DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/217,239 application filed 30 June 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant is reminded that “[u]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327. In the instant case, a metal complex has been interpreted as “one of Fe-MIL-101 [see discussion below—Examiner’s insertion], Fe-MIL-100, Fe-MIL-68, Fe-MIL-100, Cr-MIL-101, Ce-MOF-808 V-MIL-101, V-MIL-68, Mn-MIL-100 and Cu—PCN-222, and alternatively, the metal complex is one of Fe/Cu-MIL-101, Fe/Co-MIL-101, Fe/Mn-MIL-101, V/Cu-MIL-101, Cr/Cu-MIL-101, V/Cr-MIL-101, V/Mn-MIL-101, Fe/Cu-MIL-68, V/Cu-MIL-68, Ce/Cu-MOF-88, Ce/V-MOF-8, Ce/Mn-MOF-88, Ce/Mn-MIL-100, Fe/Cu-MIL-100 and Cu/Mn—PCN-222 [paragraphs 0010 & 0011 of the published application].
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 1-11 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 the limitation "the soaked sample" and "the obtained solid" in lines 6-7 and line 8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “highly” and “rich” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “highly” and “rich” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. High means situated or passing above the normal level, surface, base of measurement, or elevation. It is unclear what the normal level or base of measurement may be. Rich means high in some component. Consequently, the physical properties of the catalyst of claim 9 are uncertain.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the silicon precursor is one of tetramethoxysilane, tetraethyl orthosilicate and methyltrimethoxysilane,” and the claim also recites “the silicon precursor is the tetramethoxysilane and the tetraethyl orthosilicate,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
With respect to claim 8, said claim recites “…the loading capacity of the metal oxide MOx is 20-35%...” The basis of the percentage is unclear. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Claim 11 recites “a circulating fluidized bed reactor” and “an oxypyrolysis reactor.” It is unclear if said reactors are the same or different.
Claim 10 recites “[a]n application of an amorphous silica-alumina encapsulated metal oxide catalyst prepared by…” It is not clear whether claim 10 is meant to be a method claim or not since the claim does not recite active, positive steps delimiting how the use (or application) of the amorphous silica-alumina encapsulated metal oxide catalyst is actually practiced.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the phrase "preferably" (or “further preferably”) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase(s) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest art reference appears to be Wei et al in Separation and Purification Technology (2023, vol 305, 122467), which discloses “MIL-101-Fe was prepared by the solvent thermal reaction of 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (166 mg) and iron chloride hexahydrate (675 mg) in DMF (15 mL) at 110 ℃ for 20 h. The vacuum-activated MIL-101-Fe was immersed in a mixed solution of tetramethyl orthosilicate (300 μL), aluminum sec-butoxide/sec-butanol (0.01 g aluminum sec-butoxide dispersed in 150 μL sec-butanol), acetic acid (20 μL) and ethyl acetoacetate (10 μL) for 3 h. The immersed sample was separated and dried at 80 ◦C for 12 h to form SiAl@MIL. Fe2O3@SiO2-Al2O3 was generated by thermal treatment of SiAl@MIL at 600 ◦C for 2 h. Pure Fe2O3 was prepared by directly pyrolyzing MIL-101-Fe at 600 ◦C. Amorphous SiO2-Al2O3 was synthesized by thermal treatment of the mixture of tetramethyl orthosilicate (3 mL), aluminum sec-butoxide/ sec-butanol (1 g aluminum sec-butoxide dispersed in 1.5 mL sec-butanol) and acetic acid (200 μL) at 600 ℃ for 8 h” [see paragraph under the heading “2.1.2. The synthesis of Fe2O3@SiO2-Al2O3” on the second page]. However, Wei et al is not prior art since it was available online on 28 October 2022 and, therefore, falls under the exceptions provided in 35 USC § 102(b). Wei et al discloses that the MIL-101-Fe may be prepared according to the teaching of Dong et al in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (2017, vol 139, pp 14209-14216). However, Dong et al does not disclose “soaking the activated metal complex in a mixed solution of a silicon precursor, an aluminum precursor, an acidic chelating agent and a hydrolysis inhibitor for 3-4 h” as well as the other, subsequent process steps in instant claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
12 January 2026