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 with traverse of Group I drawn to an adsorbent mixture in the reply filed on June 2, 2026 (2026-06-02) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the prior art presented by the examiner. Examiner notes that applicant’s arguments are persuasive as CN 105080316 A does not disclose the special feature. However, the inventions were still found to lack unity over Park, et. al. 2014, (KR 20140139821 A) due to the reasonings discussed below (see reasoning for claim 1 rejection under “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102). It is noted that lack of unity of an invention may directly evident a priori, i.e. before considering the claims in relation to prior art, or may only become apparent a posteriori, i.e. after considering the prior art. See MPEP § 1850.II. In the instant case, Groups I and II lack unity of invention a posteriori because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of at most claim 1, this technical feature is not a special feature as it does not make a contribution over Park, et. al. 2014 (KR 20140139821 A) as explained below (see section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102”).
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 14, line 26 – Page 15, line 1 and Page 15, lines 20 – 21: the accepted spelling of “N’’,N’’’’’,N’’’’’’’’-phosfinimilidinetris[N,N,N’,N’-tetramethylguanidine]” in the art is “N’’,N’’’’’,N’’’’’’’’-phosphinimylidynetris[N,N,N’,N’-tetramethylguanidine]”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5: there is an extra “is a”; “wherein R is a is a linear” should read as “wherein R is a linear”
In claim 3, line 7: “OH groups” is missing a dash in front of OH; “OH groups” should read as “-OH groups”
In claim 8, line 8: the accepted spelling of “N’’,N’’’’’,N’’’’’’’’-phosfinimilidinetris[N,N,N’,N’-tetramethylguanidine]” in the art is “N’’,N’’’’’,N’’’’’’’’-phosphinimylidynetris[N,N,N’,N’-tetramethylguanidine].” While the applicant includes a structure of the recited chemical in the specification (see Page 15, line 15), one of ordinary skill in the art would not readily recognize the recited chemical using the currently provided spelling.
In claim 10, line 3: the word “component” or “solvent” should precede “C)”; examiner suggests changing “C) cyclic urea of formula” to “solvent C) has a cyclic urea of formula”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 recites the phrase “the removal of acid gases from gaseous mixtures containing them, from gaseous mixtures not containing H2S” in lines 2 – 3. It is unclear what the term “acid gases” refers to. The specification gives examples that are considered “acid gases” (see Page 1, lines 19 – 22). However, this is not a definition as it does not provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition and/or objective boundary. Furthermore, the specification provides H2S as an example of an acid gas (see Page 1, lines 19 – 22), which may lead to further confusion as to the definition of the term “acid gas” and to the overall scope of the claim. Therefore, one of ordinary skill of the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 2-10 depend upon or otherwise require all of the limitations of claim 1 and are also similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner interpreted “the mixture” as “the absorbent mixture.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mixture" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner interpreted “the mixture” as “the absorbent mixture.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “derivatives of biguanide (1-(diaminomethylidene) guanidine” (lines 4 – 5). The addition of the word “derivatives” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See MPEP § 2173.05 (b). Therefore, it is unclear what “derivatives” is intended to convey in the phrase “derivatives of biguanide (1-(diaminomethylidene) guanidine.”
Furthermore, the phrase "such as" (lines 5 and 7) renders claim 8 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 further recites the limitation “phosphazene-type compounds” (line 7). The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See MPEP § 2173.05 (b)(III). Therefore, it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey in the phrase “phosphazene-type.”
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" (line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, it is unclear whether “1,3-dimethyl-imidazolidin-2-one (DMI)” and “1,3-dimethyl-3,4,5,6-tetrahydro- 2(1H)-pyrimidinone (DMPU)” are limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the phrases "preferably” (line 3) and “most preferably” (line 4) render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. Description of preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, it is unclear whether “a cyclic urea of formula (IV), (V)” and “1,3-dimethyl-imidazolidin-2-one” are limitations.
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, 3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, et. al. 2014 (KR 20140139821 A), referred to as Park from herein. Pagliaro, et. al. 2008 (Glycerol: Properties and Production. The Future of Glycerol: New Uses of a Versatile Raw Material, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008; pp 1 – 17), referred to as Pagliaro from herein, is cited as evidence for claim 1 and Lin, et. al. 2018 (Density Studies of 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU)-Glycerol and CO2-DBU-Glycerol Solutions at Temperatures between 288.15 K and 328.15 K. J. Chem. Thermodynamics 2018, 123, 8 – 16), referred to as Lin from herein, is cited as evidence for claim 6.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an absorbent mixture usable for the removal of acid gases from gas mixtures containing them, from gaseous mixtures not containing H₂S ([0001] describes the solution as a “carbon dioxide absorbent” where carbon dioxide is an acid gas that is not hydrogen sulfide), comprising:
at least one alcohol of general formula R(OH)n having a normal boiling point equal to or greater than 75 °C, wherein R is a linear or branched, optionally substituted, alkyl or alkyl aromatic group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms and wherein n is an integer that varies between 1 to 20 (an unlabeled paragraph three below [0007] describes the composition which includes acceptable organic alcohols; [0068] describes data presented in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b wherein the data displayed is for a solution that uses glycerol as the organic alcohol wherein R is C3H5 and n is 3; see Table below for structure of glycerol; furthermore, Fig. 2a shows a picture of the absorbent mixture containing glycerol, DBU, and NMP) ;
at least one organic base with a pKb (in water) less than or equal to 3 ([0068] describes Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b where the data displayed is for a solution that includes DBU; Page 14, line 20 of the specification of the present invention states that the pKb for DBU is 1.1; furthermore, Fig. 2a shows a picture of the absorbent mixture containing glycerol, DBU, and NMP);
a solvent based on one or more heterocyclic compounds selected among cyclic ureas having a five-membered or six-membered atom ring of formula (IV) and/or (V); cyclic lactams having a five-membered or six-membered atom ring of formula (VI) and/or (VII); or combinations thereof:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R₁, R₂, R₃, R4 in formula (IV), (V) are independently selected from H, linear or branched alkyl groups having between 1 and 10 carbon atoms, said R₁, R₂, R₃, R₄ optionally including, independently from one another, one or more -OH groups;
PNG
media_image2.png
292
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R₁ and R₃ in formula (VI), (VII) are independently selected from H, linear or branched alkyl groups having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, said R₁, R₃ optionally including, independently from one another, one or more -OH groups ([0068] describes data presented in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b wherein the data displayed is for a solution that uses NMP as the solvent, which comprises of the ring structure similar to formula (VI) where R1 is a methyl group; see Table below for structure; Fig. 2a shows a picture of the absorbent mixture containing glycerol, DBU, and NMP).
The examiner included a table below to summarize the components of the Example presented in Fig. 2a, 3a and 3b in Park (also see [0068]):
Component A
Additional Information Relevant to Claim 1 Limitations
PNG
media_image3.png
173
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Name: Glycerol
Formula: C3H5(OH)3 (R = C3H5)
Normal boiling point: ≥ 75 ºC (admitted by applicant; described as “glycerin” on Page 11, line 21 of specification)
Number of carbons: 3
Number of -OH groups: 3
Component B
Additional Information Relevant to Claim 1 Limitations
PNG
media_image4.png
109
147
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Name: 1,8-diazabicylclo(5.4.0)undec-7-ene (DBU)
pKb: 1.1 (see Page 14, line 20 of the specification of the present invention)
Normal boiling point: 261 ºC (see Abstract of Lin)
Component C
Additional Information Relevant to Claim 1 Limitations
PNG
media_image5.png
236
239
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Name: 1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)
Structure (VI) where R1 is a methyl group, which is a linear alkyl group with one carbon atom
In regards to component A), Park does not disclose the boiling of glycerol. However, the specification of the present invention discloses glycerin as an acceptable triol for component A) of the absorbent mixture (see Page 11, line 21). Glycerin is generally referred to a commercial solution composed of 95.5 – 99% glycerol in water, not a crude chemical (see the first paragraph of the Section titles “1.1 Properties of Glycerol” on Page 1 of Pagliaro). Furthermore, “glycerin,” “glycerine,” and “glycerol” may all be used interchangeably in the literature, especially in reference to the crude substance rather than the commercial solution (see the first paragraph of the Section titled “1.1 Properties of Glycerol” on Page 1 of Pagliaro). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the glycerin suggested by the present invention would either refer to the commercial solution that contains mostly (i.e. 95.5 – 99%) glycerol or be synonymous with glycerol. Therefore, since glycerin is suggested by the specification of the present invention, it is admitted that glycerol has a normal boiling point that meets the limitation of claim 1, i.e. has a normal boiling point equal to or greater than 75 ºC.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches an absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches alcohol A) is an aliphatic polyol having 2 to 10 -OH groups (n from 2 to 10) and having 2 to 20 carbon atoms ([0068] uses glycerol which is an aliphatic polyol with 3 -OH groups and 3 carbon atoms; see Table above for the structure of glycerol).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches an absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches the organic base B) having a pKb lower than or equal to 2 ([0068] uses DBU, which has a pKb of 1.1 according to Page 14, line 20 of the specification of the present invention; Fig. 2a shows a picture of the absorbent mixture containing glycerol, DBU, and NMP).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches an absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches the organic base B) having a normal boiling point of 75 ºC ([0068] uses DBU, which has a normal boiling point of 261 ºC according to the first paragraph of the section titled “Introduction” of Lin on Page 8; Fig. 2a shows a picture of the absorbent mixture containing glycerol, DBU, and NMP).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches an absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches the organic base B) is 1,8-diazabicyclo(5.4.0)undec-7-ene (DBU) ([0068] includes DBU; also see Fig. 1 and 2).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruzzano, et. al. 2019 (EP 3552688 A1), referred to as Bruzzano from herein. The 97th ed. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Physical Constants of Organic Compounds (Section 3-1) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 97th ed.; CRC Press, 2017, obtained from Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/CRCHandbookOfChemistryAndPhysics97thEdition2016/mode/1up; examiner included the table of contents, the preface of Section 3, and pages 3-1 – 3-3, 3-246 – 3-247, 3-438 – 3-439, and 3-466 – 3-467), referred to as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics from herein, is cited as evidence for claim 1 and Lin is cited as evidence for claim 6.
Regarding claim 1, Bruzzano teaches an absorbent mixture usable for the removal of acid gases from gas mixtures containing them, from gaseous mixtures not containing H₂S ([0019] describes a mixture capturing CO2, where Example 5 in [0080] describes a mixture containing three components), comprising:
at least one alcohol of general formula R(OH)n having a normal boiling point equal to or greater than 75 °C, wherein R is a linear or branched, optionally substituted, alkyl or alkyl aromatic group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms and wherein n is an integer that varies between 1 to 20 ([0048] describes acceptable alcohols, including ethanol, 1-propanol, 1-butanol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol, and isopropyl alcohol which all contain either a linear or branched R group with one to six carbons and one -OH group);
at least one organic base with a pKb (in water) less than or equal to 3 ([0032] – [0036] describes adding an “organic superbase” where the organic superbase can be DBU or 1,5-diazabicyclo[4.3.0]non-5-ene (DBN), both of which have a pKb value of less than 3 according to Page 14, lines 19 – 21 of the specification of the present invention; Examples 1 – 6 in [0063] – [0081] use DBU)
a solvent based on one or more heterocyclic compounds selected among cyclic ureas having a five-membered or six-membered atom ring of formula (IV) and/or (V); cyclic lactams having a five-membered or six-membered atom ring of formula (VI) and/or (VII); or combinations thereof. See above for the structures of rings (IV), (V), (VI) and (VII) and definitions of the respective R groups. ([0046] states a preferred embodiment includes a solvent is a cyclic amide, i.e. cyclic lactam, or a cyclic urea; Example 5 in [0080] adds NMP, which corresponds to formula (VI) wherein R1 is a methyl group, in addition to DBU and polyethylene glycol (molecular weight: 200 g/mol), abbreviated as PEG200 from herein; see Table above for the structure of NMP).
In regards to component A), Bruzzano discloses a list of possible alcohols (see [0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that all the alkyl alcohols (i.e. ethanol, 1-propanol, 1-butanol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol, and isopropyl alcohol) listed have a general formula of R(OH)n wherein R is a linear, or branched in the case of isopropyl alcohol, alkyl group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms and n is an integer of 1 to 20.
However, Bruzzano does not disclose the normal boiling points of the disclosed alkyl alcohols. Two of the alkyl alcohols of Bruzzano, namely 1-butanol and 1-hexanol, are suggested by the specification as acceptable mono-alcohols for component A) (see Page 11, lines 17 – 19). Therefore, since both 1-butanol and 1-hexnaol are suggested by the specification of the present invention, it is admitted that 1-butanol and 1-hexanol have normal boiling points that meet the limitation of component A) having a normal boiling point equal to or greater than 75 ºC. In regards to the other disclosed alkyl alcohols in Bruzzano, ethanol, 1-propanol, 1-pentanol, and isopropyl alcohol each have a normal boiling point equal to or higher than 75 ºC (examiner provided a Table below with the normal boiling points found in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics).
Alcohol
Normal Boiling Point (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; ºC)
Ethanol
78.2 (labeled as No. 4800 on Page 3-246)
1-propanol
97.04 (labeled as No. 9166 on Page 3-466)
1-pentanol
137.6 (labeled as No. 8626 on Page 3-438)
Isopropyl alcohol (2-propanol)
82.21(labeled as No. 9167 on Page 3-466)
Bruzzano is analogous to the present invention as both are in the field of preparing absorbents used in the removal of acid gases.
While none of the alkyl alcohols are taught by an embodiment, it would still be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute PEG200 provided in Examples 1 – 6 (see [0063] – [0081]) with any of the disclosed alkyl alcohols as Bruzzano does not give further indication as to which alcohol would likely be successful. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the PEG200 demonstrated by Bruzzano with any of the other alkyl alcohols suggested by Bruzzano as there is no further indication as to which alkyl alcohol would likely be successful.
Regarding claim 3, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches the alcohol A) is linear or branched aliphatic alcohols with a single -OH group (n=1) and having 4 – 20 carbon atoms (see [0048] where 1-butanol, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol are linear aliphatic alcohols with one -OH group, i.e. n=1, and have 4 – 6 carbon atoms).
Regarding claim 5, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches the organic base B) having a pKb lower than or equal to 2 (Examples 1 – 6 in [0063] – [0081] use DBU; Page 14, line 20 of the specification of the present invention discloses the pKb of DBU, which is 1.1)
Regarding claim 6, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1, where said organic base B) has a normal boiling point at least higher than 75 ºC (Examples 1 – 6 in [0063] – [0081] includes DBU, which has a normal boiling point of 261 ºC according to the first paragraph of the section titled “Introduction” of Lin on Page 8).
Regarding claim 8, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches the organic base B) is 1,8-diazabicyclo(5.4.0)undec-7-ene (DBU) (see Examples 1 – 6 in [0063] – [0081]) or 1,5 diazabicyclo(4.3.0)non-5-ene (DBN) ([0036] includes DBN as a preferable superbase). While DBN is not taught by an embodiment, it would still be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute DBU provided in Examples 1 – 6 (see [0063] – [0081]) with DBN as Bruzzano does not give further indication as to which base would likely be successful. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the DBU demonstrated by Bruzzano with DBN as suggested by Bruzzano as there is no further indication as to which base would likely be successful.
Regarding claim 9, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1 wherein solvent C) is selected from the cyclic ureas of formula (IV), (V) ([0046] lists 1,3-dimethyl-imidazolidin-2-one (DMI) or N,N-dimethyl-N,N-trimethyleneurea, (DMPU) as examples for cyclic urea compounded that can be used). While neither DMI nor DMPU, which are cyclic ureas comprising of formulas (IV) and (V) respectively, is taught by an embodiment, it would still be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute NMP in Example 5 (see [0080]) with either DMI or DMPU as Bruzzano does not give further indication as to which cyclic urea or cyclic amide (i.e. cyclic lactam) would likely be successful. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute NMP demonstrated by Bruzzano with either DMI or DMPU as there is no further indication as to which cyclic urea or cyclic lactam would likely be successful.
Regarding claim 10, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1 and further teaches a C) cyclic lactam of formula (VI) (Example 5 in [0080] adds NMP in addition to DBU and PEG200 as describes in [0075]).
However, Bruzzano does not disclose a weight percentage for the cyclic lactam. However, it is noted that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical and that the courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, in regards to the weight content of each component, Bruzzano discloses an embodiment where the composition only contains components A), B), and C) [Example 5 in [0080] demonstrates a composition containing DBU as component B), PEG200 as component A), and NMP as component C)]. While Bruzzano does not disclose relative weight percentages, the overall weight percentage of any composition cannot exceed 100%, suggesting that the recited limitation “the weight content of each component A), B) and C) being selected in such a way that their sum is 100%” only allows the absorbent mixture to exclusively consist of components A), B), and C) and no other components. Therefore, while Bruzzano does not explicitly disclose weight percentages of the A), B), and C) components, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the A) – C) components of Bruzzano would necessarily sum to 100% as those are the only components included in the absorbent mixture.
Claims 2 and 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruzzano, as applied in claim 1, in view of Bellussi, et. al. 2020 (WO 2020053116 A1), referred to as Bellussi from herein.
Regarding claim 2, Bruzzano teaches the mixture, interpreted as “the absorbent mixture,” according to claim 1. Bellussi teaches a similar composition for an absorbent mixture for the removal of acid gases (see Abstract where “sour gas” is equivalent to “acid gas”) which also includes three components: (A) at least one alcohol of general formula R(OH)n having a normal boiling point equal to or higher than 100 ºC, wherein R is an alkyl or alkyl aromatic group, linear or branched, possibly substituted, having a number of carbon atoms comprised between 2 and 20, and n is a variable whole number between 1 and 20 (see Page 4, lines 18 – 22); (B) at least one organic base having a pKb (in water) less than or equal to 3.2 (see Page 4, line 23); and (C) an aprotic polar solvent having a dielectric constant greater than or equal to 20, a viscosity less than or equal to 14, and a normal boiling point equal to or above 130 ºC (see Page 4, lines 24 – 27). While the requirements for component C) of Bellussi are different than the ones for component C) of the present invention, both components nevertheless serve the substantially similar role of solvent for the absorbent mixture (Page 9, lines 13 – 31; Page 8, line 18 describes component C as a “solvent”). Bellussi further teaches the components A), B) and C) are included in the absorbent mixture in the following proportions by weight (weight ratios) (see Page 5, lines 16 – 19; also demonstrated by Example 1 on Page 14, lines 6 – 16):
B/A of between 0.1 and 1.5 (see line Page 5, line 18; Example 1 on Page 14 uses 100 g of hexanol (A) and 50 g of DBU (B), making B/A 0.5);
C/A of between 0.1 and 2 (see line Page 5, line 19; Example 1 on Page 14 uses 100 g of hexanol (A) and 100 g of dimethyl sulfoxide (C), making C/A 1);
Bellussi is analogous to the present invention as both are in the same field of preparing absorbent mixtures usable for the removal of acid gases.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the absorbent mixture composition of Bruzzano with the weight proportions as taught by Bellussi due to the substantial similarities in compositions and their corresponding components. Furthermore, Bruzzano provides possible substitutions for NMP, including dimethyl sulfoxide ([0047]), which is the aprotic solvent demonstrated by Example 1 of Bellussi (see Page 14, lines 6 – 16). Therefore, since Bruzzano suggests component C) of Bellussi, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect successful results if the absorbent mixture composition of Bruzzano was modified by the weight proportions as taught and demonstrated by Bellussi.
Regarding claim 4, Bruzzano teaches the mixture, interpreted as the “absorbent mixture,” according to claim 1, and Bellussi teaches component A) is 1,2-propandiol (Page 9, lines 5 – 9 provides a list of preferred alcohols, which includes propylene glycol, another name for 1,2-propandiol). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the alcohol in Bruzzano with the 1,2-propandiol as taught by Bellussi. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruzzano, as applied in claim 1, in view of Raab, et. al. 2002 (1,8-Bis(tetramethylguanidino)naphthalene (TMGN): A New, Superbasic and Kinetically Active “Proton Sponge”. Chem. Eur. J. 2002, 8(7), 1682 – 1693), referred to as Raab from herein.
Regarding claim 7, Bruzzano teaches the absorbent mixture according to claim 1, and Raab teaches an organic base B) that is a nitrogenous organic compound comprising 5 to 25 N atoms (TMGN, labeled as 1 in Schemes 1 and 2, wherein TMGN contains 6 nitrogen atoms). Raab discloses the synthesis of TMGN (see the Section titled “1,8-Bis(1,1,3,3-tetramethylguanidino)naphthalene (1, TMGN)” on Page 1690; examiner has provided a structure of TMGN below obtained from Scheme 1) and investigates its properties and behaviors related to its role as a super base (see Abstract). More specifically, Raab teaches that TMGN is more basic than other common bases, including DBU (see Table 4 where a higher pKBH+ indicates higher basicity) and further teaches that TMGN is resistant to hydrolysis (see Abstract).
PNG
media_image6.png
203
282
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Raab does not disclose the normal boiling point of TMGN. However, Raab discloses the melting point of TMGN, which is 123 ºC (the Section titled “1,8-Bis(1,1,3,3-tetramethylguanidino)naphthalene (1, TMGN)” on Page 1690 discloses the melting point, abbreviated as “M.p.”, as 123 ºC). While melting points and boiling points are different properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a particular chemical substance will most likely have a melting point at a lower temperature than its boiling point as melting generally occurs at lower temperatures than boiling for a given chemical composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the TMGN taught by Raab to have a boiling point of higher than 75 ºC as its melting point is already above 75 ºC, and thus also having a low volatility.
Raab is analogous to the present invention because Raab is in the field of understanding and investigating the proton affinity and general behavior of superbases, which influences the composition and function of the absorbent mixture in the present invention.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace DBU of Bruzzano with TMGN of Raab to use a stronger superbase as Raab specifically teaches that TMGN is more basic than DBU (see Table 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as TMGN is also recommended as an acceptable component B) by the specification of the present invention (see Page 15, lines 11 – 15).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rayner, et. al. 2015 (WO 2015092427 A2) teaches absorbent mixtures used to absorb gases such as carbon dioxide.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN F CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:00PM, Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/V.F.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights