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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1-4 were elected with traverse with respect to claims 1-4 but Group I was originally elected without traverse in the response dated 11 May 2026. As such claims 5-15 are withdrawn by the Examiner as non-elected. The traversal is that the previous Examiner did not restrict claims 5-6 from claims 1-4, but this is not persuasive for reasons already given. It is noted that upon allowance of claim 1 claims 5 and 6 will be rejoined as a method of making an allowed product is rejoined per MPEP 804. As such, THIS RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT IS MADE FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 in limitation (i) recites “(earth) alkali metal . . .” “in particular”, the in particular is indefinite as to if it is limiting the (earth) alkali metal or not. In this case, “in particular” is being treated as “selected from the group consisting of”, the same holds true for the binder and carrier language.
Claim 1 also recites a enthalpy range of 25-350 “preferably 50-300 . . .”, this is a broad/narrow range which is indefinite as to the metes and bounds Applicants wish to cover. For purposes of compact prosecution, it is being treated to be the broader range.
As to claim 2, numerous recitations of “preferably” are given, the limitations are being construed to be the broader limitations in the limitations.
As to claim 3, the calcination is “preferably” at narrower and narrower temperatures, the claim is being construed as calcination occurring and that I takes place in any atmosphere for any period of time.
As to claim 4, limitation (iii) states that “at least oxide . . . preferably in a proportion”, for the purposes of compact prosecution the claim is being construed as having at least one oxide of the 3rd-12th main group or of the lanthanides.
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, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by "A kinetic study of CO2 desorption from basic materials: Correlation with adsorption properties" to Leon et al. (hereinafter, “Leon at __”; cited and provided by Applicants).
Regarding claim 1, Leon discloses basic solids such as catalysts (Leon at 341 R col; while the claim recites “for the anionic polymerization of organosiloxane and/or for the equilibrium of organnopolysiloxane, this is intended use of the catalyst and is not given patentable weight, see MPEP 2111.03, and a pellet form is merely a design choice, see MPEP 2144.05) comprising:
Magnesium oxide (limitation (ii) is optional so it is not required to meet the claim) and having a carbon dioxide desorption enthalpy of between 25 and 350 kJ/mol (“Table 2”).
As to claim 2, “Table 1” discloses various SSA values between 35 and 400 m2/g, pore volumes between 0.2 and 1.2 mL/g, and mean pore sizes between 4 and 260 nm.
Turning to claim 4, iron (8th main group) can be added and they are in the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Leon.
Turning to claim 3, “is obtainable” renders the claim that of a product-by-process claim which is examined on the merits of the product, not how it is made. While the product is claimed as dependent upon the process made, there is nothing to suggest that the instant product would have different properties, structure or aspects than that in the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, at minimal one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that prior art product and the instant product would have the same product aspects as that instantly claimed. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) also MPEP 2113, et seq. As shown supra the product is known. Though it is noted that the MgO is heated at 723 K (500 C, 343 L col)).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon in view of “Screening of Binders for Pelletization of CaO-Based Sorbents for CO2 Capture” to Manovic et al. (hereinafter, “Manovic at __”).
Regarding claims 1-4, the rejections over Leon from above are hereby incorporated by reference. To the extent a binder/pelletization is required and thusly makes the pellet, which Leon does not expressly state, Manovic discloses that bentonite can be added to calcium oxide based materials, Manovic at “Abstract”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize a binder and pelletization as per Manovic in the catalyst of Leon. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being strengthening (Manovic at 4798 L col).
Conclusion
Claims 1-4 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights