DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: instances that read CO2 when describing carbon dioxide should be changed to CO2 (subscript the 2). Similarly, H2O should be changed to H2O. The Examiner finds “CO2” recited in paragraphs [0050], [0064], [0065], [0067], [0070], [0071], [0075], [0084, [0085], [0093], and [0095] of the published specification. The Examiner finds “H2O” recited in paragraphs [0047] and [0050] of the published specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 14, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “CO2” should be changed to CO2 (subscript the 2). Also, “H2O” should be changed to H2O.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Applicants define “BAC” or beta-amino carboxylate composition as a compound having an amino group and beta-carboxyl group, where the beta carboxyl group is part of an ester or amide moiety (paragraph [0048] of the published specification), further meaning to include β-amino esters and/or β-amino amides made by Michael addition to acrylates, methacrylates, crotonates ([0075]).
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 2-12 and 14-17 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 2, the phrase “(or at least twice as high a percentage, or at least 5 times as high)” is indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or 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. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a higher percentage…of the CO2 than H2O”, and the claim also recites “or at least twice as high” and “or at least 5 times as high” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claims 8-10, and 14-16, the claims are indefinite for reciting a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim). This is indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For the following recitations in claims 8-10 and 14-16, there is a case of indefiniteness because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 8, the phrase “less than 5% or less than 3% or less than 1% water by weight” is indefinite.
In claim 9, the phrase “less than 5% or less than 3% or less than 1% water by volume” is indefinite.
In claim 10, the phrase “at least 50 wt% or at least 75 wt% or at least 90 wt% or at least 99 wt% of a beta-amino carboxylate” is indefinite.
In claim 14, the phrase “at least 1 mol% CO2 or at least 2 mol% CO2 or at least 5, or at least 10, or at least 20, or at least 50 mol% CO2” is indefinite.
In claim 15, the phrase “at least 5 mol% H2O, or at least 10 mol% H2O” is indefinite.
In claim 16, the phrase “comprises 10 mol% H2O or less, or 5 mol% H2O or less, or 1 mol% H2O or less” is indefinite.
With further regards to claim 15, the term “preferentially” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With further regards to claims 15 and 16, the “as much CO2 than H2O” is unclear whether the quantity basis is in mols, weight, or volume. Since each of the claims recites mols, it is taken that the comparison criteria also considers mols.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 2-12 and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art is Lozano et al. ES 2299373 (see attached English translation) who teaches an aqueous absorbent process for carbon capture using alkaline salts of cycloalkyl amino acids used in combination with alkali metal basis. Lozano however does not teach or suggest a combining a carbon dioxide containing fluid with at least 5 wt% of a beta amino carboxylate composition, wherein the beta amino carboxylate composition is a compound having an amino group and beta-carboxyl group, where the beta carboxyl group is part of an ester or amide moiety (paragraph [0048] of the published specification). Lozano is limited to amino acids and their alkaline salts, which contain free carboxylic acid or carboxylate salt groups. In contrast, the claimed invention requires beta-amino carboxylates incorporated into an ester or amide structure. (See page 5 of translation and Examples 1-5). Thus, the amino acids in Lozano are structurally distinct from the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772