Kang uses the same zeolitic nanotube to capture the same gas as claimed and thus would be expected to have same properties as those required by the claim.
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) 7, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (“ Direct synthesis of single-walled aminoaluminosilicate nanotubes with enhanced molecular adsorption selectivity,” 2007), as applied to claims 1-3 and 11-14 above and further in view of Startori (“Sterically Hindered Amines for CO2 Removal from Gases”, 1983)
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 has been discussed above.
Claim 7 further requires “wherein the amine is sterically hindered.” Kang does not explicitly teach wherein the amine is sterically hindered. However, Startori teaches sterically hindered amines (Startori 243, table 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Kang, sterically hindered amines as Startori teaches sterically hindered amines are the dominant factor in giving high thermodynamic capacity and fast absorption rates at high C02 loading (Startori, abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Kang does not explicitly teach using the material as an adsorbent, in a chemical separation, or a combination thereof, the method comprising contacting the material with a fluid stream to separate a component from the fluid stream. However, Startori teaches CO2 removal from gases by absorption in aqueous amine solutions (Startori, abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Kang does not explicitly teach contacting the material with a fluid stream to separate a component from the fluid stream, wherein the fluid stream is selected from the group consisting of air, natural gas, byproducts of a chemical reaction, and post-combustion flue gas. However, However, Startori teaches CO2 gas absorption in aqueous amino alcohols (Startori 246, Fig 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Kang, teach contacting the material with a fluid stream to separate a component from the fluid stream, wherein the fluid stream is selected from the group consisting of air, natural gas, byproducts of a chemical reaction, and post-combustion flue gas as Startori teaches aqueous absorption of CO2 is considered a conventional process (Startori 246, Absorption Rates).
Regarding claim 20, Kang does not explicitly teach “wherein the component separated from the fluid stream comprises CO2.” However, Startori teaches Rates of CO2 gas absorption in aqueous amino alcohols (Startori 246, Fig 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Kang, wherein the component separated from the fluid stream comprises CO2 as Startori teaches aqueous absorption of CO2 is considered a conventional process (Startori 246, Absorption Rates).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (“Direct synthesis of single-walled aminoaluminosilicate nanotubes with enhanced molecular adsorption selectivity,” 2007), as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, 16 and 19-20 above and further in view of Jadhav (“Monoethanol Amine Modified Zeolite 13X for CO2 Adsorption at Different Temperatures”, 2007)
Regarding claims 8-10, claim 1 has been discussed above.
Claims 8-10 further require “an amine comprising an aminopolymer; wherein the amine comprises poly(allylanine) (PAA), poly(glycidyl amine) (PGA), poly(propyleneimine) (PPI), poly(ethyleneimine) (P1I), derivatives thereof, or combinations thereof; and wherein the amine comprises poly(ethyleneimine).” Kang does not explicitly teach an amine comprising an aminopolymer with the amines listed above. However, Jadhav teaches a reference using aminopolymer called polyethyleneimine as an amine (Jadhav, 1. Introduction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Kang, polyethyleneimine (PEI) as an aminopolymer as Jadhav teaches these type of amine-treated adsorbents been successfully used for CO2 adsorption from moist gas at low and moderate temperatures (Jadhav, 1. Introduction).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (“Direct synthesis of single-walled aminoaluminosilicate nanotubes with enhanced molecular adsorption selectivity,” 2007) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-14 and 19-20 above, as evidenced by Chong (“Applicability of Adsorbents in Direct Air Capture (DAC): Recent Progress and Future Perspectives”, 2025).
With respect to claim 18, , the Specification states “direct air capture refers to the removal of CO2 from ambient air.” (Paragraph [0219] of PGPUB). This is interpreted as a definition. Thus, while Claim 17 is a non-statutory use claim (reciting no steps involved in the actual method), Claim 18 adds a step with the broadly defined “removal of CO2 from ambient air” language. Kang teaches the nanotubes are suitable for CO2 adsorption, but does not explicitly teach direct air capture. (Kang at 6, col. 2 – Gas adsorption). Chong teaches the use of various adsorbents in direct air capture. (Chong at 4120 – 3. Performance Analysis of Adsorbents in DAC). The combination reflects substitution of a known component (adsorbents of Kang) consistent with its known uses (absorption of CO2) into a known process (direct air capture, per Chong) to achieve predictable results (absorption of CO2). This does not impart pattentabilty. MPEP 2143; KSR. As Kang teaches the material of Claim 1, it is expected that the properties of Claim 17 are necessarily present. This is the rationale to show inherency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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: Kang (“ Direct synthesis of single-walled aminoaluminosilicate nanotubes with enhanced molecular adsorption selectivity,” 2007), Startori (“Sterically Hindered Amines for CO2 Removal from Gases”, 1983) and Chong (“Applicability of Adsorbents in Direct Air Capture (DAC): Recent Progress and Future Perspectives”, 2025), Jadhav (“Monoethanol Amine Modified Zeolite 13X for CO2 Adsorption at Different Temperatures”, 2007) considered closest prior art to the claims.
Regarding claim 4, Kang teaches the material of claim 1, as discussed above. However, Kang nor other cited prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the amine comprises aliphatic-aryl amine of Formula I: wherein R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are each independently H or a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 aliphatic amine.
Claims 5-6 contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 4, which
contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights