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 without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “allowed” should be “allowing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-19 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 4 recites the limitation "the zeolite preparation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be dependent upon claim 3.
Claims 5-9 recite the limitation “the aqueous precursor” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All the claims should be dependent upon claim 3 or 4.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the product of step (b)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be dependent upon claim 3 or 4.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the solution of step (b)” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be dependent upon claim 3 or 4.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the spraydrying” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be dependent upon claim 14.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the filtered gel” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be dependent upon claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravichandran et al. (EP2548644, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Ravichandran et al. discloses an FCC catalyst additive obtained by spry drying and calcination of a raw material (paragraph 0064). The FCC catalyst additive comprises zeolite 40 to 60 wt%, phosphate 7 to 12 wt%, clay 20 to 40 wt%, and a binder 10 to 40 wt% (paragraph 0064). The binder comprises silica in an amount of 75 to 100 wt% and alumina in an amount of 0 to 25 wt%. The ranges of wt% for alumina are 0 to 10 wt%, and the ranges of wt% for silica are 7.5 to 40 wt%. A summary is shown below.
Minimum silica: 10 wt% binder, 75 wt% silica
Minimum silica = 7.5 wt%
Maximum silica: 40 wt% binder, 100 wt% silica
Maximum silica = 40 wt%
Minimum alumina = 0 wt%
Maximum alumina: 40 wt% binder, 25 wt% alumina
Maximum alumina = 10 wt%
Regarding claim 2, Ravichandran et al. discloses ZSM-5 is used for preparation of the additive (paragraph 0070). ZSM-5 is a pentasil type zeolite. The ZSM-5 zeolite is described as mesoporous (paragraph 0068).
The process limitations in claims 3-19 are noted. However, the disclosed product of Ravichandran et al. and the instantly claimed product appear to be essentially the same, comprised of the same components, and used in the same manner. When the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process of making. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights