DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 25-42 have been amended. Claims 1-24 are cancelled. Claims 25-42 are pending, and under examination on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Brett A. North on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to claims 25, 30, 31, and 40-42 overcome the reaction. The rejection of claims 25-34 and 36-42 is withdrawn.
In terms of the rejection of claim 35 for lacking an explicit ratio of moles acid to moles of amine, Applicant argues that "breadth is not indefiniteness.", and any solution recited in independent claim 30 that includes acid and amines will satisfy this limitation. Applicant’s argument is found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 25 by further limiting the scrubbing agent to be methyl diethanolamine in an amount of between about 20 and about 60 percent by weight of the scrubbing solution and wherein the scrubbing solution has a ratio of moles of the acid to moles of the amine between about 0.018 and about 0.036 overcomes the rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 30 by further limiting the scrubbing agent to be methyl diethanolamine in an amount of between about 20 and about 60 percent by weight of the scrubbing solution; and piperazine, in an amount between about 0.1 and about 10 percent by weight of the scrubbing solution. The amendment overcomes the rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 101 Double Patenting
Applicant’s amendment to claim 25 overcomes the rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under Obviousness-type Double Patenting
The ODP rejection is maintained because the promised TD has not been filed.
The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment filed 06/22/2026:
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 25-29, and 35-36 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, amended claim 25 contains a phrase “wherein the scrubbing solution has a ratio of moles of acid to moles of amine between about 0.018 and about 0.036.”, wherein the term “amine” can be interpreted as “methyl diethanolamine”, or “piperazine”
PNG
media_image1.png
60
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a secondary amine. Therefore, claim 25 is indefinite. Claims 26-29 depending on claim 25 are also rejected.
For the same reason, claims 35 and 36 are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 26, 32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 26 depending on claim 25, and further recites “wherein the acid is polyprotic.” According to Wikipedia, a polyprotic acid is an acid that has more than one acidic hydrogen atom. "Polyprotic" means "many protons". The acids cited in claim 25 is selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acids, sulfuric acids, and combinations thereof. Because phosphoric acids, sulfuric acids, and combinations thereof are all polyprotic acids. Therefore, claim 26 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. For the same reason, claim 32 is also rejected for failing to further limit the subject matter of claim 30. Therefore, claims 25 and 26 are rejected.
In terms of claim 35, as being acknowledged by Applicant that “any solution recited in independent claim 30 that includes acid and amines will satisfy this limitation” of the solution has a ratio of moles of acid to moles of amine, claim 35 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 30. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected.
Conclusions
Claims 25-42 are rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights