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
Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/18/2025.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the chemical formula of Claim 7 is not interpreted as a traditional chemical formula in which the formula represents ratios of bonded chemical moieties to form a coherent chemical compound; instead, it is interpreted as a formula representative of the relative compositions of materials in the composite composition as oxide equivalents, i.e., the coefficients a, c, and e are representative of the molar ratio of each metal in the composition represented as oxide equivalents normalized to the molar amount of silica. This is a common convention in the art of inorganic materials. Accordingly, the coefficients a, c, and e have implied units of mols of metal per mol of silica.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (Synthesis of TMBQ using Cu(II)-substituted MCM-41 as the catalyst, Applied Catalysis A, 2001), hereinafter ‘Tsai’.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsai discloses a porous silica comprising:
a SiO4 skeleton (2.1.1. MCM-41: the synthesized material is MCM-41, a silicate framework comprising SiO4);
a metal X that is Mn or Cu (2.1.1. MCM-41: the MCM 41 is substituted with Cu);
a metal Y selected from the group consisting of Al and Zr (2.1.1. MCM-41: the MCM is substituted with Al);
wherein at least a first portion of the SiO4 skeleton is doped with the metal X incorporated in a position of a Si element of the SiO4 skeleton; and wherein at least a second portion of the SiO4 skeleton is doped with the metal Y incorporated in a position of a Si element of the SiO4 skeleton (2.1.1. MCM-41, 3.1. Catalyst characterization: the Cu and Al are substituted within the MCM-41 framework).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsai discloses a porous silica comprising:
a SiO4 skeleton (2.1.1. MCM-41: the synthesized material is MCM-41, a silicate framework comprising SiO4);
a metal X that is Mn or Cu (2.1.1. MCM-41: the MCM 41 is substituted with Cu);
a metal Y selected from the group consisting of Al and Zr (2.1.1. MCM-41: the MCM is substituted with Al);
wherein at least a first portion of the SiO4 skeleton is doped with the metal X incorporated in a position of a Si element of the SiO4 skeleton; and wherein at least a second portion of the SiO4 skeleton is doped with the metal Y incorporated in a position of a Si element of the SiO4 skeleton (2.1.1. MCM-41, 3.1. Catalyst characterization: the Cu and Al are substituted within the MCM-41 framework).
Further regarding Claim 2, with regard to the language of the preamble ‘…for use in a liquid deodorant agent…’, it is noted that this phrase is the intended use of the claimed composition. MPEP 2111.02(II) states that “…if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Accordingly, ‘…for use in a liquid deodorant agent…’ is not a claim limitation (Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, the composition of Tsai has a composition as claimed; particularly, the composition of Tsai is disclosed as SiO2:(0-0.05)Al2O3:(0-0.05)CuO (2.1.1. MCM-41). Here, ‘a’ as claimed is equal to 0-0.05, ‘c’ is equal to 0-0.05, and ‘e’ is equal to 0. These parameters satisfy the instant claims.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Tsai discloses a specific surface area of the porous silica is 500 m2/g or more (Table 2: all the produced substituted MCM samples have a specific surface area higher than 500 m2/g).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (Synthesis of TMBQ using Cu(II)-substituted MCM-41 as the catalyst, Applied Catalysis A, 2001), hereinafter ‘Tsai’.
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, it is noted that Tsai discloses the synthesis of substituted Cu and Al MCM-41 for use as a catalyst, noting particularly that the high surface area and highly ordered uniform mesopores make it a potential candidate for applications in catalytic conversions of bulky molecules encountered in the cracking of heavy crude oil or the manufacture of fine chemicals and pharmaceuticals (1. Introduction).
However, Tsai does not disclose the composition further comprises a metal Z as claimed.
Imyen discloses studies regarding the synthesis and characterization of Cu–Zn/Core–Shell Al-MCM-41 as a Catalyst for Reduction of NO (title). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Tsai as analogous to Imyen, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, MCM-41-based catalysts comprising both aluminum and copper - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Notably, Imyen discloses that the use of Zn as a promoter for Cu-containing catalysts is well known for many reactions, that is well-known that ZnO can improve the dispersion of copper, and that the interaction between Cu and Zn plays a critical role in the improvement of the catalytic activity of the catalyst, explaining that the introduction of Zn is helpful to create active sites at the Cu–Zn interface and stabilize the Cu(I) species by a strong interaction (1. Introduction).
In light of this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to incorporate a third metal comprising Zn into the catalyst of Tsai. Imyen shows that Zn and Cu interact synergistically when integrated within the same catalytic article, improving the dispersion of copper and creating active sites at the Cu-Zn interface, thereby stabilizing the copper species.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/03/2025, are acknowledged.
With respect to arguments in regard to prior art rejections under section 102, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under section 102 in view of Tsai.
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 LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736