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 .
Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 16 of claim 1, “sorbent-CO2 complex” should be amended to recite “amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-3 (and claims 4-20 depending directly or indirectly therefrom) are indefinite because the limitations (a) “solution containing no more than 20% water”, as recited in claims 1 and 2, and (b) “solution contains no more than 10% water”, as recited in claim 3, lack definition as to whether said percentages are in terms of, for example, volume or weight.
Claims 4-20 are included in this rejection, as said claims do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1-3.
In order to overcome this rejection, Applicants may have to provide a declaration or other evidence to define the aforementioned claim limitations (a) and (b).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouno et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0198287).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Kouno et al. teach a method for capturing carbon dioxide, wherein a reaction product of an amine compound and a gas containing CO2 is subjected to irradiation with electromagnetic waves (e.g., microwaves). The reaction product is considered to broadly read upon Applicants’ claim limitation “amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex”, as irradiation of the reaction product desorbs carbon dioxide therefrom. Kouno et al. additionally teach that the amine compound can be reused as the carbon dioxide absorbent after the carbon dioxide is desorbed (“regenerating an amine-containing sorbent material”; "regenerated amine-containing sorbent is re-used to capture CO2"). See paragraphs [0039], [0041]-[0042], and [0059] of Kouno et al.
Regarding claim 5, Kouno et al. teach that the reaction product is preferably in a solid state; see paragraph [0104] of Kouno et al.
Regarding claims 11-14, Kouno et al. teach microwave irradiation conditions include power output of 1 W or more and 300 KW (300,000 W) or less, and frequencies of 0.1 GHz or more, and 30 GHz or less. See paragraphs [0041]-[0048] of Kouno et al.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Kouno et al. teach Kouno et al. additionally teach that the irradiation times “can be appropriately adjusted depending on a type of the electromagnetic waves used”; exemplary irradiation times include 1 minute or more. See paragraph [0053] of Kouno et al.
Regarding claim 17, Kouno et al. additionally teach the feasibility in preparing the reaction product prior to irradiation thereof, wherein the reaction product is prepared by contacting the carbon dioxide absorbent comprising the amine compound with a gas containing carbon dioxide. Said preparation may be performed by bubbling the gas into the carbon dioxide absorbent (implying that the carbon dioxide absorbent would be in liquid form; “aqueous solution of an amine-containing sorbent”); see paragraphs [0062] and [0067] of Kouno et al.
Kouno et al. does not specifically teach or suggest the formation of the amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex containing either a carbamate bond or an ion pair bond, as recited in claim 1. However, Kouno et al., in paragraph [0103], teach that the reaction product of the amine compound and the gas containing carbon dioxide may include a carbamate, as “reaction products of the amine compound (a) and carbon dioxide.” Therefore, because this reference teaches a reaction product of an amine compound and a gas containing carbon dioxide structurally reading upon Applicants’ claimed amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the reaction product disclosed in Kouno et al. to exhibit either a carbamate bond or an ion pair having the formula recited in claim 1, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouno et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0198287) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0299251).
Kouno et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claim 1, as discussed above. Kouno et al. do not teach or suggest the amine-containing sorbents recited in Applicants’ claims 6, 7, 18, and 19. Kouno et al. also do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims 2 and 3 regarding the complex being in a solution containing no more than 20% water, or no more than 10% water.
However, Kouno et al. teach, as examples of the amine compound, acyclic aliphatic amine compounds, amine compounds having a cyclic structure (e.g., an alicyclic hydrocarbon structure, an aromatic hydrocarbon structure, a heterocyclic structure containing heteroatoms in the ring). Kouno et al. further teach that the amine compound may have one or more amino groups. See paragraphs [0071]-[0074] of Kouno et al.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 18, and 19, Zou et al. teach 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) (claims 6, 7, and 18, when, in Formula (2) therein, L is furan, i.e., a hydrocarbon linker with 4 carbon atoms and heteroatom O, and R1 and R2 are both hydrogen), and salts thereof (e.g., carbonate; paragraphs [0011]-[0012]), and the use of 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) as an acidic gas absorbent, wherein 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) and a solvent (e.g., water) are in contact with an acidic gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) to form a precipitate that is a salt containing 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) and anions related to the acidic gas. The precipitate releases the acidic gas when heated to a certain temperature, allowing the 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) to be regenerated. The released acidic gas can be collected, and the regenerated 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) can be in contact with the acidic gas again (claim 19). See paragraphs [0022]-[0024] of Zou et al., the latter of which teaches that 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine), as a carbon dioxide absorbent, is used for capture, utilization and storage of carbon dioxide, as well as paragraphs [0031]-[0034], which depict an embodiment in which 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) is employed in an absorption/regeneration process.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Zou et al. teach the feasibility in employing water as a solvent in the aforementioned use of 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) as an acidic gas absorbent; see paragraphs [0022]-[0024] of Zou et al. From this teaching, the skilled artisan would determine through routine experimentation the optimal amount of solvent (water), such as that recited in claims 2 and 3, necessary to facilitate treatment of the acidic gas.
Because Zou et al. teach 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) as an acidic gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) absorbent, and because Kouno et al. teach that the amine compound “is not limited as long as it is an amine compound that can absorb carbon dioxide”, wherein exemplary amine compounds include those having a heterocyclic structure containing heteroatoms in the ring (paragraphs [0070]-[0079] of Kouno et al.), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Kouno et al. by incorporating therein 2,5-furan-bis(iminoguanidine) as an acidic gas (e.g., carbon dioxide) absorbent, as suggested by Zou et al., because Kouno et al. teach that the amine compound “is not limited as long as it is an amine compound that can absorb carbon dioxide”; see paragraph [0071] of Kouno et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouno et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0198287) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Meirav et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0298996).
Kouno et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claims 1 and 2, as stated above. However, this reference does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 4 regarding an amine-containing sorbent having formula NRdReRf, where Rd, Re, and Rf are selected from H and hydrocarbon groups containing at least two carbon atoms, wherein at least one of Rd, Re, and Rf are selected from hydrocarbon groups containing at least two carbon atoms.
Kouno et al. teach that the amine compound “is not limited as long as it is an amine compound that can absorb carbon dioxide”; exemplary amine compounds include those having a heterocyclic structure containing heteroatoms in the ring. See paragraphs [0070]-[0079] of Kouno et al., especially paragraph [0076], which teaches amine compounds including acyclic aliphatic amine compounds, e.g., monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, and 2-(methylamino)ethanol (aka methylethanolamine).
Regarding claim 4, Meirav et al. teach a sorbent for CO2 reduction comprising a solid support and an amine-based compound, wherein the sorbent captures CO2 and may be regenerated. Examples of the amine-based compound include monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, methylethanolamine, and diethylamine ((C2H3)2NH), the last of which reads on the formula recited in Applicants’ claim 4, where “C2H3” and “H” correspond to “Rd, Re, and Rf are selected from H and hydrocarbon groups containing at least two carbon atoms, wherein at least one of Rd, Re, and Rf are selected from hydrocarbon groups containing at least two carbon atoms”. See the Abstract and paragraphs [0041] and [0045] of Meirav et al.
Because Kouno et al. teach that the amine compound “is not limited as long as it is an amine compound that can absorb carbon dioxide” (paragraph [0071] of Kouno et al.), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the method of Kouno et al. by incorporating therein diethylamine, as suggested by Meirav et al., said which has been shown to effectively absorb carbon dioxide.
Additionally, because both Kouno et al. and Meirav et al. teach monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, and methylethanolamine as exemplary amine-based compounds that can absorb carbon dioxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Kouno et al. by substituting the amine sorbents disclosed in Kouno et al. with diethylamine, as suggested by Meirav et al., as this reference shows monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, methylethanolamine, and diethylamine as functionally equivalent amine-based compounds for absorbing carbon dioxide.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kouno et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0198287) in view of Custelcean et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,583,387, Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claim 1, Kouno et al. teach a method for capturing carbon dioxide, wherein a reaction product of an amine compound and a gas containing CO2 is subjected to irradiation with electromagnetic waves (e.g., microwaves). The reaction product is considered to broadly read upon Applicants’ claim limitation “amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex”, as irradiation of the reaction product desorbs carbon dioxide therefrom. Kouno et al. additionally teach that the amine compound can be reused as the carbon dioxide absorbent after the carbon dioxide is desorbed (“regenerating an amine-containing sorbent material”; "regenerated amine-containing sorbent is re-used to capture CO2"). See paragraphs [0039], [0041]-[0042], and [0059] of Kouno et al.
Kouno et al. does not specifically teach or suggest the formation of the amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex containing either a carbamate bond or an ion pair bond, as recited in claim 1. However, Kouno et al., in paragraph [0103], teach that the reaction product of the amine compound and the gas containing carbon dioxide may include a carbamate, as “reaction products of the amine compound (a) and carbon dioxide.” Therefore, because this reference teaches a reaction product of an amine compound and a gas containing carbon dioxide structurally reading upon Applicants’ claimed amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complex, said reaction product would be expected to exhibit either a carbamate bond or an ion pair having the formula recited in claim 1, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Kouno et al. also do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims 6-10 regarding the amine-containing sorbent-CO2 complexes recited therein.
However, Kouno et al. teach, as examples of the amine compound, acyclic aliphatic amine compounds, amine compounds having a cyclic structure (e.g., an alicyclic hydrocarbon structure, an aromatic hydrocarbon structure, a heterocyclic structure containing heteroatoms in the ring). Kouno et al. further teach that the amine compound may have one or more amino groups. See paragraphs [0071]-[0074] of Kouno et al.
Regarding claims 6-10, Custelcean et al. teach a carbon dioxide complexing compound defined as a specialized bis-iminoguanidine compound, and a precipitated carbonate or bicarbonate salt thereof, the latter having a structure comparable to that recited in claims 8-10. See col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 33, of Custelcean et al., as well as col. 10, line 15 to col. 11, line 55, where formula (1a-1) reads on the structure recited in claim 8, and formulae 1a-3 and 1a-6 read on the structures recited in claims 9 and 10.
Custelcean et al. further teach employment of the aforementioned compounds as a carbon dioxide sorbent in a method for removing carbon dioxide from a gaseous source (“guanidine-containing sorbent”; claim 6). See col. 3, lines 34-57 of Custelcean et al.
Because Kouno et al. teach that the amine compound “is not limited as long as it is an amine compound that can absorb carbon dioxide”, and teach that exemplary amine compounds include those having a cyclic structure (e.g., an alicyclic hydrocarbon structure, an aromatic hydrocarbon structure, a heterocyclic structure containing heteroatoms in the ring), and further teach further teach that the amine compound may have one or more amino groups (paragraphs [0070]-[0079] of Kouno et al.), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the method of Kouno et al. by incorporating therein the bis-iminoguanidine compounds disclosed in Custelcean et al., because Kouno et al. teach that the amine compound “is not limited as long as it is an amine compound that can absorb carbon dioxide”; see paragraph [0071] of Kouno et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Wenz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0375078).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 January 15, 2026