RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-16 over made of record in the office action mailed on 05/18/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 08/05/2026
Claim amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on 08/05/2026 were not in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Specifically, the limitation “wherein the support material comprises a zeotype framework structure selected from the group consisting of DON, SFN, MOR, MEL, BEA, MTW, MTT and MFS” was not underlined as required per MPEP 714C Section (B).
The claim amendments filed on 08/05/2026 are entered into the record and the claim listing filed on 08/05/2026 is considered the most current set of claims under examination.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chaumonnot et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2011/0033375) in view of Buelow et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0095996) and Inui et al. (Relationship between Properties of Various Zeolites and their CO2-Adsorption Behaviors in Pressure Swing Adsorption Operation, Ind. Chem. Chem. Res., Vol. 27, No. 7, 1988)
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 1, Chaumonnot et al. teaches a crystallized porous material (i.e. a support material) having a mesopore volume in the range of 0.01 to 1 ml/g and a micropore volume of 0.03 to 0.4 ml/g (i.e. a range of a ratio of mesopore volume to micropore volume overlapping with the claimed range of 1.0 or more) (Abstract), a total surface area of 10-1100 m2/g (par. [0018]) and an Si/Al ratio of 50 (par. [0027] and [0052]). The crystallized porous material includes a crystal zeotype of the BEA variety. (par. [0052]).
Chaumonnot et al. does not disclose a polyamine coating on the crystallized porous material in an amount of 40-80 wt%.
Buelow et al. teaches a sorbent material supporting a polyamine material for use as a carbon dioxide absorbent material. (Abstract and par, [0002]). Buelow et al. teaches that the sorbent polymer applied onto the surface of the support should be used in amounts in the range 25-100 wt% based on the weight of the support. (par. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a polyamine coating material in an amount as disclosed in Buelow et al. onto the surface of the crystallized porous material disclosed in Chaumonnot et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a polyamine coating on the surface of the crystallized porous material disclosed in Chaumonnot et al. in order to form a sorbent material capable of absorbing CO2 for chemical synthesis or reducing global emissions as taught in Buelow et al. (par. [0003]-[0008]).
Chaumonot in view of Buelow et al. does not teach the acidity by temperature programmed ammonia desorption of the crystallized porous material.
Inui et al. teaches zeolites for use in CO2 separation and adsorption and properties of the zeolites which affect their capacity to adsorb CO2. (Abstract). Inui et al. teaches that acidic properties as measured the NH3 adsorption amount of the zeolite is strongly correlated to the amount of CO2 absorption property of the zeolite, with increasing NH3 adsorption (and hence acidity) resulting in increased CO2 adsorption. (page 1107, right col. “Acidic Property of Zeolite Samples” and Fig 7-8).
"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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II). While Inui et al. does not teach a specific range of acidity of the zeolite in a meq/g value, given the explicit teaching in Inui et al. of a result effective nature of the acidity of the zeolite to the capacity to absorb CO2 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the acidity of the zeolite in order to improve the CO2 adsorption capacity of the zeolite material produced by the combination of Chaumonot in view of Buelow et al.. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to have an acidity as measured by temperature programmed ammonia desorption of 0.10 meq/g or more in order to improve the CO2 capturing capabilities of the zeolite material based on the teachings of Inui et al.
Regarding claims 6-7, Chaumonot et al. teaches the use of zeolite beta (BEA). (par. [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Chaumonot et al. further teaches the inclusion of oxides of gallium and boron. (par. [0010]).
Regarding claims 9-10, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, above. In the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 12-13, Buelow et al. teaches the use of polyethylenimine as the sorbent coating and which is a branched polyamine (par. [0036]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Buelow et al. teaches suitable molecular weights of 800-2,000,000 g/mol where closer to 800 results in higher CO2 capacity. (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16, Buelow et al. further teaches applying the sorbent material onto a substrate (i.e. a monolith). (par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Chaumonnot et al. teaches a crystallized porous material (i.e. a support material) having a mesopore volume in the range of 0.01 to 1 ml/g and a micropore volume of 0.03 to 0.4 ml/g (i.e. a range of a ratio of mesopore volume to micropore volume overlapping with the claimed range of 1.0 or more) (Abstract), a total surface area of 10-1100 m2/g (par. [0018]) and an Si/Al ratio of 50 (par. [0027] and [0052]). The crystallized porous material includes a crystal zeotype of the BEA variety. (par. [0052]).
Chaumonnot et al. does not disclose a polyamine coating on the crystallized porous material in an amount of 40-80 wt%.
Buelow et al. teaches a sorbent material supporting a polyamine material for use as a carbon dioxide absorbent material. (Abstract and par, [0002]). Buelow et al. teaches that the sorbent polymer applied onto the surface of the support should be used in amounts in the range 25-100 wt% based on the weight of the support. (par. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a polyamine coating material in an amount as disclosed in Buelow et al. onto the surface of the crystallized porous material disclosed in Chaumonnot et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a polyamine coating on the surface of the crystallized porous material disclosed in Chaumonnot et al. in order to form a sorbent material capable of absorbing CO2 for chemical synthesis or reducing global emissions as taught in Buelow et al. (par. [0003]-[0008]).
Chaumonot in view of Buelow et al. does not teach the acidity by temperature programmed ammonia desorption of the crystallized porous material.
Inui et al. teaches zeolites for use in CO2 separation and adsorption and properties of the zeolites which affect their capacity to adsorb CO2. (Abstract). Inui et al. teaches that acidic properties as measured the NH3 adsorption amount of the zeolite is strongly correlated to the amount of CO2 absorption property of the zeolite, with increasing NH3 adsorption (and hence acidity) resulting in increased CO2 adsorption. (page 1107, right col. “Acidic Property of Zeolite Samples” and Fig 7-8).
"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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II). While Inui et al. does not teach a specific range of acidity of the zeolite in a meq/g value, given the explicit teaching in Inui et al. of a result effective nature of the acidity of the zeolite to the capacity to absorb CO2 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the acidity of the zeolite in order to improve the CO2 adsorption capacity of the zeolite material produced by the combination of Chaumonot in view of Buelow et al.. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to have an acidity as measured by temperature programmed ammonia desorption of 0.10 meq/g or more in order to improve the CO2 capturing capabilities of the zeolite material based on the teachings of Inui et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, BEA would mee the limitation of a hierarchical zeotype framework structure.
Regarding claim 20, Chaumonnot et al. teaches a total surface area of 10-1100 m2/g (par. [0018]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Claims 2, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chaumonnot et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2011/0033375) in view of Buelow et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0095996) and Inui et al. (Relationship between Properties of Various Zeolites and their CO2-Adsorption Behaviors in Pressure Swing Adsorption Operation, Ind. Chem. Chem. Res., Vol. 27, No. 7, 1988), further in view of Kimura et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0039047).
Chaumonnot, Buelow and Inui et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Chaumonnot, Buelow and Inui et al. do not teach a ratio of external surface area to total surface area of 0.15 or more.
Kimura et al. discloses carbon dioxide sorbents including a porous support material impregnated with a polyamine compound. (Abstract and par. [0005]-[0008]). Kimura et al. discloses that the support materials include inorganic materials such as silicates, clay particles, zeolites, alumina, titania and metal-organic frameworks. (par. [0108]). Kimura et al. teaches applying an external coating of silicon on the porous support prior to the polyamine which causes a surface area increase of 5-40% (par. [0111]) which implies that the external surface area is at least 5-40% greater than the internal surface area since the surface area increase is due to the external surface area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio of external surface area to total surface area for the zeolite material of Chaumonnot et al. to lie in the range of 5-40% in view of the teachings of Kimura et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have a ratio of external surface area to total surface area in the range of 5-40% in order to improve the amount of surface available for the CO2 to absorb, thereby increasing the efficiency of the zeolite material in absorbing the gas.
Regarding claim 11, Chaumonnot et al. does not teach a specific average pore diameter for the zeolite material.
Kimura et al. teaches that the porous support materials for absorption of CO2 can have an average pore diameter of 300 angstroms or less (i.e. 30 nm or less) (par. [0114]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a zeolite material in Chaumonnot et al. having an average pore diameter of 30 nm or less in view of the teachings of Kimura et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that using a zeolite having an average pore diameter of 30 nm or less would result in a zeolite framework that is suitable for the absorption of CO2 gases given the teachings of Kimura et al. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chaumonnot et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2011/0033375) in view of Buelow et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0095996), (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2013/0095996) and Inui et al. (Relationship between Properties of Various Zeolites and their CO2-Adsorption Behaviors in Pressure Swing Adsorption Operation, Ind. Chem. Chem. Res., Vol. 27, No. 7, 1988), further in view of Burton et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2015/0298981).
Chaumonnot, Buelow and Inui et al. are relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 17, above. Claims 4 and 19 are further rejected as follows:
Chaumonnot, Buelow and Inui et al. do not teach the support material comprises EMM-20.
Burton et al. teaches a ZSM-5 type zeotype material containing a unique XRD pattern referred to as an EMM-20 type with controllable Si/Al ratios. (par. [0009]). Burton et al. teaches that the material is desirable due to its high acid activity and large surface area. (par. [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use EMM-20 as the zeolite material, which is a hierarchical zeotype material, as the support material in Chaumonnot et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use EMM-20 in view of the high surface area and acidity, both of which have been recognized in Chaumonnot, Buelow and Innui et al. as properties which result in improved CO2 absorption.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kimura et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0039047) in view of and Buelow et al. Lee et al. (Journal of Industrial Engineering Chemistry, vol. 23, 1 March 2015, pp. 251-256) (cited in the IDS filed on 05/09/2025), as evidenced by Al-Dughaither et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2014, 53, 15303−15316) and Wilson et al. (CO2 and CO adsorption equilibrium on ZSM-5 for different SiO2/Al2O3 ratios, Separation Science and Technology, Vol. 54, 2019 – Issue 5).
Regarding claim 17, Kimura et al. discloses carbon dioxide sorbents including a porous support material impregnated with a polyamine compound. (Abstract and par. [0005]-[0008]). The content of the polyamine is present in an amount of 20-40% of the total weight sorbent (par. [0013]), which means that the content of the polyamine compound relative to the porous support is 25-66% by weight. (0.2/0.8 and 0.4/0.6, respectively). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to the porous support material, Kimura et al. discloses that the support materials include inorganic materials such as silicates, clay particles, zeolites, alumina, titania and metal-organic frameworks. (par. [0108]). The support material has a pore volume of 0.1-0.3 mL/g and a surface area of 10-5000 m2/g (par. [0111]-[0113]), overlapping with the presently claimed ranges.
With respect to the content of the polyamine, Kimura et al. teaches that the content therefore lies in the range of 20-40% of the total weight sorbent (par. [0013]), overlapping with the endpoint of the presently claimed range.
Furthermore, Buelow et al. teaches a sorbent material supporting a polyamine material for use as a carbon dioxide absorbent material. (Abstract and par, [0002]). Buelow et al. teaches that the sorbent polymer applied onto the surface of the support should be used in amounts in the range 25-100 wt% based on the weight of the support. (par. [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a polyamine coating material in an amount as disclosed in Buelow et al. onto the surface of the zeolite of Kimura et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a polyamine coating in amounts as disclosed in Buelow et al. in order to adjust the thickness and coverage of the coating relative to the zeolite material to optimize the CO2 absorption properties in Kimura et al.
Kimura et al. does not disclose a support material having mesopore/micropore ratio of 1.0 or more a Si to Al2 ratio of 10-1000 and an acidity as measured by programmed ammonia desorption of 0.1 meq/g or more.
Lee et al. teaches an CO2 absorbent material formed by a polyethyleneimine coating supported on a ZSM-5 zeolite with a Si/Al ratio of 20 (Experimental Section, page 2, left col.) and a mesopore/micropore volume ratio greater than 1 (see Table 1, page 2). While the reference does not explicitly disclose the acid value of the ZSM-5 zeolite, the zeolite would inherently possess the value claimed as evidenced by Al-Dughaither et al. which discloses that ZSM5-30 zeolites have an NH3 acidity of 429 µmol/g or less (0.429)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ZSM-5 zeolites as disclosed in Lee et al. as the support material for the polyamine coating disclosed in Kimura et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use ZSM-5 zeolites as taught in Lee et al. as the porous support material in view of the known use thereof for CO2 sorbent materials in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success of using ZSM-5 as a support a sorbent material for use in CO2 absorption. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07. As taught by Lee and Al-Dughaither et al., the ZSM-5 zeolite material disclosed in Lee et al. would satisfy all the limitations relating to mesopore/micropore ratio, Si to Al2 ratio of 10-1000 and an acidity as measured by programmed ammonia desorption as claimed.
Kimura in view of Lee et al. does not disclose a Si/Al2 ratio in the range of 50-1000 as claimed. Lee et al. teaches a fixed Si/Al ratio of 20.
Wilson et al. teaches the SiO2 and Al2O3 ratios in ZSM-5 zeolites can be varied to alter the adsorption at lower and higher pressures as well as selectivity of CO2. (Abstract). Wilson et al. teaches ratios of Si/Al2 can vary from 30 to 280 and may suitably be used for CO2 absorption applications. (Id.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to alter the ratio of Si/Al in the ZSM-5 zeolite material to a ratio of 30 to 280 for the sorbent in the combination of Kimura in view of Lee et al., based on the teachings of Wilson et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a zeolite material having a Si/Al2 ratio as disclosed in Wilson et al. in view of the art recognized adsorption at different pressure levels as well as CO2 selectivity. The prior art therefore recognizes the result effective natures of Si/Al2 ratios for CO2 adsorption applications and one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have found it obvious to optimize the parameter for obtaining improved performance of the zeolite. "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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 18, where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Kimura et al. teaches applying an external coating of silicon on the porous support prior to the polyamine which causes a surface area increase of 5-40% (par. [0111]) which implies that the external surface area is at least 5-40% greater than the internal surface area since the surface area increase is due to the external surface area.
Regarding claim 9, Kimura et al. discloses that the sorbent includes silicates, clay particles, zeolites, alumina, titania and metal-organic frameworks. (par. [0108]).
Regarding claim 20, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 17, above. Where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The support material of Kimura has a surface area of 10-5000 m2/g (par. [0111]-[0113]). While the acid value of ZSM-5 is not explicitly disclosed, the zeolite would inherently possess the value claimed as evidenced by Al-Dughaither et al. which discloses that ZSM5-30 zeolites have an NH3 acidity of 429 µmol/g or less (0.429)
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 08/05/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 17-20 made of record in the office action mailed on 05/18/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee et al. teaches the properties of ZSM-5 without the amine sorbed onto the zeolite and further teaches that micropores are more beneficial than mesopores. (Applicant’s arguments filed 08/05/2026, pages 10-12).
These arguments are not persuasive because the limitations of claim 1 referring to the acidity values and Si to Al2 ratio claim the “support material” which may refer to either the coated or uncoated sorbent. Therefore, given the teachings of Lee et al. regarding the known use of ZSM-5 as a CO2 absorbent material, it would have been obvious to use the sorbent as a support for coating with polyamine. Even if the properties are not longer present after coating, the claims are not limited to properties after coating with a polyamine. Furthermore, while Lee et al. may suggest that micropore volumes may be preferable over mesopore, the teaching does not render the combination unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Using a material with a mesopore volume higher than a micropore volume is still capable of performing CO2 absorption, taught in Kimura et al. As stated in MPEP 2123, disclosed preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.
Claims 17-20 therefore remain unpatentable over the teachings of Kimura, in view of Lee et al., as restated in the present office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 10/13/2026
