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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/20/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN904 (CN110368904A, applicant’s translation will be referenced).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (Preparation and Adsorption Properties of Polyethylenimine Containing Fibrous Adsorbent for Carbon Dioxide Capture, applicant’s attachment will be referenced).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP410 (JP2017047410A, applicant’s translation will be referenced).
Rejection in view of CN904
Claim 1: CN904 teaches an acidic gas adsorbent (abstract teaches preparation of a solid porous gas adsorption material that can be used for CO2.) comprising a porous sheet including a polymer, wherein the polymer has an amino group ([0009]-[0016], the abstract, and claim 1 teaches that the adsorbent material is a solid porous material that is formed with amine and polymer. Claim 9 teaches this can have the form of a film which would read on a sheet. A block can also read upon a sheet depending on how thin the block is.), and the porous sheet has a three-dimensional network skeleton composed of the polymer (Claim 1 teaches a crosslinked network and also it can be a block, powder, film, or fiber.).
Claim 2: CN904 teaches the porous sheet includes continuous holes continuously formed in a three-dimensional manner (If this is formed into a shape and it is porous, it would have some amount of continuous holes to allow fluid through.).
Claim 3: CN904 teaches the porous sheet includes the polymer as a main component (This is how the solid porous gas adsorbing material is made and therefore reads upon the claim.).
Claim 4: CN904 teaches the amino group includes a secondary amino group ([0015] teaches multiple secondary amino group containing polymers.).
Claim 8: CN904 teaches the porous sheet has a porosity of 20% or more ([0022] teaches a porosity of 40%-99%.).
Claim 11: CN904 teaches a flat plate shape or a corrugated shape (Claim 9 teaches a film or block).
Claim 12: CN904 teaches a structure comprising the acidic gas adsorbent according to claim 1; and an air flow path ([0023] teaches the material is used by having air, exhaust gas, or natural gas flow through this.).
Claim 13: CN904 teaches an acidic gas adsorption device comprising an adsorption part having a gas inlet and a gas outlet, wherein the adsorption part contains the acidic gas adsorbent according to claim 1 ([0023] teaches that this can be used for industrial exhaust gas and automobile exhaust gas, which means it would have a gas inlet of the exhaust air and a gas outlet of the clean air.).
Claim 14: CN904 teaches an acidic gas recovery device comprising: the acidic gas adsorbent according to claim 1; and a medium path, wherein a heat medium which heats the acidic gas adsorbent passes through the medium path during desorption operation in which acidic gas adsorbed by the acidic gas adsorbent is desorbed from the acidic gas adsorbent ([0023] teaches that the gas adsorbing material can be regenerated by heating with steam, electric, or solar.).
Claim 15: CN904 teaches the medium path penetrates the acidic gas adsorbent in a thickness direction of the acidic gas adsorbent (Since the material is a solid porous gas adsorbent, the heating medium must be able to properly heat and pass through the adsorbent in order to release the gas.).
Claim 17: CN904 teaches a cooling medium which cools the acidic gas adsorbent passes through the medium path after the desorption operation ([0033] teaches that the adsorption material can be placed in a column with a heating function to remove the impurity gas then cool the material.).
Rejection in view of LI
Claim 1: Li teaches an acidic gas adsorbent comprising a porous sheet including a polymer, wherein the polymer has an amino group (Page 3852 teaches the fibrous adsorbent is PEI coating and it has amine compounds.), and the porous sheet has a three-dimensional network skeleton composed of the polymer (Figure 2 shows there is a 3D network skeleton of the polymer when it is coated.).
Claim 2: Li teaches the porous sheet includes continuous holes continuously formed in a three-dimensional manner (See figure 2).
Claim 3: Li teaches the porous sheet includes the polymer as a main component (Since the adsorbent is made of the PEI coating, this would read upon the claims.).
Claim 4: Li teaches the amino group includes a secondary amino group (PEI contains secondary amino groups.).
Claim 9: Li teaches a support supporting the porous sheet (glass fibers).
Rejection in view of JP410
Claim 1: JP410 teaches an acidic gas adsorbent comprising a porous sheet including a polymer, wherein the polymer has an amino group ([0054] teaches that the gas adsorption material can be a sheet supported on a porous substrate. [0025]-[0027] teaches there is a polyfunctional epoxy compound with an ammino group.), and the porous sheet has a three-dimensional network skeleton composed of the polymer ([0026] teaches the product is a crosslinked product with 3D crosslinked structure.).
Claim 2: JP410 teaches the porous sheet includes continuous holes continuously formed in a three-dimensional manner ([0028]-[0029] teaches that this is a crosslinked structure and that it can be hard to form a close packed structure which increases free volume inside the product so that it improves gas permeability, which reads upon the claim.).
Claim 3: JP410 teaches the porous sheet includes the polymer as a main component (Since the adsorbent material is made of this, it would read upon the claim.).
Claim 4: JP410 teaches the amino group includes a secondary amino group ([0026] teaches it can be a secondary amino group.).
Claim 6: JP410 teaches the polymer has a glass transition temperature of 40C or less ([0040]-[0041] teaches that the glass transition temperature can be 40C.).
Claim 9: JP410 teaches a support supporting the porous sheet ([0054] teaches that the gas adsorption material can be a sheet supported on a porous substrate.).
Claim 11: JP410 teaches a flat plate shape or a corrugated shape ([0054] teaches that the gas adsorption material can be a sheet).
Claim 12: JP410 teaches a structure comprising the acidic gas adsorbent according to claim 1; and an air flow path (Figures 1 and 2 shows this. The air flow path is 2).
Claim 13: JP410 teaches an acidic gas adsorption device comprising an adsorption part having a gas inlet and a gas outlet, wherein the adsorption part contains the acidic gas adsorbent according to claim 1 (Figures 1 and 2 teach this. The inlet is 2 and the outlet is 4. The adsorbent is 9.).
Claim 14: JP410 teaches an acidic gas recovery device comprising: the acidic gas adsorbent according to claim 1; and a medium path, wherein a heat medium which heats the acidic gas adsorbent passes through the medium path during desorption operation in which acidic gas adsorbed by the acidic gas adsorbent is desorbed from the acidic gas adsorbent ([0058] teaches that the inside of the acidic gas recovery unit has a temperature change performed by a temperature change device that allows for the desorption of the gas.).
Claim 17: JP410 teaches a cooling medium which cools the acidic gas adsorbent passes through the medium path after the desorption operation ([0056]-[0060] teaches that the regeneration heats the adsorbent to about 80-200C, then the acidic gas is exposed to the adsorbent again, which cools the material back down to 20-100C. This cycle is repeated.).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN904.
Claim(s) 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP410.
Rejection in view of CN904
Claim 5: CN904 does not explicitly teach the polymer is an epoxy polymer including a constitutional unit derived from an amine monomer. It does teach in [0017] that it can include an epoxy compound. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6: CN904 does not explicitly teach the polymer has a glass transition temperature of 40C or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to choose a desired polymer, such as one with a glass transition temperature of 40C or less, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7: CN904 does not explicitly state the porous sheet has a specific surface area of 1.0 m2/g or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal surface area in order to fit the location and amount of acidic gas to remove.
Claim 10: The limitation of “an adsorption amount of carbon dioxide when the acidic gas adsorbent is caused to be in contact with mixed gas composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor for 15 hours is 0.1 mmol/cm3 or more, where the carbon dioxide in the mixed gas has a concentration of 400 vol ppm and the mixed gas has a temperature of 20°C and a humidity of 50%RH” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 16: CN904 does not explicitly teach the acidic gas recovery device comprises the two acidic gas adsorbents, and the medium path is formed between the two acidic gas adsorbents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple acidic gas adsorbents in series since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case having an additional adsorbent can help with further reducing the acidic gas content of the gas.
Rejection in view of Li
Claim 5: Li does not explicitly teach the polymer is an epoxy polymer including a constitutional unit derived from an amine monomer. It does teach in page 3852 that it can include an epoxy as the crosslinking agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6: Li does not explicitly teach the polymer has a glass transition temperature of 40C or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to choose a desired polymer, such as one with a glass transition temperature of 40C or less, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7: Li does not explicitly state the porous sheet has a specific surface area of 1.0 m2/g or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal surface area in order to fit the location and amount of acidic gas to remove.
Claim 8: Li does not explicitly teach the porous sheet has a porosity of 20% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal porosity in order to properly let the gas pass through while still being able to remove the acidic gas.
Claim 10: The limitation of “an adsorption amount of carbon dioxide when the acidic gas adsorbent is caused to be in contact with mixed gas composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor for 15 hours is 0.1 mmol/cm3 or more, where the carbon dioxide in the mixed gas has a concentration of 400 vol ppm and the mixed gas has a temperature of 20°C and a humidity of 50%RH” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Rejection in view of JP410
Claim 5: JP410 does not explicitly teach the polymer is an epoxy polymer including a constitutional unit derived from an amine monomer. It does teach in [0027] that it can include a polyfunctional epoxy compound. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7: JP410 does not explicitly state the porous sheet has a specific surface area of 1.0 m2/g or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal surface area in order to fit the location and amount of acidic gas to remove.
Claim 10: The limitation of “an adsorption amount of carbon dioxide when the acidic gas adsorbent is caused to be in contact with mixed gas composed of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor for 15 hours is 0.1 mmol/cm3 or more, where the carbon dioxide in the mixed gas has a concentration of 400 vol ppm and the mixed gas has a temperature of 20°C and a humidity of 50%RH” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 16: JP410 does not explicitly teach the acidic gas recovery device comprises the two acidic gas adsorbents, and the medium path is formed between the two acidic gas adsorbents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have multiple acidic gas adsorbents in series since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case having an additional adsorbent can help with further reducing the acidic gas content of the gas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20210008491, 20170296961, 20120160099.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 06/16/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights