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WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claim 20 made of record in the office action mailed on 01/23/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 04/17/2026.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 17-20 made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s argument in the response filed 04/17/2026.
SECOND NON-FINAL
Claims 17-20 below are rejected with a new grounds of rejection that wasn’t necessitated by amendment. As such, the present office action is non-final.
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 1-7 and 9-16 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 claim 1, 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 claim 2, 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). 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 3, 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, the claims are 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 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.
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 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 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.
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 04/17/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 17 made of record in the office action mailed on 01/23/2026 have been considered but are moot since the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 04/17/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 made of record in the office action mailed on 01/23/2026 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is patentable over the cited prior art in view of alleged unexpected results of the mesopore to micropore ratio playing a critical role in determine the effectiveness of high loading of polyamines.
In order to traverse a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on allegations of unexpected results, the evidence provided must be of probative value, commensurate in scope with the claims and show that the results are unexpected. MPEP 716.02. The evidence must further be weighed against the evidence supporting a prima facie case obviousness. Id.
When making allegations of unexpected results, the Applicant bears the burden to demonstrate whether the differences between the prior art and claimed invention differ to such an extent that the difference is unexpected. (MPEP 716.02 and 716.02(b)). The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance”. (MPEP 716.02(b), citing Ex Parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1318, Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). It should be noted that mere allegation of improved properties alone is no sufficient to serve as the basis of unexpected results if they do not show a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties. (see MPEP 716.02(c) I). Furthermore, the unexpected results relied upon by the Applicant for patentability must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant’s data in Fig. 1 appears to show improved results when the mesopore/micropore ratio above 1.0 appears to improve the overall CO2 sorption with 40% polyamine. However, the data does show why this improvement is unexpected over the cited prior art. Lee et al. teaches mesopore/micropore volume ratios above 1.0 and explicitly teaches that it is known that the mesopore volume and micropore volumes are both important for controlling the CO2 adsorption since they are related to the overall pore volume and surface area of the zeolite. (page 3, CO2 adsorption of ZSM-5, left col.). Lee et al. goes to say that micropores form stronger electric fields for binding CO2 but when the overall pore volume and surface area of the sorbent is too low, due to a low level of mesopores, the adsorption values suffer. (page 3, right col). The data in Fig. 3 appears to show that for a fixed Si/Al value of 20, both mesopore and micropore affect the adsorption data but the mesopore volume is kept higher than that of the micropore because as shown in Fig. 3(d), the overall pore volume is critical for achieving higher adsorption properties. Since mesopores are larger in size and therefore in volume, the most effective way to increase the overall pore volume and surface area would be to increase the content of mesopores in the zeolite. None of the data presented by Applicant appears to show that the increase in performance in CO2 adsorption alleged in the present invention is unexpected rather than an optimization of several parameters (mesopore/micropore volume, surface area, Si/Al ratio etc..) which are all art recognized for improving or altering the performance of CO2 absorption in the zeolite material. As such, the claims remain unpatentable over the prior art as set forth in the claim rejections above.
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 05/14/2026
Prosecution Insights