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
Applicant's election with traverse of a CO2 adsorbent in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the adsorbent of the present application separated CO2 by selectively adsorbing CO2 into the rubber whereas the reference permeates the CO2 through a membrane. This is not found persuasive in light of new reference Jockenhovel et al. EP 3610860 A1 in which CO2 is adsorbed into a rubber coated adsorbent.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method for separating and recovering CO2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 21, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jockenhovel et al. EP 3610860 A1 in view of Sano WO 2011099587 A1 in further view of Nakao et al. WO 2020012878 A1 and in further view of Mochizuki et al. WO 2019054184 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jockenhovel et al. teaches a CO2 adsorbent represented by “the instant invention discloses a composition of 10 wt% to 99 wt% of carbon dioxide absorbent or adsorbent, whereby the composition contains 1 wt% to 90 wt%, relative to the total composition, of a polymeric coating selected from the group consisting of silicone rubber obtained from liquid silicone rubber and cellulose for use in medicine” (pg. 2).
Jockenhovel et al. fails to teach the following elements of the current invention:
A CO2 adsorbent comprising rubber
A glass transition temperature of the rubber is -150°C or more and -10°C or less
An SP value of the rubber is 7 (cal/cm3)0.5 or more and 10.5 (cal/cm3)0.5 or less
An elastic modulus of the rubber at 25°C of 0.03 MPa or more and 5 MPa or less
Sano teaches the following elements of the current invention:
The CO2 adsorbent comprising rubber represented by “various polymer compounds can also be added to the gas separation membrane of the present invention in order to adjust the membrane physical properties. As the polymer compound, acrylic polymer, polyurethane resin, polyamide resin, polyester resin, epoxy resin, phenol resin, polycarbonate resin, polyvinyl butyral resin, polyvinyl formal resin, shellac, vinyl resin, acrylic resin, rubber resin , Waxes and other natural resins can be used. Moreover, two or more of these may be used in combination” (pg. 18). The reference clearly teaches the CO2 adsorbent can comprise rubber resin as part of its polymer compound to “adjust the physical properties” of the adsorbent. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that rubber resin is a low cost material and it is beneficial to create functional amine groups that selectively bind CO2.
The glass transition temperature of the rubber is -150°C or more and -10°C or less represented by “the glass transition point of the crosslinked polymer of the third layer is preferably 60 ° C. or less, more preferably 50 ° C. or less, from the viewpoint of imparting flexibility to the gas separation membrane and improving mechanical strength. More preferably, the temperature is 40 ° C. or less. The lower limit is preferably −180 ° C. or higher, and more preferably −160 ° C. or higher” (pg. 8). It is well known in the art that the glass transition temperature directly affects adsorption capacity, kinetics, and material stability. Therefore, using the teachings of Sano to modify the glass transition temperature to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jockenhovel et al. to incorporate the teachings of
Sano to include the CO2 adsorbent comprising rubber and the glass transition temperature of the rubber being -150°C or more and -10°C or less to have a low-cost material and have the desired adsorption capacity, respectively.
Sano fails to teach the following elements of the current invention:
An SP value of the rubber is 7 (cal/cm3)0.5 or more and 10.5 (cal/cm3)0.5 or less
An elastic modulus of the rubber at 25°C of 0.03 MPa or more and 5 MPa or less
Nakao et al. teaches the SP value of the rubber is 7 (cal/cm3)0.5 or more and 10.5 (cal/cm3)0.5 or less represented by “as such a binder resin, for example, a resin having an SP value of 8 cal / cm .sup.3 to 15.4 cal / cm .sup.3 (preferably 9 cal / cm .sup.3 to 13.2 cal / cm .sup.3 ) is exemplified” (pg. 5). It is well known in the art that a low SP value of rubber in adsorption material leads to higher sorption capacity. Therefore, using the teachings of Nakao et al. to modify the SP value to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano to incorporate the teachings of Nakao et al. to include the SP value of the rubber is 7 (cal/cm3)0.5 or more and 10.5 (cal/cm3)0.5 or less to have a higher sorption capacity.
Nakao et al. fails to teach the elastic modulus of the rubber at 25°C of 0.03 MPa or more and 5 MPa or less.
Mochizuki et al. teaches teach the elastic modulus of the rubber at 25°C of 0.03 MPa or more and 5 MPa or less represented by “the elastic modulus at 25 ° C. of the rubber used in the present invention is preferably 0.01 to 100 MPa (pg. 6). It is well known in the art the elastic modulus of rubber directly affects its flexibility and resistance to deformation under stress. Therefore, using the teachings of Mochizuki et al. to modify the elastic modulus value to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano and in further view of Nakao et al. to incorporate the teachings of Mochizuki et al. to include the elastic modulus of the rubber at 25°C of 0.03 MPa or more and 5 MPa or less.to achieve the desired flexibility and resistance to deformation of the rubber.
Regarding claim 2, Sano teaches the glass transition temperature of the rubber being -125°C or more and -20°C or less represented by “the glass transition point of the crosslinked polymer of the third layer is preferably 60 ° C. or less, more preferably 50 ° C. or less, from the viewpoint of imparting flexibility to the gas separation membrane and improving mechanical strength. More preferably, the temperature is 40 ° C. or less. The lower limit is preferably −180 ° C. or higher, and more preferably −160 ° C. or higher” (pg. 8). It is well known in the art that the glass transition temperature directly affects adsorption capacity, kinetics, and material stability. Therefore, using the teachings of Sano to modify the glass transition temperature to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
Regarding claim 3, Nakao et al. teaches the SP value of the rubber is 7.3 (cal/cm3)0.5 or more and 7.6 (cal/cm3)0.5 or less represented by “as such a binder resin, for example, a resin having an SP value of 8 cal / cm .sup.3 to 15.4 cal / cm .sup.3 (preferably 9 cal / cm .sup.3 to 13.2 cal / cm .sup.3 ) is exemplified” (pg. 5). It is well known in the art that a low SP value of rubber in adsorption material leads to higher sorption capacity. Therefore, using the teachings of Nakao et al. to modify the SP value to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
Regarding claim 4, Mochizuki et al. teaches the elastic modulus of the rubber at 25°C is 0.1 MPa or more and 4.5 MPa or less represented by “the elastic modulus at 25 ° C. of the rubber used in the present invention is preferably 0.01 to 100 MPa” (pg. 6). It is well known in the art the elastic modulus of rubber directly affects its flexibility and resistance to deformation under stress. Therefore, using the teachings of Mochizuki et al. to modify the elastic modulus value to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
Regarding claim 5, Jockenhovel teaches the rubber being made of PDMS represented by “the properties of silicone rubber vary greatly depending on the organic groups and the chemical structure. The organic groups may be methyl, vinyl, phenyl, trifluoropropyl or other groups. Depending on which organic groups are present, silicone polymers in common use are classified as follows: Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS or MQ, respectively)..” (pg. 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jockenhovel et al. EP 3610860 A1 in view of Sano WO 2011099587 A1 in further view of Nakao et al. WO 2020012878 A1 and in further view of Mochizuki et al. WO 2019054184 A1 and in further view of Yamada et al. JP 2001214603 A.
Regarding claim 6, Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano A1 in further view of Nakao et al. and in further view of Mochizuki et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano in further view of Nakao et al. and in further view of Mochizuki et al. fails to teach the thickness of the rubber being 0.1 mm or more and 5 mm or less.
Yamada et al. teaches the thickness of the rubber being 0.1 mm or more and 5 mm or less represented by “a butyl or urethane rubber plate 5 having a thickness of 1 to 10 mm” (pg. 2). It is well known in the art that the thickness of the rubber in an adsorbent significantly affects the adsorption capacity and efficiency. Therefore, using the teachings of Yamada et al. to modify the thickness of the rubber to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano and in further view of Nakao et al. and in further view of Mochizuki to incorporate the teachings of Yamada et al. to include the thickness of the rubber being 0.1 mm or more and 5 mm or less to achieve the desired adsorption capacity and efficiency of the rubber.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jockenhovel et al. EP 3610860 A1 in view of Sano WO 2011099587 A1 in further view of Nakao et al. WO 2020012878 A1 and in further view of Mochizuki et al. WO 2019054184 A1 and in further view of Wakabayashi et al. CN 102037000 A.
Regarding claim 7, Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano A1 in further view of Nakao et al. and in further view of Mochizuki et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Jockenhovel et al. further teaches the rubber being in powder form represented by “the carbon dioxide absorbent or adsorbent is either in granular form having a diameter of 0.1 mm to 10 mm” (pg. 3). The reference clearly teaches the adsorbent as a whole may be in granular or powder form, and therefore the rubber in the adsorbent would also be in the same form.
Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano A1 in further view of Nakao et al. and in further view of Mochizuki et al. fails to teach the spherical diameter of the powder being 0.002 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less.
Wakabayashi et al. teaches the spherical diameter of the powder being 0.002 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less represented by “grain diameter is 10 to 500 microns of rubber powder” (pg. 25). It is well known in the art that the spherical diameter of the rubber in an adsorbent significantly affects the pore structure and surface area available for adsorption. Therefore, using the teachings of Wakabayashi et al. to modify the thickness of the rubber to the desired properties is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jockenhovel et al. in view of Sano and in further view of Nakao et al. and in further view of Mochizuki to incorporate the teachings of Wakabayashi et al. to include the spherical diameter of the powder being 0.002 mm or more and 0.1 mm or less to achieve the desired pore structure and surface area of the rubber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights