DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-24 and 26 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 01/28/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 1 and 22, canceled claim 25, on 03/06/2026.
Claim(s) 1-24 and 26 are pending, and claim(s) 19-20 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-18, 21-24 and 26 are rejected.
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 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.
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 1-11, 13-17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood et al., US 2022/0379262 A1 (Atwood) (provided in IDS received on 09/12/2024) in view of Kouno et al., WO2022224842A1 (Kouno) (provided in IDS received on 09/12/2024).
It is noted that when utilizing Kouno et al., WO2022224842A1 (Kouno), the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2024/0198287 A1, which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the column and line numbers cited with respect to Kouno et al., WO2022224842A1 are found in US 2024/0198287 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 22 and 25-26, Atwood teaches a method, device and system to capture carbon dioxide in air using solid amine sorbents (reading upon the sorbent comprises at least one amine compound; exposing a sorbent to the gaseous environment or the effluent gas stream; removing CO2 from the gaseous environment or the effluent gas stream to form a CO2 loaded sorbent) and using a radio frequency and/or microwave generator to desorb the carbon dioxide by directly exciting the amine-carbon bond thereby significantly reducing the energy cost of releasing the carbon dioxide (reading upon a method of selectively releasing CO2 from a CO2 loaded sorbent; applying an electromagnetic radiation to the CO2 loaded sorbent to release CO2) (Atwood, Abstract);
adsorption via chemisorption of amines (Atwood, [0027]) (reading upon wherein the CO2 loaded sorbent comprises a sorbent and chemisorbed CO2, physisorbed CO2, or a combination thereof).
Atwood further teaches radio frequency (RF) irradiation includes radio waves and microwaves (MW); RF irradiation, is the oscillating electromagnetic irradiation in the frequency range of 20 kHz to 1 GHz; in an alternative embodiment, RF irradiation at approximately 27.2 MHz, at room temperature will be used to excite the carbamate bond; in another embodiment, RF irradiation at approximately 42 MHz at room temperature will be used to excite the carbamate bond; in another alternative embodiment, RF irradiation at approximately 915 MHz at room temperature will be used to excite the carbamate bond (Atwood, [0046]).
Further regarding claim 1, Atwood does not explicitly disclose applying an electromagnetic radiation having an intensity of greater than or equal to 0.7 watt per square centimeter.
With respect to the difference, Kouno teaches a method for capturing carbon dioxide including irradiating a reaction product (c) of an amine compound (a) and a gas (b) containing carbon dioxide with electromagnetic waves to desorb carbon dioxide from the reaction product (Kouno, Abstract).
Kouno expressly teaches power output of the microwave irradiation source can be appropriately adjusted depending on the carbon dioxide desorption temperature, the amount of throughput, etc., and is not limited, but is, e.g., 1 W or more and 300 KW or less for 1 g of the reaction product (c), preferably 1 W or more and 1 KW or less (Kouno, [0046]).
Kouno is analogous art as Kouno is drawn to a method for capturing carbon dioxide including irradiating a reaction product (c) of an amine compound (a) and a gas (b) containing carbon dioxide with electromagnetic waves to desorb carbon dioxide from the reaction product.
In light of the motivation of adjusting the power output of the microwave irradiation source, it therefore would have been obvious to adjust the powder output of radio frequency and/or microwave generator, depending on the carbon dioxide desorption temperature, the amount of throughput, etc., in order to achieve desirable CO2 desorption.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of an electromagnetic radiation having an intensity of greater than or equal to about 0.7 watt per square centimeter, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of the powder output of radio frequency and/or microwave generator, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desirable CO2 desorption, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Atwood in view of Kouno further teaches MW irradiation is electromagnetic irradiation in the frequency range of 1 GHz to 300 GHz. In an embodiment of the present invention, MW irradiation at approximately 2.45 GHz at room temperature will be used to excite the carbamate bond (Atwood, [0047]); in another alternative embodiment, the microwave generator is adapted to allow pulse width modulation (Atwood, [0053]).
Regarding claims 3, 5-7, 9 and 24, as applied to claims 1 and 22 respectively, Atwood in view of Kouno does not explicitly teach wherein the carbon dioxide is selectively released by an energy generated by a vibration excitation via a single photon process; or wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a photon energy that is lower than a binding energy of the carbon dioxide with the sorbent; or wherein a temperature difference of the solid sorbent before and after the selectively release of CO2 is less than about 10°C, or wherein an amount of carbon dioxide released increases with increasing intensity of the electromagnetic radiation at a same temperature and a same frequency.
With respect to the difference, Kouno specifically teaches wherein the electromagnetic waves are at least one type selected from the group consisting of microwaves, ultraviolet light, infrared light, gamma rays, electron beams, and X-rays.
In light of the disclosure of Kouno of the equivalence and interchangeability of using ultraviolet light, infrared light, gamma rays, electron beams, and X-rays as disclosed in Atwood, with microwave, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultraviolet light, infrared light, gamma rays, electron beams, and X-rays as an alternative to microwave in Atwood.
Given that Atwood in view of Kouno teaches an identical or essentially identical method (i.e., using a radio frequency and/or microwave, or ultraviolet light, infrared light, gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays generator to desorb the carbon dioxide), using identical or essentially identical material (solid amine sorbents), with those of the presently claimed (claim 1), therefore, it is clear that the method of Atwood in view of Kouno would necessarily and inherently meet that wherein the carbon dioxide is selectively released by an energy generated by a vibration excitation via a single photon process; and wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a photon energy that is lower than a binding energy of the carbon dioxide with the sorbent, and wherein a temperature difference of the solid sorbent before and after the selectively release of CO2 is less than about 10°C, and wherein an amount of carbon dioxide released increases with increasing intensity of the electromagnetic radiation at a same temperature and a same frequency.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Further regarding claim 6, according to Tasumi, the wavenumber for near-infrared is 4000-400 cm-1 (Tasumi, page 5, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, 11, 13-17 and 23, as applied to claims 1 and 22 respectively, Atwood in view of Kouno further teaches amine system includes amine-tethered metal organic frameworks (Atwood, [0027]); in an embodiment, linear PEI incorporated into a metal organic framework, branched PEI incorporated into a metal organic framework, and amine incorporated into a metal organic framework (wherein the metal organic framework comprises metal sites and organic linkers) (Atwood, [0038]);
Given that Atwood in view of Kouno teaches an identical or essentially identical method (i.e., using a radio frequency and/or microwave generator to desorb the carbon dioxide), using identical or essentially identical material (solid amine sorbents), with those of the presently claimed (claim 1), therefore, it is clear that the method of Atwood in view of Kouno would necessarily and inherently meet that wherein the CO2 loaded solid sorbent comprises charged or partially charged groups, and the Coulomb force applied by the electromagnetic radiation acts on the charged or partially charged groups to release CO2; and wherein the CO2 loaded sorbent comprises at least one of carbonate ions, bicarbonate ions, ammonium ions, a carbamate, or a carbamic acid, and wherein the sorbent has a thermal conductivity of less than 0.1 watt per meter-kelvin, and wherein less than 10% of carbon dioxide is released when the CO2 loaded sorbent is stored at 20°C and atmospheric pressure for one week without exposing the CO2 loaded sorbent to the electromagnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Atwood in view of Kouno further teaches the atmospheric hydration of the amine will resonate with microwave energy thereby adding additional thermal energy to the sorbent CO2 bond (reading upon the CO2 loaded sorbent contains co-adsorbed water) (Atwood, [0051]).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 1, Atwood in view of Kouno further teaches in an alternative embodiment, RF irradiation at approximately 27.2 MHz, at room temperature will be used to excite the carbamate bond (i.e., the CO2 sorbent is at room temperature).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood in view of Kouno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wan et al., High-selective CO2 capture in amine-decorated Al-MOFs, nanomaterials, 2022 (Wan).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Atwood in view of Kouno does not explicitly disclose wherein the sorbent has a pore size of about 0.4 nanometer to about 10 micrometers.
With respect to the difference, Wan teaches amine-functionalized metal organic framework for CO2 capture (Wan, Abstract). Wan specifically teaches the pore width of the amine-functionalized metal organic framework being 0.52 nm (Wan, page 6, 1st paragraph; Figure 5b).
As Wan expressly teaches, this amine-functionalized metal organic framework (i.e., ED@MOF-520) has a high specific surface area, permanent porosity and superior CO2 capture performance (Wan, Abstract).
Wan is analogous art as Wan is drawn to amine-functionalized metal organic framework for CO2 capture.
In light of the motivation of using the amine-functionalized metal organic framework, such as ED@MOF-520, as taught by Wan, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the amine-functionalized metal organic framework, such as ED@MOF-520, which has a pore size of 0.52 nm, as the solid amine sorbent, of Atwood or Kouno, in order to achieve high specific surface area, permanent porosity and superior CO2 capture performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwood in view of Kouno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mahjan et al., Recent progress in metal-organic framework (MOFs) for CO2 capture at different pressures, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2022 (Mahjan).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, Atwood in view of Kouno does not explicitly disclose wherein the sorbent is present in the form of pellets.
With respect to the difference, Mahjan teaches metal organic frameworks for CO2 capture (Mahjan, Tittle, Abstract). Mahjan specifically teaches metal organic frameworks in pellets form (Mahjan, page 28, left column, 4th paragraph).
As Mahjan expressly teaches, pellet form of metal organic frameworks is an industrially suitable form (Mahjan, page 28, left column, 4th paragraph).
Mahjan is analogous art as Mahjan is drawn to metal organic frameworks for CO2 capture.
In light of the motivation of shaping metal organic framework absorbent into pellet form, as taught by Mahjan, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shape the solid amine sorbents, such as amine-tethered metal organic frameworks (Atwood, [0027]) of Atwood and Kouno, into a pellet form, in order to produce the absorbent into an industrially suitable form, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“The Examiner relies on Kouno to supply this missing electromagnetic radiation intensity, (Office Action, page 8). The Examiner cites paragraph [0046] of Kouno, which states that "Power output of the microwave irradiation source can be appropriately adjusted depending on the carbon dioxide desorption temperature, the amount of throughput, etc., and is not limited, but is, e.g., 1 W or more and 300 KW or less for 1 g of the reaction product (c), preferably 1 W or more and 1 KW or less." However, this disclosure does not cure the deficiency in Atwood because Kouno discusses only total power output expressed in watts and does not disclose electromagnetic radiation intensity expressed as watts per square centimeter. Kouno does not disclose the irradiated surface area, the spatial distribution of the electromagnetic field, or the local field strength experienced by the sorbent. As a result, Kouno provides no teaching from which a person of ordinary skill in the art could infer an electromagnetic radiation intensity of greater than or equal to 0.7 W/cm2, as required by claims 1 and 22 of the present application.
The Examiner further states that electromagnetic radiation intensity constitutes a result- effective variable whose optimization would have been obvious. (Office Action, page 9). This statement is unsupported because neither Atwood nor Kouno recognizes electromagnetic radiation intensity as a variable that affects the mechanism of C02 desorption. Atwood focuses on frequency selection to excite carbamate bonds, as described in paragraphs [0046] and [0047], while Kouno focuses on adjusting total microwave power to reach a desorption temperature, as described in paragraph [0046]. Neither reference teaches or suggests that power density at the sorbent surface governs whether C02 is released, nor do they identify any threshold intensity at which desorption behavior qualitatively changes. Because both Atwood and Kouno do not recognize electromagnetic intensity as affecting the relevant result, the cited routine- optimization case law is inapplicable.
With respect to claim 2, which recites specific electromagnetic radiation intensity ranges for continuous and pulsed radiation, neither Atwood nor Kouno discloses electromagnetic radiation intensity in units of W/cm2. Although Atwood discloses pulse width modulation in paragraph [0053], pulse modulation alone does not disclose or suggest the claimed intensity values. ”
Remarks, p. 9-10
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Kouno teaches varying the amount of microwave irradiation source power output for 1 g of the reaction product depending on the carbon dioxide desorption temperature, the amount of throughput, , etc., and is not limited, but is, e.g., 1 W or more and 300 KW or less for 1 g of the reaction product (c) (page 8 of Office Action mailed 01/28/2026), therefore Kouno teaches varying the amount of microwave irradiation source power output per unit of sorbent.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of an electromagnetic radiation having an intensity of greater than or equal to about 0.7 watt per square centimeter, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here 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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of the power output of radio frequency and/or microwave generator, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desirable CO2 desorption, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“Wan discloses an ethylenediamine (ED)-decorated Al-based MOFs that displays a superior CO2 capture performance with a CO2/N2 separation factor of 50 at 273 K, 185% times increase in the CO2/N2 separation efficiency in comparison with blank MOF-520. (See abstract). Mahjan is a review article that focuses on utilizing MOFs in the carbon capture processes, particularly targeting materials applicable to low CO2 partial pressures.
However, Wan and Mahjan, either individually or collectively fail to disclose the electromagnetic radiation intensity of greater than or equal to 0.7 W/cm2, as required by claims 1 and 22 of the present application.”
Remarks, p. 10
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, it is noted that while Wan does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Wan is used as teaching reference, namely to use the amine-functionalized metal organic framework, such as ED@MOF-520, which has a pore size of 0.52 nm, as the solid amine sorbent, of Atwood or Kouno, in order to achieve high specific surface area, permanent porosity and superior CO2 capture performance, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Secondly, it is noted that while Mahjan does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Mahjan is used as teaching reference, namely to shape the solid amine sorbents, such as amine-tethered metal organic frameworks (Atwood, [0027]) of Atwood and Kouno, into a pellet form, in order to produce the absorbent into an industrially suitable form, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights