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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 remain pending and were previously allowed. In view of Applicant’s submission of the IDS filed on 09 April 2026, the indicated allowability of claims 1, 4-6, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 April 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Desalination and Water Treatment, 2020, 182, 320-331) in view of Suresh et al. (Chemical Industry & Chemical Engineering Quarterly, 2013, 19(2), 195−212) and Bandosz et al. (Analytical Chemistry, 1992, 64, 891-895), hereinafter “Wang”, “Suresh”, and “Bandosz”.
With respect to claims 1, 5, and 12, Wang teaches a method for the isolation of aniline (“an amine”) from an aqueous solution thereof (Abstract), the method comprising the steps of: contacting the aqueous solution of aniline (“the amine”) with a carboxyl functionalized hyper-cross-linked dendrimers (“an adsorbent functionalized with carboxyl groups”) and separating residual aniline solution to measure residual aniline concentration, consistent with “removing water from the (carboxyl functionalized hyper-cross-linked dendrimer) adsorbent.
Wang does not specifically teach thermally desorbing the amine.
Suresh teaches thermal desorption of aniline from an adsorbent at 623 K (350 °C) (see Abstract; consistent with “at least 120/150°C” as recited in claims 5 and 12, wherein if the adsorbent is regenerated for reuse, it must be stable up to at least 150°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the thermal desorption step of Suresh to the method of Wang in order to regenerate the adsorbent of Wang, which adsorbs the same species as the adsorbent of Suresh (aniline), and wherein the adsorbents both comprise carboxyl groups (see Suresh: Page 199, left column, second paragraph, and see Bandosz: Table II, which depicts 16 activated carbon samples from different sources with carboxyl groups quantified in the 4th column, and see Wang: Abstract). The ordinary artisan would have recognized the advantage of thermal desorption, which allows for good adsorption performance for at least 5 adsorption-desorption cycles (see Abstract of Suresh).
With respect to claim 6, Wang in view of Suresh and Bandosz teaches that the cross-linked adsorbent with carboxyl functional groups comprises a porous matrix comprising methylacrylate groups (See Wang: Sections 2.2; 3.3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Desalination and Water Treatment, 2020, 182, 320-331) in view of Suresh et al. (Chemical Industry & Chemical Engineering Quarterly, 2013, 19(2), 195−212) and Bandosz et al. (Analytical Chemistry, 1992, 64, 891-895) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Watando et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0024127), hereinafter “Wang”, “Suresh”, “Bandosz”, and “Watando”.
With respect to claim 4, Wang in view of Suresh and Bandosz does not specifically teach a washing step is added after contacting the aqueous solution of the amine with the adsorbent functionalized with carboxyl groups.
Watando teaches a washing phase for an adsorbent following adsorption of amines including ethanolamine and prior to elution (see Example 1: Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the washing step as taught by Watando after adsorption of amines because Watando teaches that this allows for removal of impurities (see Example 1: Paragraph [0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 7-11, and 13-20 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; as none of the prior art teaches or suggests the limitations of these claims.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Wang in view of Suresh and Bandosz does not specifically teach that the amine is an alkanolamine.
Watando et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0024127) teaches adsorption of ethanolamine (see Paragraph [0075]; Example 1); however, Watando teaches that the disclosed adsorbent adsorbs amines onto -SO3M groups, wherein M = alkali metal or hydrogen (see Paragraph [0017]). Absent hindsight reasoning, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Watando with the teaching of Wang/Suresh/Bandosz, as different functional groups are used for amine adsorption, and because Watando teaches that the amines are recovered for further analysis with HPLC (see Paragraphs [0054, 0055]), which would not be possible after thermally desorbing the amines according to Suresh, which uses 623 K /350 °C for the desorption temperature, as the decomposition temperature of ethanolamine is about 200°C (see Page 7, Fig. 1 note of Dow, “Ethanolamines”, 2003, Pages 1-18).
With respect to claims 7, 16, and 20, none of Wang, Suresh, Bandosz, or Watando teach that the aqueous solution is embodied as a fermentation composition as claimed.
Cannell et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2021/0252421) teaches removing amines from aqueous fermentation solutions comprising ethanolamine produced by microorganisms (Paragraphs [0005, 0021, 0027, 0028]); however, the ethanolamine removal is to obtain ethanolamine via distillation and condensation that has a high purity approaching 90-100% (see Paragraphs [0024, 0025]). Thermal desorption as taught by Suresh at 623 K/350 °C would decompose the ethanolamine; as such, the thermal desorption temperature of Suresh is not compatible with Cannell.
Regarding claims 13-15, Wang in view of Suresh and Bandosz teaches away from collecting the thermally desorbed amine and limitations pertaining to the purity of the thermally desorbed amine, as the desorbing procedure of Suresh decomposes the thermally desorbed amine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 15 April 2026
Prosecution Insights