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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 28 are currently under examination. Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 4-6, 14-23 and 27 have been cancelled. Claim 28 is newly added. Claim 1 is amended.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramakrishna et al. (US 2019/0284115 A1) with respect to claims 1-13 is withdrawn.
The Examiner would like to thank applicant pointed out there was an error in the office action mailed on 01/23/2026 line 17 on page 3. Cesium is a main group metal. However, the reference of Ramakrishna et al. indeed teaches the limitations of original claim 1 (now claim 28).
The rejection with respect to newly added claim 28 is substantially the same as generally set in the office action for the previous claim 1 mailed on 01/23/2026.
New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
New Grounds of Rejections
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramakrishna et al. (US 2019/0284115 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Ramakrishna et al. teach a metal-zeolite phase composition comprising zeolite phase of ZSM-5 with pore size 2 nanometers in diameter and mesopores representing pores of 2 to 50 nm, and metals including sodium (main group metal) and nickel (transition metal) (the instant claimed a metal) atomically dispersing throughout on the zeolite via impregnated (Abstract, [0055], [0063], and [0135]).
Ramakrishna et al. do not describe agglomerations of metal present. Therefore, it is considered there is no agglomerations, the metal are atomically dispersed throughout zeolite phase.
Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Angelis et al. (US 2007/0010698 A1).
Regarding claim 1, De Angelis et al. teach particles of metal-zeolite phase composition comprising zeolite phase of ZSM-5 and lanthanide metals (the instant claimed La metal) dispersing throughout on the zeolite via impregnated ([0004]-[0017]).
De Angelis et al. do not describe agglomerations of metal present. Therefore, it is considered there is no agglomerations.
Regarding claims 2-3, the metal-zeolite phase composition taught by De Angelis et al. comprises dealuminated zeolite phase ZSM-5 ([0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claims 7-9, as discussed above, De Angelis et al. do not describe agglomerations of metal present. Therefore, it is considered there is no agglomerations.
Regarding claims 10-13, A product-by-process limitation of “.the metal-zeolite composition is produced by a process…” of claims 10-13 are noted. It is considered while the product of the reference is made by a different process, the product made and disclosed is the same as being claimed. see "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802,218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 28, De Angelis et al. teach particles of metal-zeolite phase composition comprising zeolite phase of ZSM-5 and lanthanide metals (the instant claimed other than Al or Si metal) dispersing throughout on the zeolite via impregnated ([0004]-[0017]).
De Angelis et al. do not describe agglomerations of metal present. Therefore, it is considered there is no agglomerations.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/9/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights