DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, delete “[Chem. 12]”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, delete the open and close parentheses marks.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, delete “[Chem. 13]”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 10 and 11, delete the open and close parentheses marks.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 11, the phrase “in General Formula (2)” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5, delete “[Chem. 14]”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 6 and 8, delete the open and close parentheses marks.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 7 and 8, the phrase “in General Formula (3-1)” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, delete “[Chem. 15]”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10, delete the open parentheses mark.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 2, the phrase “in General Formula (3-2)” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 2, delete the close parentheses mark.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 3, delete “[Chem. 16]”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, lines 4 and 6, delete the open and close parentheses marks.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 4, line 5, the phrase “in General Formula (4)” is superfluous and may be deleted.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the proportion” with “a proportion”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “the proportion” with “a proportion”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “ion” with “ionic”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, delete “the” which precedes “General”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “imidide” with “imide”.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayano et al. (US 9,278,348).
Production Example 3 of Hayano et al. discloses a copolymer of epichlorohydrin and allyl glycidyl ether characterized as a 114-mer containing 103 epichlorohydrin units and 11 allyl glycidyl ether units. In a subsequent step, the copolymer is reacted with 1-methylimidazole, resulting in formation of a polyether compound containing pendant methylimidazolium chloride groups. Claims do not provide structural description that defines “carbon dioxide absorber”. Since the polyether compound of Hayano et al. is substantially the same as the polyether compound of instant claims, the polymer product is capable of absorbing carbon dioxide and adequately qualifies as carbon dioxide absorber.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoang et al. (US 10,851,203).
Production Example 5 of Hoang et al. discloses a polymer comprising 185 units derived from epichlorohydrin. In a subsequent step, the copolymer is reacted with 1-methylimidazole and ion-exchanged with lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, resulting in formation of a polyether compound containing pendant methylimidazolium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide groups. Claims do not provide structural description that defines “carbon dioxide absorber”. Since the polyether compound of Hoang et al. is substantially the same as the polyether compound of instant claims, the polymer product is capable of absorbing carbon dioxide and adequately qualifies as carbon dioxide absorber. In Example 5, the polymer is dissolved in dimethyl acetamide (polar organic solvent containing oxygen atom).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights