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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group V, claims 30-34 in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 3, the ligand at 11:00 (top left) appears to be incorrect because it differs from the others. This may be left unchanged if the examiner is in error. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, it appears that “and/or” should be changed to “and” because “one or more of” is used in line 6. In line 15, “liquifying” may be changed to “liquefying” to be consistent with the rest of the application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification has no basis for the combustion stream being “compressed and expanded to remove water.”
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 30-35 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.
In line 4 of claim 30, it is unclear whether “a CO2/N2 stream” is the same or different from the stream in line 3. This should be changed to “the CO2/N2 stream” to overcome this rejection.
In line 8 of claim 8, the “i.e.” phrase is indefinite because it causes confusion as to whether synthetic zeolites or alkali metal aluminosilicates are being recited.
Claim 33 is indefinite because it recites that the ligands comprise Si, but it is unclear how this is possible. Figures 2C-2E show Si but this appears to just be part of a siliceous nanoporous material and not part of the amine ligand attached to the material.
Claims 31, 32 and 35 are rejected for depending from an indefinite parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US 2008/0121105 A1) in view of Naito (US 2018/0243680 A1).
Schubert et al. ‘105 disclose a method for separating carbon dioxide from a flue gas (combustion stream) that also includes nitrogen, comprising drying the stream, charging the dried stream to a vessel containing a nanoporous metal-organic framework adsorbent to preferentially remove carbon dioxide from the stream, discharging non-adsorbed gas from the vessel, and desorbing carbon dioxide from the vessel (see paragraphs 15-18, 22, 23, 33-35). The metal-organic framework includes self-assembled (inherent to these materials) bidentate linkers bound to a metal ion, and amino ligand functional groups bound to the framework (paragraphs 43, 65-74, 97, 98). A –Si(OH)3 functional group can also be attached (paragraph 75). The instant claims differ from the disclosure of Schubert et al. ‘105 in that the separated CO2- is liquefied.
Naito ‘680 discloses a flue gas treatment process for removing carbon dioxide, comprising preferentially adsorbing carbon dioxide, followed by desorption and liquefaction (see figure 1, paragraphs 39, 40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Schubert et al. ‘105 by using CO2 liquefaction in order to provide for recovery of the CO2 for other uses such as in food processing or enhanced oil recovery instead of releasing it to the atmosphere.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. ‘105 in view of Naito ‘680 as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Shah (US 2010/0024476 A1).
Schubert et al. ‘105 in view of Naito ‘680 disclose all of the limitations of the claim except that water is removed by compression and expansion. Shah ‘476 discloses a flue gas carbon dioxide removal process comprising drying using compression (30) and expansion (phase separation drum 40) upstream of adsorption drying (50) and carbon dioxide separation (see figure 1, paragraphs 3, 6, 80-82). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of the primary references by using the compression drying step of Shah ‘476 in order to provide for the removal of bulk water from the flue gas prior to adsorption drying to prolong the effectiveness of the adsorbent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose carbon dioxide capture arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
fl
Prosecution Insights