The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15, are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
How to perform molding is not disclosed in the claim. The claim cites what is done instead of how it is done. Appropriate corrections are required or the claim must be deleted.
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 1-7, 10-15, 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.
Y and X, tetravalent and trivalent elements, respectively (claims 1, 10), require reading the specification and/or other external sources into the claims contrary to several precedent decisions by the US courts. Adding claims 8-9, to claim 1, will overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dragutan et al., RO9131 A3 (date 1/30/89), in view of Gliozzi et al., J. Mol. Catal. A: Chemical (2014) 393:325-332; Tian et al., J. Het, Chem (2014), 52:1377-1381; Verboekend et al., Catal. Sci. Technol. (2011) 1:879-890; Zhai et al., Chem Mater (2015), 27:67-74; Sherman, Proc Nat Acad. Sci (1999), 96:3471-78; Degman et al., US 4,788,169; Wang et al., Royal Soc Chem Adv (2014), 4:13481-89.
Dragutan et al., teaches preparation of acetonine (ACTN) from acetone and ammonia in the presence of zeolite catalyst. See the attached abstract. The prior art does not teach inherent properties of the catalyst. The claims are still obvious over the prior art in view of the following:
Gliozzi et al., teaches preparation of ACTN from acetone and ammonia in the presence of zeolite catalysts. The molar ratio of acetone:ammonia is from 2 to10.0. The prior art teaches transformation of ACTN to TAA will occur in the presence of water (Schemes 1-5); that both homogeneous and heterogeneous (zeolite) catalysts are applicable, and teaches the advantages of each type. The prior art teaches recovery of the product, and recycling of residual mixture in continuous flow system. See the entire document, particularly, 2. experimental, the reaction schemes, figures and the tables.
Tian et al., teaches the same process. The prior art teaches experiments on preparation of zeolite catalysts, how to change the structures and acidities of the catalysts, the total surface area, pore size distribution, the acidity, and how to analyze/determine each parameter. It teaches the effect of acidity, and the influence of alkali treatment on zeolite catalysts. The effect of alkaline treatment and temperature on NH3-TPD, and how to analyze/determine it. See the entire document, particularly, the reaction schemes, figures and the tables.
Verboekend et al., teaches how to design zeolite catalyst for optimal combination of efficiency and simplicity. It involves treatment of highly versatile, controllable, scalable designs by establishing synthesis-property-function relationships. The prior art teaches alkaline treatment, post synthetic modifications such as steam, acid or base treatment, application of swelling agents, irradiation, and/or strong oxidizing reagents. See the entire document, particularly, introduction, the figures, tables, conclusion and outlook.
Zhai et al., teaches how to optimize alkaline treatment of zeolites for superior activities and selectivity in a wide range catalytic reactions, including isomerization, alkylation, aromatization, cracking, pyrolysis and methanol-to-hydrocarbons (MTH). See the entire document, particularly, introduction, the figures, tables and conclusion.
Sherman, teaches variant synthetic zeolite catalysts, wherein Ge, Si, Ti, Al, are X or Y. The catalyst have various industrial applications, improved efficiency and quality, help to protect the environment and are cheap.
Degman et al., teaches variant synthetic zeolite catalysts, wherein B, Ga, In, Ti,
Al, are X or Y, are well-known, and teaches improved process of making thereof. The catalysts have low acidity and various industrial applications.
Wang et al., teaches variant synthetic zeolite catalyst, wherein Zr is X or Y. The catalyst has moderate acidity, few basic sites, no interference from acidic reactants, thermally stable and is useful in gas and liquid phases.
Having known as set forth above, a POSA would have known how to make zeolite catalysts with the inherent properties in the claims, how to analyze/determine the parameters, and be motivated to claim such at the time the invention was made, with reasonable expectation of success.
The invention is obvious over the combination of the prior arts and knowledge well-known in the art.
Claim 15, is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO2015/059171, which teaches how moldings of zeolite catalysts are performed. It teaches molding is adaptable to any catalytic zeolite with different physical properties. It teaches molding improves the environment for catalysts, allows for variations, optimization of physical and chemical properties, and allows for fine-tuning of requirements for a given application.
Therefore, a POSA would have known and be motivated to mold the instant catalysts at the time the invention was made with reasonable expectation of success.
The invention is obvious over the combination of the prior art and knowledge well-known in the art.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taofiq A. Solola, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0709.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Andy Kosar, can be reached on (571) 272-0627. The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600.
/TAOFIQ A SOLOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625
July 17, 2025