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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group in the reply filed on 2/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner mischaracterized the work of Nakagawa (cited on IDS, Patent No. 5,707,601, published 4 March 1996) in establishing that the use of an alkali-treated amorphous silica as a starting material for a zeolite is not a special technical feature of the invention. This is not found persuasive because Nakagawa does teach an amorphous silica source mixed with an alkali solution in order to form an alkali starting solution as a silica source. This solution is used to make multiple classes of zeolite, including SSZ-32 which contains the same MTT substructure as ZSM-23 zeolites.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 6-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 2/20/2026.
Claims 1-3 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 4, 6-21, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1/22/2026 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. CN202110018638.8, filed on 07 January 2021, has been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 07 July 2023, 08 September 2023, 31 March 2025, 04 November 2025, and 02 February 2026 has been reviewed and considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
In regards to claims 1-2, 4, and 6-21, 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 1 recites the broad recitations "a pore size of 3-8 nm" and “a pore volume…is 45-90%” and the claim also recites "preferably 3-6 nm" and “preferably 50-85%, further preferably 55-81%,” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation respectively.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation "a specific surface area of 600-1300 m2/g" and the claim also recites "preferably 700- 1200 m2/g" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 6 further recites “a pore volume of 0.6-1.3 cm3/g” with the narrower statement, “preferably 0.7-1.2 cm3/g,” and “a pore diameter of 1- 13 nm,” with the narrower statement, “preferably 2-10 nm.”
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation " adjusting the pH of the resulting solution to 1-5," and the claim also recites "preferably 1.5-4," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the broad recitation "an inorganic silicon source," and the claim also recites "preferably one or more of water glass, silica sol, or white carbon black," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 recites the broad recitation "the molar ratio of said silicon source as SiO2 to the surfactant is 1:(0.02-0.3)," and the claim also recites "preferably 1:(0.05-0.2)," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 11 recites the broad recitation "the molar ratio of said silicon source as SiO2 to the deionized water is 1:(30-300)," and the claim also recites "preferably 1:(50-220)," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 12 recites the broad recitation "the temperature for heating is 30-80°C," and the claim also recites "preferably, 40-70°C," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 12 further recites “the time for heating is 0.5-8 hours,” with the narrower statement, “preferably, 3-6 hours.”
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation "the time for heating and stirring is 0.5-12 hours," and the claim also recites "preferably 2-8 hours," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 16 further recites “the temperature for heating is 25-60°C,” with the narrower statement, “preferably 30-50°C.”
Claim 17 recites the broad recitation "the molar ratio of the inorganic alkali as OH- to the amorphous silica as SiO2 is 0.05- 0.24," and the claim also recites "preferably 0.06-0.22," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 19 recites the broad recitation "in the gel, the molar ratio of the silicon source (as SiO2):the aluminum source(as Al2O3):the alkali source (as hydroxide):the template agent:H2O is 1:(0.003-0.03):(0.03-0.3):(0.05-2):(10-90)," and the claim also recites "further preferably, in the gel, the molar ratio of the silicon source (as SiO2):the aluminum source(as Al2O3):the alkali source (as hydroxide):the template agent:H2O is 1:(0.005-0.02):(0.03- 0.16):(0.08-1.6):(20-70)," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 20 recites the broad recitation "the gel is crystallized at 150-200°C," and the claim also recites "preferably 170-180°C," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 20 further recites “the gel is crystallized…for 24-96 hours,” with the narrower statement, “preferably 36-72 hours.”
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.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 21 are further rejected as they depend upon claims which are considered indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-21 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:
Claims 1-3 are directed to a ZSM-23 zeolite product. The closest identified prior art which identifies physical properties of a ZSM-23 zeolite is Y Chen et. al. (Micropor. & Mesopor. Mat., 2017, 252, 146-153), where zeolite sample SNNa is reported with a total pore volume of 0.35 cm3/g (pore size <40 nm), a micropore volume of 0.04 cm3/g, and an inferred mesopore volume of 0.31 cm3/g (SNNa, Table 2, pp. 150). As known in the art, mesopores may have a size of 2-50 nm, and account for 89% of the pore volume in the disclosed zeolite sample. The prior art does not disclose a pore size distribution curve for the zeolite sample. The ZSM-23 zeolite of claim 1 differs from the prior art in that a particular range of pores, with sizes 3-8 nm, are claimed to account for 45-90% of the total pore volume while the prior art reports pores with a size range of 2-40 nm account for 89% of the total pore volume measured.
Additionally, Chinese Patent CN1055961C discloses a composite catalytic material comprising a zeolite and other amorphous materials with a total volume of 0.25-0.50 cm3/g and where pores with a size of 4-15 nm account for 60-90% of the total pore volume (paragraph [0009]). The instantly claimed ZSM-23 zeolite differs from this art in that multiple materials contribute to the physical characteristics reported in the prior art and the composite material and the instantly claimed ZSM-23 zeolite would differ in crystalline structure.
It is the examiner’s position that the narrow range of mesopores in the instantly claimed ZSM-23 zeolite (3-8 nm), which is within the generic range of mesopores reported in the art (2-50 nm), is novel due to the specificity of the range and because in the art it is a known technical challenge to exert precise control over pore size. In addition to fine control of pore size (such as when a material’s pore volume is dominated by a specific pore size), ZSM-23 zeolites in the art are generally considered microporous materials, and consistent development of mesoporous ZSM-23 zeolites in an ongoing technical challenge in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Piryutko, L. V., et al. Russian Journal of Applied Chemistry, 2019, 92 (12), pp. 1664-1673 (see Table 2). Silva, B. J. B. et al., Micropor. & Mesopor. Mat., 2019, 290, 109647, see AZ-DMF in Table 1, pp. 3). Chen, Y. et al., Micropor. & Mesopor. Mat., 2018, 268, pp. 216-224, see PY-100 in Table 2, pp. 221).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742