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 .
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 does not refer to clauses i), ii) and iii) in the alternative and therefore it appears that the claim requires all of i), ii) and iii) to be present. However, the claim also contains the limitation “or a combination of two or more of i), ii) and iii)”. It is therefore unclear if the requirements of i), ii) and iii) are all required in the claim or only one or more of i), ii) or iii). Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kimura et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0039047) in view of 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)
Regarding claims 1 and 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 greater than 0.1 mL/g and a surface area of 10-5000 m2/g (par. [0111]-[0113]), overlapping with the presently claimed ranges.
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.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, 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).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Kimura et al. discloses that the sorbent includes silicates, clay particles, zeolites, alumina, titania and metal-organic frameworks. (par. [0108]).
Regarding claim 4, ZSM-5 as disclosed in Lee et la. would meet the limitation of a hierarchical zeotype structure.
Regarding claims 5-6, ZSM-5 is an MFI type zeotype framework structure containing material.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura et al. discloses that the sorbent includes silicates, clay particles, zeolites, alumina, titania and metal-organic frameworks. (par. [0108]).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 20, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1 and 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).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura et al. teaches an average pore diameter of 300 angstroms or less (i.e. 30 nm or less) (par. [0114]), overlapping with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claims 12-13, Kimura et al. discloses a functionalized polyamine, branched polyamine or polyethyleneimine. (par. [0008]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Kimura et al. does not explicitly disclose the molecular weight of the polyamine material on the surface of the porous support material.
Lee et al. teaches that suitable amine molecular weights for use with the sorbent material is 600 g/mol (i.e. 600 Da). (page 2, Experimental section.). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success of using polyamines having similar molecular weights in Kimura et al. for use in CO2 absorption.
Regarding claim 16, the sorbent material may be applied onto a monolith. (par. [0037]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kimura et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2019/0039047) in view of 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), further in view of Aouaini et al. (Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1558, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031558).
Kimura in view of Lee et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kimura in view of Lee et al. does not disclose an oxide of gallium, germanium, boron, zinc or phosphorus.
Aouaini et al. disclose inclusion of metal cations with ZSM-5 zeolites including Zn which shows improved CO2 absorption performance compared to unmodified ZSM-5 as well as having improved properties compared to NA, Mg or La containing ZSM-5. (Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Zn in the ZSM-5 zeolite as disclosed in the combination of Kimura in view of Lee et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it include Zn into the ZSM-5 zeolite material in view of the disclosed improved performance with respect to CO2 absorption in Aouaini et al.
Conclusion
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