DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 12-17 in the reply filed on 1/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “other materials” is vague, however it is not considered indefinite with the scope of the invention. It is understood to include supports such as MOFs and PPNs.
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.
Claim 14 and 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 claims 14 and 17, the phrase “monolith-type” is indefinite because it is unclear what variants can be included in “type.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. “Support Free porous polyamine particles for CO2 Capture.” ACS Macro Letters (2012), 1, 944-948 in view of Xu et al. “Microporous organic polymers as CO2 adsorbents: advances and challenges” Materials Today Advances 6 (2020) 100052.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches a system for carbon capture comprising a microporous organic polymer (MOP) (page 944, first column and abstract) where the polymer contains amine vinyl monomers in the backbone (page 944, second column and page 945 scheme 1).
Wang does not explicitly teach aerogels, but does teach a highly porous and high specific surface area MOP (page 947, last paragraph).
Xu teaches a system for carbon capture comprising a microporous organic polymer (MOP) (page 1, first column and abstract) in the form of aerogels (page 6, section 4) where the polymer incorporates amine to improve carbon capture (Table 1, page 4 last paragraph, page 6 second paragraph). Aerogels have been found to provide a sorbent structure with low density and high surface area which are desirable for efficient carbon capture. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use aerogel structures for the MOP sorbent.
Wang and Xu do not explicitly teach at least 5 wt% of amine containing vinyl monomers are integrated into the polymer backbone. However, Xu does teach that the incorporation of amine functionally into MOP frameworks enhance the adsorption of CO2 even at low pressures (page 4, second column second to third paragraphs). This demonstrates that the amount of amine incorporated into the MOP is a result effective variable affecting CO2 capture performance.
Wang further teaches that amine monomers in the backbone of porous polymers used for CO2 adsorption (page 945, scheme 1) provide a strong carbon capture capacity at ambient conditions (direct air capture, page 947 last paragraph). Wang found good capture capacity with 6.9 mmol/g of amines accessible to HCl (page 947 last paragraph). This indicates that there is high amine loading and high accessible amine loading in the polymer and that increasing the accessible amine sites is ideal for increasing carbon capture.
Since Wang teaches that increasing the accessible amine site density improves carbon capture efficiency and demonstrates high accessible amine loading (6.9 mmol/g), one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of amine incorporated into the polymer backbone is a result effective variable and would have optimized by routine experimentation. Accordingly in light of Xu and Wang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of amine-containing vinyl monomer incorporated into the polymer backbone by routine experimentation, at least 5 wt% amine monomers.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Xu teaches the MOP can be in the form of granules, fibers and monolith adsorbents (abstract, page 1, last paragraph, and page 6 section 4). The function of Xu is carbon dioxide adsorption; thus it is taken that the monolith would be a monolith sorber.
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches a system for carbon capture comprising a microporous organic polymer (MOP) (page 944, first column and abstract) where the polymer contains amine vinyl monomers in the backbone (page 944, second column and page 945 scheme 1).
Wang does not explicitly teach aerogels, but does teach a highly porous and high specific surface area MOP (page 947, last paragraph).
Xu teaches a system for carbon capture comprising a microporous organic polymer (MOP) (page 1, first column and abstract) in the form of aerogels (page 6, section 4) where the polymer incorporates amine to improve carbon capture (Table 1, page 4 last paragraph, page 6 second paragraph). Aerogels have been found to provide a sorbent structure with low density and high surface area which are desirable for efficient carbon capture. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use aerogel structures for the MOP sorbent.
Wang and Xu do not explicitly teach at least 5 wt% of amine containing vinyl monomers are integrated into the polymer backbone. However, Xu does teach that the incorporation of amine functionally into MOP frameworks enhance the adsorption of CO2 even at low pressures (page 4, second column second to third paragraphs). This demonstrates that the amount of amine incorporated into the MOP is a result effective variable affecting CO2 capture performance.
Wang further teaches that amine monomers in the backbone of porous polymers used for CO2 adsorption (page 945, scheme 1) provide a strong carbon capture capacity at ambient conditions (direct air capture, page 947 last paragraph). Wang found good capture capacity with 6.9 mmol/g of amines accessible to HCl (page 947 last paragraph). This indicates that there is high amine loading and high accessible amine loading in the polymer and that increasing the accessible amine sites is ideal for increasing carbon capture.
Since Wang teaches that increasing the accessible amine site density improves carbon capture efficiency and demonstrates high accessible amine loading (6.9 mmol/g), one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of amine incorporated into the polymer backbone is a result effective variable and would have optimized by routine experimentation. Accordingly in light of Xu and Wang, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of amine-containing vinyl monomer incorporated into the polymer backbone by routine experimentation, at least 5 wt% amine monomers.
Wang does not explicitly teach the molecular weight of the monomer being less than 100 g/mol. However, Wang does teach incorporating N-methyl-N-vinylformamide (MVF) into the polymer backbone, where MVF is known to have a molecular weight of about 71g/mol, thus less than 100 g/mol.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Xu teaches the MOP can be in the form of granules, fibers and monolith adsorbents (abstract, page 1, last paragraph, and page 6 section 4). The function of Xu is carbon dioxide adsorption; thus it is taken that the monolith would be a monolith sorber.
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
Prosecution Insights