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.
Claims 1-22 are 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 1 recites “wherein the organosilica material comprises a nitrogen content of 4.0wt% to 9.5wt%”. Examiner notes organosilica material with a monomer of formula (I) that includes a nitrogen content is only applicable for a bond to an aminosilyl group, wherein the amino content would provide a nitrogen content, and any Z component that is only a hydrogen atom or a C1-C4 alkyl group would not provide a claimed nitrogen content. Therefore there is a lack of antecedent basis for “wherein the organosilica material comprises a nitrogen content of 4.0wt% to 9.5wt%” for embodiments which do not include a bond to an aminosilyl group. Claims 2-22 depend on claim 1 and hence are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Landskron et al(7947799).
Landskron et al in figure 1b teaches an organosilica material comprising a polymer of at least one monomer of Formula (I) (column 6 lines 22-23 stating “the synthesis and self-assembly of the 1,3,5-tris[diethoxysila]cyclohexane cyclic organosilane precursor: column 6 lines 60-61 stating “polycondensing cyclic molecules containing said [ER}n rings in the presence of a template material”) , wherein Z¹, Z², Z³, Z⁴, Z⁵, and Z⁶ each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a C1- C₄ alkyl group(noting Et groups in figure 1b), a bond to a silicon atom of another monomer of Formula (I), a bond to an aminosilyl group, a bond to a silicon atom that is bonded to three alkoxy groups, or a bond to a silicon atom of a secondary monomer comprising an acyclic alkoxy silane, wherein R¹¹, R¹², R¹³, R¹⁴, R¹⁵, and R¹⁶ each independently represent a hydrogen atom(noting hydrogen in figure 1b) or a C1-C4 alkyl group, and wherein the organosilica material comprises a surface area of 300 m²/g or more(column 8 lines 24-25 stating “the Brunauer Emmett Teller BET surface area is found to be as high as 1706 m^2/g), a pore volume of 0.75 cm³/g or more(examiner notes Landskron et al states “mesoporous organosilicas”, wherein a pore volume of 0.75 cm³/g or more is anticipated with a BET surface area of as high as 1706 m^2/g) .
With regards to claim 2, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the nitrogen content is 6.5 wt% to 9.5 wt% (column 14 lines 62-64 stating “furthermore it can be expected that the ring building units [ER]n can also be interconnected by other inorganic elements but O, for example, but not restricted to N,S,P,B” , therefore examiner submits Landskron et al envisions an organosilica material with a nitrogen content, wherein the nitrogen content is 6.5 wt% to 9.5 wt%).
With regards to claim 3, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the nitrogen content is 4.4 wt% to 8.0 wt%(column 14 lines 62-64 stating “furthermore it can be expected that the ring building units [ER]n can also be interconnected by other inorganic elements but O, for example, but not restricted to N,S,P,B” , therefore examiner submits Landskron et al envisions an organosilica material with a nitrogen content, wherein the nitrogen content is 4.4 wt% to 8.0 wt%).
With regards to claim 4, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the organosilica material comprises a surface area of 400 m²/g or more (column 8 lines 24-25 stating “the Brunauer Emmett Teller BET surface area is found to be as high as 1706 m^2/g).
With regards to claim 5, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the organosilica material comprises a pore volume of 1.0 cm³/g or more(column 8 lines 24-25 stating “the Brunauer Emmett Teller BET surface area is found to be as high as 1706 m^2/g), a pore volume of 1.0 cm³/g or more(examiner notes “mesoporous organosilicas”, wherein a pore volume of 1.0 cm³/g or more is anticipated with a BET surface area of as high as 1706 m^2/g) .
With regards to claim 6, Landskron et al further teaches wherein R¹¹, R¹², R¹³, R¹⁴, R¹⁵, and R¹⁶ each represent a hydrogen atom.
With regards to claim 7, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the aminosilane comprises a N- (aminoalkyl)aminoalkyl polyalkoxysilane.
With regards to claim 8, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the aminosilane comprises a trialkoxysilane.
With regards to claim 9, Landskron et al further teaches wherein Z¹, Z², Z³, Z⁴, Z⁵, and Z⁶ each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a C1-C4 alkyl group(noting Et groups), a bond to a silicon atom of another monomer of Formula (I), or a bond to an aminosilyl group.
With regards to claim 11, Landskron et al further teaches wherein a molar ratio of the at least one monomer of Formula 1 to the secondary monomer is 2.0 or more.
With regards to claim 12, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the secondary monomer comprises an acyclic alkoxy aminosilane.
With regards to claim 13, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the organosilica material is formed by drying an intermediate gel using supercritical CO₂ (Examiner notes the stated limitations are directed to a process of making the organosilica material, wherein anticipation is based on the prior art product and patentable weight is not given to a process of making).
With regards to claim 14, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the intermediate gel is formed by condensation of the polymer from a mixture comprising an alkoxy-substituted trisilacyclohexane and a precursor of the aminosilane (Examiner notes the stated limitations are directed to a process of making the organosilica material, wherein anticipation is based on the prior art product and patentable weight is not given to a process of making).
With regards to claim 15, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the mixture further comprises a gelator comprising a precursor of the secondary monomer (Examiner notes the stated limitations are directed to a process of making the organosilica material, wherein anticipation is based on the prior art product and patentable weight is not given to a process of making).
With regards to claim 16, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the organosilica material comprises a CO₂ capacity of greater than 1.0 mmol CO₂ / g organosilica material in an environment comprising 4.0 vol% CO₂ at 30°C( Examiner notes the stated limitations are directed to a functional aspect of the claimed organosilica material and the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis).
With regards to claim 17, Landskron et al further teaches wherein the organosilica material, at maximum CO₂ capacity, has an amine utilization of greater than 0.4, the amine utilization defined as the molar ratio of CO₂ sorbed by the organosilica material to the nitrogen in the organosilica material( Examiner notes the stated limitations are directed to a functional aspect of the claimed organosilica material and the stated limitations are not given patentable weight for prior art analysis).
With regards to claim 18, Landskron et al further teaches a gas separation process comprising contacting a gas mixture containing at least one contaminant with the organosilica material of claim 1 (column 15 lines 9-10 stating “non-limiting examples of applications are … separation technologies”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landskron et al(7947799) taken together with Li et al(2016/0167016).
Landskron et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 but is silent as to wherein the gas mixture comprises CH₄ and the at least one contaminant is CO₂ and/or H₂S. Li et al teaches a gas separation process comprising contacting a gas mixture containing CH4 and CO2 with an organosilica material(para 0353 stating “if a gas mixture, such as natural gas, is passed under pressure through a vessel containing a polymeric or microporous adsorbent that is more selective towards carbon dioxide than it is for methane, at least a portion of the carbon dioxide can be selectively adsorbed by the adsorbent”; para 0350 stating “in some cases, the organosilica material -coated substrate can be used in a gas separation process as provided herein”; para 0298 , noting “a nitrogen-containing C1-C10 alkyl group”). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an amine-functionalized organosilica material of Li et al for the organosilica material of Landskron et al to provide a gas separation process which includes contacting a gas mixture comprising CH₄ and at least one contaminant is CO₂ and/or H₂S in order to separate CO2 using an amine-functionalized organosilica material.
With regards to claim 20, Landskron et al taken together with Li et al further teaches wherein the gas mixture comprises a flue gas(natural gas of Li et al) containing 4.0 vol% or more of CO₂.
With regards to claim 21, Landskron et al taken together with Li et al further teaches wherein the gas mixture comprises wherein the gas mixture comprises air having a CO₂ content of 600 vppm or less.
With regards to claim 22, Landskron et al taken together with Li et al further teaches wherein the process comprises PSA, TSA, PPSA, PTSA, RCPSA, RCTSA, RC-PPSA or RC-PTSA (para 0351 of Li et al stating “the gas separation process can be achieved by swing adsorption processes, such as pressure swing adsorption(PSA) and temperature swing adsorption(TSA)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 recites “wherein only one of Z¹, Z², Z³, Z⁴, Z⁵, and Z⁶ represents a silicon atom bonded to three alkoxy groups.”. Landskron et al teaches an organosilica material including Z groups of formula I, however Landskron et al does not teach or suggest “wherein only one of Z¹, Z², Z³, Z⁴, Z⁵, and Z⁶ represents a silicon atom bonded to three alkoxy groups.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights