DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending
Claims 5-14 are withdrawn
Claims 1-3 are rejected
Claim 4 is objected to
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The present abstract is less than 50 words. However, the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election of with traverse in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 5-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 14, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aquino et al., Hybrid Ionic Liquid–Silica Xerogels Applied in CO2 Capture (Aquino).
6. Regarding claim 1, Aquino teaches imidazolium-based ionic liquids (IL) (i.e. a complex ionic compound) immobilized on xerogel silica (i.e. a carrier) for CO2 adsorption (Aquino, Abstract);
wherein the imidazolium-based ionic liquid (IL) was synthesized through the reaction of 1-methylimidazole and 3-chloropropyl trimethoxysilane (i.e. bridging agent) to give 1-methyl-3-(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl) imidazolium chloride (Aquino, p. 3, 2.2. Ionic Liquid Synthesis);
wherein LiTf2-N was added to provide (MeO)3SipmimTf2N that was immobilized on the xerogel (Aquino, p. 4, first paragraph) resulting in SILTF2NX20 (Aquino, p. 4, last paragraph);
wherein the FTIR spectra of SILTF2NX20 illustrate siloxane bands of Si-O-Si, in the range of 1136–1186 cm-1 ascribed to chemical bonds between silicon and IL (i.e. a bridging agent grafted to the carrier) (Aquino, p. 5, paragraph 2);
wherein the imidazole IL comprising the 1-methyl-imidazolium (i.e. adsorbent) (Aquino, p. 5, paragraph 1) is linked to the xerogel (i.e. carrier) via a propyl trimethoxysilane group (i.e. adsorbent grafted to the bridging agent) (Aquino, p. 5, paragraph 2), see annotated Fig. 1 below (Aquino, p. 3, Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
98
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
7. Regarding claim 3, 3-chloropropyl trimethoxysilane (i.e. bridging agent comprises a halogen-containing siloxane) is used to link imidazole IL comprising the 1-methyl-imidazolium to the xerogel (Aquino, p. 5, paragraph 2).
8. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pizzoccaro-Zilamy et al., Controlled grafting of dialkylphosphonate-based ionic liquids on γ -alumina: design of hybrid materials with high potential for CO2 separation applications (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy).
9. Regarding claim 1, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy teaches phosphonate-based ILs (ionic liquids) (i.e. a complex ionic compound) anchored to γ-alumina (γ-Al2O3) powders (i.e. a carrier) (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, Abstract);
wherein coupling functions (i.e. a bridging agent) are grafted (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19887, left column, paragraph 3) to the γ-alumina (γ-Al2O3) material support (i.e. a carrier) (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19882, right column, Fig. 1);
wherein the ILs responsible for CO2 absorption (i.e. adsorbent) (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19885, right column, first paragraph) are grafted to the coupling functions (i.e. adsorbent grafted to the bridging agent) (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19882, right column, Fig. 1), see annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pizzoccaro-Zilamy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al., Combining Carbon Fibers with Ni/γ–Al2O3 Used for Syngas Production: Part A: Preparation and Evaluation of Complex Carrier Catalysts (Song) and Chen et al., Carbon Nanofibers Synthesized from Carbon Dioxide by Catalytic Hydrogenation on Ni-Na/Al2O3 Catalysts (Chen).
12. Regarding claim 2, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy further teaches the phosphonate-based ILs (ionic liquids) (i.e. a complex ionic compound) anchored to γ-alumina (γ-Al2O3) powders (i.e. a carrier) (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, Abstract) are useful for catalysis applications (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19893, left column, last paragraph).
However, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy does not teach the carrier comprises a C:Na-Ni/Al2O3 composite powder.
With respect to the difference, Song teaches a Ni/γ–Al2O3 complex carrier catalysts (i.e. a carrier) (Song, Title) wherein Ni and Al2O3 were coprecipitated on activated carbon fiber (ACF) (i.e. the carrier comprises C: Ni/Al2O3) (Song, Abstract)
wherein the complex carrier catalyst is denoted Ni/γ –Al2O3/ACF (Song, p. 2, paragraph 4) as a catalyst for the adsorption and activation of CO2 (Song, p. 2, paragraph 3) in the carbon dioxide reforming of methane (DRM) (Song, p. 1, paragraph 1).
Song expressly teaches the mechanism of dry reforming that the CH4 activation favorably occurs on the Ni-crystallites in the catalyst (i.e. carrier) (Song, p. 7, paragraph 2) to release CHx and H fragments (Song, p. 7, last paragraph);
wherein CO2- is adsorbed on Al2O3 and ACF (Song, p. 7, paragraph 2) and the adsorbed CO2 will release the CO and O fragment and CHX fragment combined with the O fragment will generate the CHXO fragment, then produce the CO and H fragment (Song, p. 8, first paragraph);
wherein the H fragment wherein will merge to release H2 (Song, p. 8, first paragraph) to achieve dioxide reforming of methane (Song, p. 7, Figure 8 caption);
wherein the great surface characteristics of the carbon fibers (ACF) contribute to the adsorption of CO2 (Song, p. 2, paragraph 3);
wherein adding ACF into the nickel-based catalyst supported on the alumina (Song, p. 6, 2.2.3. Catalytic Performance at Different Temperatures) achieves a better catalytic performance for CO2 conversion (Song, Abstract).
Pizzoccaro-Zilamy and are analogous art as they are all drawn to catalytic treatment of carbon dioxide.
In light of the motivation for the mechanism of dry reforming of CH4 and the great surface characteristics of carbon fibers contributing to the adsorption of CO2 as disclosed by Song, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the Ni/γ–Al2O3 complex carrier catalysts (i.e. the carrier comprises C: Ni/Al2O3) in the phosphonate-based ILs (ionic liquids) (i.e. a complex ionic compound) anchored to γ-alumina (γ-Al2O3) powders (i.e. a carrier) of Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, in order to achieve the carbon dioxide reforming of methane and better catalytic performance for CO2 conversion, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy in view of Song do not teach the carrier comprises Na.
With respect to the difference, Chen teaches a Ni-Na/Al2O3 catalyst (i.e. Na-Ni/ Al2O3) able to take CO2 gas as a source of carbon to produce carbon nanofibers wherein sodium was used as a promoter (i.e. the carrier further comprises Na) (Chen, Abstract).
Chen expressly teaches Ni catalyst containing Na allowing for the formation of CNFs from CO2 over time (Chen, p. 1465, left column, first paragraph);
wherein Ni retained a stable activity for the formation of CO by the RWGS reaction (Chen, p. 1472, left column, paragraph 2);
wherein sodium was used as a promoter to induce the formation of CNFs (Chen, Abstract);
wherein the Ni-Na/Al2O3 catalyst provides dual sites to simultaneously facilitate the formation of CNFs and reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reactions on its surface (Chen, p. 1472, right column, first paragraph).
Pizzoccaro-Zilamy and are analogous art as they are all drawn to catalytic treatment of carbon dioxide.
In light of the motivation for Ni catalyst containing Na allowing for the formation of CNFs from CO2 over time as disclosed by Chen, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include sodium in the phosphonate-based ILs (ionic liquids) (i.e. a complex ionic compound) anchored to γ-alumina (γ-Al2O3) powders (i.e. a carrier) of Pizzoccaro-Zilamy in view of Song, in order to simultaneously facilitate the formation of CNFs and the RWGS reactions on the surface, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 4 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.
14. Regarding claim 4, Aquino teaches the complex ionic compound according to claim 1.
15. However, Aquino does not teach the adsorbent comprises at least two of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate, choline chloride, and glycerol.
Specifically, Aquino teaches the imidazole IL comprising the 1-methyl-imidazolium with imidazolium ring (i.e. adsorbent) (Aquino, p. 5, paragraph 1) with Cl- -(chloride), BF4- (tetrafluoroborate), and PF6- (hexafluorophosphate) anions (Aquino, p. 7, 4. Discussion) (i.e. the adsorbent comprises 1-methyl-imidazolium chloride-, 1-methyl-imidazolium tetrafluoroborate, or 1-methyl-imidazolium hexafluorophosphate), which is outside the scope of the present claim.
16. Regarding claim 4, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy teaches the complex ionic compound according to claim 1.
17. However, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy does not teach the adsorbent comprises at least two of 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate, 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium hexafluorophosphate, 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate, choline chloride, and glycerol.
Specifically, Pizzoccaro-Zilamy teaches wherein the ILs responsible for CO2 absorption (i.e. adsorbent) (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19885, right column, first paragraph) grafted to the P(O)(OEt)2 coupling functions (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19888, left column, Fig.6 caption) are [IMPE][Br], [ImPE][Tf2N], [ImC12PE][Tf2N] or [ImPEGPE][Tf2N] (Pizzoccaro-Zilamy, p. 19883, left column, last paragraph), which is outside the scope of the present claim.
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights