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
In regards to applicant’s remarks on pages 8-9 filed on 12/19/2025, applicant states that the search burden is reduced due to overlap of claim limitations. This is not found persuasive because establishment of a search burden is used to determine whether the Office may require restriction in national applications filed under 35 (U.S.C. 111(a). The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis). See MPEP Chapter 1800, in particular MPEP § 1850, § 1875, and § 1893.03(d), for a detailed discussion of unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claims 12 and 13, the claims are interpreted that the selection of the specific ammonium or phosphorous ion is dependent on what ion is already present in the invention and does not have to include both components.
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) 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dinnage (US20120204717A1).
In regards to claim 1, Dinnage teaches the removal of CO2 using a carboxylate (Abstract, “Also, a method and apparatus for capturing CO from flue gas with very low water vapor content”; Para. 0095, “may be carboxylate of the generic form (Vd) R" COO, wherein R' may be one organic, saturated, unsaturated, acyclic, cyclic, aliphatic, aromatic or araliphatic moiety comprising carbon or hydrogen and having one to thirty (30) carbon atoms, which may comprise one or more heteroatoms and/or which may be substituted by one or more functional groups or halogen”)
Where the carboxylate radical can have more than 6 carbon atoms (Para. 0101, “The anion can be written in the form [RCO2-], wherein [RCO2-] is a carboxylate and wherein R is a radical out of the group consisting of C1-C30-alkyl, C3-C12-cy-cloalkyl, C2-C30-alkenyl, C3-C12-cycloalkenyl, C2-C30-alkinyl, aryl and heteroaryl. The moiety or radical R may comprise or include one or more halogen radicals”; Para. 0095, “may be carboxylate of the generic form (Vd) R" COO, wherein R' may be one organic, saturated, unsaturated, acyclic, cyclic, aliphatic, aromatic or araliphatic moiety comprising carbon or hydrogen and having one to thirty (30) carbon atoms, which may comprise one or more heteroatoms and/or which may be substituted by one or more functional groups or halogen”)
And the cation is a quaternary ammonium or a piperidinum ion (Para. 0107, “The cation may be a quaternary or protonated cation chosen from the group consisting of ammonium, phosphonium, Sulfonium, piperidinium, pyrrolidinium and morpho-linium”).
Dinnage also teaches that the substituted groups for the ammonium ion can fuflill the formula as claimed (Para. 0073, “R1, R1`, R2, and R3 may be alkyl, alkenyl, alkinyl, cycloalkyl, cycloalkenyl, aryl or heteroaryl, which may be independently substituted”; Para. 0075).
In regards to claims 9 and 10, Dinnage teaches that the carboxylate radical can have a carbon atom number of 7-20 (Para. 0095, “may be carboxylate of the generic form (Vd) R" COO, wherein R' may be one organic, saturated, unsaturated, acyclic, cyclic, aliphatic, aromatic or araliphatic moiety comprising carbon or hydrogen and having one to thirty (30) carbon atoms, which may comprise one or more heteroatoms and/or which may be substituted by one or more functional groups or halogen”).
In regards to claim 12, Dinnage teaches that the quarternary ammonium ion can be tetramethylammonium and tributylmethl ammonium(Para. 0108, “The cation may be one chosen from the group consisting of trialkylmethylammonium, tetramethylammonium, triethylmethylammonium, tributylmethylammonium, trioctylmethylammonium, trialkylammonium, trimethylammonium, triethylammonium, tributylammonium, and triocty-lammonium. The trialkylmethylammonium may be a C1-C10-trialkylmethylammonium”).
In regards to claim 13, Dinnage teaches an N-substituted piperidinium cation and imidazolium cation which fulfills the structure formula as claimed [0038].
In regards to claim 14, Dinnage teaches that there are straight aliphatic chains with 1-10 carbon atoms, with methyl being an aliphatic chain with 1 carbon as discussed in [0038].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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: Dinnage (US20120204717A1) is considered to be the closest prior art to the instant invention.
In regards to claim 11, Dinnage does not teach that the carboxylate radical is selected from 2,2-dimethylhexanoate, 2-ethylhexanoate, 2-ethylheptanoate, 2-propylpentanoate, 2- propylhexanoate, 2-propylnonanoate, 2-butyloctanoate and 2-hexyldecanoate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736