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
Applicant's 7/24/26 arguments vis-a-vis 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, simply stating that the rejections were addressed by the 7/24/26 amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of said amendments. These rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's 7/24/26 arguments vis-a-vis prior art rejections over the 2017 Bougie et al. article (“Bougie”), stating in pertinent part that Bougie teaches away from the newly-claimed limitation that “a content of the amine compound (a) in the carbon dioxide absorbent is 80% by mass or more, and wherein a content of water in the carbon dioxide absorbent is 15% by mass or less” (Remarks at p. 7), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendments. While said rejections are withdrawn, new rejections appear below, necessitated by said amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3789100A1 (published 3/10/21) (incl. machine English transl’n, “EMT”) (“’100”). Regarding claims 1, 5, and 8-9, ‘100 discloses a method comprising applying microwave (“MWv”) E/radiation to CO2-loaded amine-functionalized polystyrene copolymers (“AFPSCP”) to desorb CO2 therefrom at a Tmax of ~50-180oC (a specific example employing a Tmax of 90oC is disclosed)1; ‘100 formed the CO2-loaded AFPSCP by contacting CO2-comprising air with the AFPSCP. See ‘100 at, e.g., EMT pp. 1-2 and 4-7 (boxed areas).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 and 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
In considering the obviousness rejections below, the applicant should note that the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention has the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the claimed invention. The references of record in the application reasonably reflect this level of skill.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘100, or, in the alternative, under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the same. Regarding claims 6-7, ‘100’s disclosures are as above. While ‘100 is silent as to its AFPSCP’s amine value as in claim 6 or whether its CO2-loaded AFPSCP is solid @ 23oC as in claim 7, these properties are reasonably expected to be present/met, given ‘100’s anticipation of claim 1 (from which claims 6-7 depend). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01. Additionally and/or alternatively, on performing ‘100’s disclosed method that anticipates claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the properties of claims 6-7 would be met/present; it would not be reasonable to expect different results on performing identical or at least substantially similar steps. MPEP 2112.01, citing In re Best. In other words, if the prior art teaches or at least suggests the claims' positive method steps, it matters not whether the prior art also teaches or suggests the features of the intended result of performing said steps- it would not be reasonable to expect different results when performing identical or at least substantially similar steps. Accord, MPEP 2145 II, citing, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (stating that “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention”). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (stating the “general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the [old] process again patentable”) (emphasis in original).
Claim 4 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘100. Regarding claim 4, while ‘100 appears silent as to the MW of its AFPSCP, it nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ascertain and employ a desired AFPSCP MW, such as within the claimed range, via routine experimentation (considering factors such as monomer costs, chemical/physical stability and/or durability of the resulting AFPSCP, etc.)- it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). This obviousness is further supported by the lack of persuasive objective evidence that the claimed MW is critical and/or yields unexpected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the/any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL BERNS whose telephone number is (469)295-9161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 (Central). 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.
/DANIEL BERNS/ September 2, 2026
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1736
1 As to claim 5, it matters not how the Tmax of CO2 desorption was measured; 50-180oC (or 90oC) is 50-180oC (or 90oC) regardless of what other steps are taken to measure the T.
Prosecution Insights