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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US20200031678A1) in view of Luo (CN113526522A).
In regards to claim 1, Feng teaches a molecular sieve sound absorbing material comprising a molecular sieve and a binder ([0046], [0036]),
That is obtained by a phosphorous modification on a molecular sieve ([0029], [0045])
Where the binder accounts for 2% to 10% by mass of the sieve ([0036]).
Feng also teaches that the mass ratio of silicon to aluminum is 50 to 800 ([0044]).
Feng does not teach that the molar ratio of phosphorous to aluminum of 0.1 to 2.
Luo teaches a molar ratio of phosphorous to aluminum that is between 0.1 to 2 ([0016]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio of phosphorous to aluminum as taught by Luo in the sound absorbing material taught by Feng as both Luo and Feng teach a molecular sieve that contain phosphorous, and that Feng teaches that molecular sieves with appropriate amounts of phosphorous stabilize the skeletal aluminum under harsh hydrothermal conditions [0004].
In regards to claim 2, Feng teaches phosphorous in the material but does not explicitly teach the use of phosphoric acid, ammonium phosphate, or ammonium hydrogen phosphate as the phosphorous source.
Luo teaches that phosphoric acid or ammonium phosphate can be introduced as the phosphorous containing compound ([0005], [0149]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the phosphorous containing compound of Luo in the phosphorous component of Feng. Substitution of equivalents known for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754. See also MPEP § 2144.06.II. In the instant case, Phosphoric acid is known for the same purpose as phosphorous as a phosphorous containing component, as taught by Luo ([0004]). Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In the instant case, selection of phosphoric acid would be obvious based upon its suitability for the intended use as a source of phosphorous, as taught by Luo ([004-005]).
In regards to claim 3, Feng teaches that the binder can be polyacrylate or polyurethane ([0043]).
In regards to claim 4, Feng teaches that the molecular sieve can have an MFI, MEL, and FER structure type ([0044], [0046]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagawa (US20130289325A1).
In regards to claim 1, Yanagawa teaches a crystalline aluminosilicate with medium pores that has a binder that accounts for 10 to 80 mass % of the catalyst [0050]
Involving a phosphorous modification [0043]
A mass ratio of Si to Al within 50 to 800 [0078]
And a molar ratio of phosphorous to aluminum of 0.1 to 2 [0023]. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP2144.05.
In regards to claim 2, Yanagawa teaches that phosphoric acid is used as a phosphorous source [0043].
In regards to claim 4, Yanagawa teaches a crystalline aluminosilicate with medium pores that can be MFI, MEL, and FER structure type [0035].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights