DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/683,851 application filed 15 February 2024, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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. The limitations of claim 11 are directed to the operating temperatures of absorption and regeneration. The limitations do not actually further limit the structure of the removal unit. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (US 2017/0326495).
With respect to claims 1-5, Tanaka et al discloses “[a]n absorbing liquid which absorbs the CO2 or H2S or both contained in a gas, and which comprises 1) at least one tertiary-monoamine main agent selected from a tertiary-monoamine group and 2) at least one secondary-diamine first additive selected from a secondary-diamine group” [abstract]; more specifically, the reference teaches “[s]pecifically, the case in which the tertiary monoamine is N-methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and the secondary diamine is piperazine (PZ) will be described” [paragraph 0059] and “[e]xamples of the secondary diamine include a compound selected from at least one kind of piperazine derivatives, 2-methylpiperazine, 2,3-dimethylpiperazine, 2,5-dimethylpiperazine, N,N′-dimethylethanediamine, N,N′-dimethylpropanediamine, N,N′-diethylethylenediamine, N,N′-diethylpropanediamine, N,N′-diisopropylethylenediamine, and N,N′-ditertiarybutylethanediamine…Specific examples of the piperazine derivative include a compound selected from at least one kind of piperazine, 2-methylpiperazine, and 2,5-dimethylpiperazin, and the present invention is not limited thereto” [paragraph 0074 & 0076] and “…the absorbing liquid is mainly composed of water…” [paragraph 0070]. The aforementioned MDEA corresponds to the chain monoamine of the instant application [compare to paragraphs 0020-0021 & 0034 of the published application: “[t]he composite amine absorbent according to the present disclosure absorbs at least one of CO2 and H2S in gas, and this contains (a) a chain monoamine,…Here, (a) the linear monoamine (a component) includes…a tertiary linear monoamine (a3 component; a tertiary chain monoalkanolamine)…Specifically, the tertiary linear monoamine (a3, tertiary chain monoalkanolamine) may be, for example, at least one compound selected from N-methyldiethanolamine,…”]. Either piperazine or 2-methylpiperazine corresponds to the diamine containing amino groups having the same number of substituents (i.e., (b)) of instant claim 1. Compare to paragraphs 0035 & 0037 of the published application: “[i]t is preferable that (b) the diamine containing amino groups having the same number of substituents (b component) contain at least one of a primary linear polyamine, a secondary linear polyamine, and a secondary cyclic polyamine…The secondary cyclic polyamines may be, for example, at least one compound selected from piperazine (PZ), 2-methylpiperazine (2MPZ),…” Additionally, note that “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072. Therefore, since Tanaka et al teaches “at least one secondary-diamine first additive” and specifically mentions piperazine and 2-methylpiperazine along with N,N′-diethylpropanediamine, it would have been obvious to add N,N′-diethylpropanediamine to either piperazine or 2-methylpiperazine to form a third composition useful for the same purpose. Note, also, that the secondary-diamine “contributes to reducing a reboiler heat duty” [paragraph 0090]. Therefore, the aforementioned combinations would have been obvious for at least reducing reboiler heat duty. N,N′-diethylpropanediamine corresponds to the chain diamine (c) of instant claim 1. Compare to paragraphs 0038 & 0039 of the published application: “(c) The chain diamine containing amino groups having different numbers of substituents contains two classes of amino groups out of the primary amino group, the secondary amino group, and the tertiary amino group…it is more preferable that (c) the chain diamine containing amino groups having different numbers of substituents contain at least one chain diamine containing a tertiary amino group and a primary amino group…Illustrative examples of the chain diamine containing a tertiary amino group and a primary amino group include at least one compound selected from N, N-diethylpropanediamine…”
With respect to claim 7, “in the absorbing liquid according to the first aspect, a total sum of the tertiary monoamine and the secondary diamine is 10% to 70% by weight with respect to the total absorbing liquid” [paragraph 0014].
With respect to claims 8 and 9, clearly, the at least one tertiary-monoamine main agent affects CO2 and/or H2S absorption and, as already noted, the secondary-diamine “contributes to reducing a reboiler heat duty.” Thus, said compounds and their quantities are result-effective variables; i.e., a variable that achieve a recognized result. Applicant is reminded 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.
With respect to claim 10, Tanaka et al discloses “[a] device for removing CO2 or H2S or both, the device comprising: an absorption tower which allows a gas containing CO2 or H2S or both to come in contact with an absorbing liquid to remove CO2 or H2S or both; and a regeneration tower which regenerates a solution that absorbs CO2 or H2S or both, wherein a solution regenerated by removing CO2 or H2S or both in the regeneration tower is reused in the absorption tower, and the absorbing liquid…is used” [claim 15]. With respect to claim 12, see claim 16.
With respect to claims 11 and 13, it is well known that adsorption and desorption are affected by temperature; that is, temperature is a result-effective variable. Applicant is reminded of the inventiveness of the optimum or workable ranges of such discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Tanaka et al does not disclose that the recited (c) chain diamine containing amino groups having different numbers of substituents includes at least one chain diamine containing a tertiary amino group and a secondary amino group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
21 July 2026
Prosecution Insights