DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-16, 19-21, and 25-27 are pending, of which claims 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-21, and 25-27 have been withdrawn.
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 I, covering claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 3/5/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the various categories of invention are considered to have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive. Although it is possible that inventions having the listed relationships may have unity of invention, the various inventions must still include at least one shared special technical feature. See MPEP 1893.03(d).
Applicant further argues that the aluminophosphates of Lee are distinct from the claimed aluminosilicates in claim 7. However, claim 7 is only part of invention group 1, and claims 1-6 do not require the material to be an aluminosilicate. Further, none of the other invention groups require that the material be an aluminosilicate. As such, this limitation cannot serve as a shared special technical feature because it is not shared amongst the invention groups. Applicant further argues that Lee does not show peaks within the recited tolerances. However, as shown below, Lee appears to teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-9, 11, 13-16, 19-21, and 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/5/26.
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 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrases "particularly" in line 2 and “more preferably” in line 10 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, 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).
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 6 recites the broad recitation of no more than 60 m2/g, and the claim also recites no more than 50 m2/g and no more than 45 m2/g which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Further, claim 6 recites the broad recitation of at least 400 m2/g, and the claim also recites at least 450 m2/g 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by of Lee, et al. "Microporous aluminophosphates synthesized with 1, 2, 3-trimethylimidazolium and fluoride." Dalton Transactions 45.18 (2016): 7616-7626 and supplemental information. (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a 123TMIF–AlPO4 –34 zeolite material that is has a CHA type framework (see e.g. FIG. 8 and paragraph bridging pages 6-8 starting “The location of the aromatic…”). The X-ray diffraction pattern of the as made zeolite is provided in FIG. S3 of the Supplemental Information and is reproduced below with the location of the recited peaks added.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. S3 of Lee
Each of the recited peaks in the first option of claim 1 has a corresponding peak in Lee within 0.3 degrees. The tolerances recited for relative intensities in claim 1 are ±30% for each peak. Given that each peak can independently vary by 30%, the recited tolerance is very large. It is clear from FIG. S3 of Lee that the listed peaks are within the recited relative intensity tolerances.
Regarding claim 2, FIG. S3 of Lee also provides the XRD for the calcined version of the zeolite, and is reproduced below with locations entered for the recited peaks.
PNG
media_image2.png
329
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. S3 (top) of Lee
As shown above, each of the recited peaks in claim 2 is present in the calcined form of Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches that the zeolitic materials are made with 1,2,3-trimethylimidazole (see e.g. page 2, second paragraph, starting “A concentrated aqueous solution…”). As shown in Lee, the trimethylimidazole exists in the zeolite prior to calcination (see e.g. Table 2 on page 4, last column).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the trimethylimidazolium cations are 1,2,3-trimethylimidazolium (see e.g. page 2, second paragraph, starting “A concentrated aqueous solution…”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches that, in certain embodiments, silicon can be included in a molar ratio of up to 0.4:1 with respect to alumina, which would make the material an aluminosilicate material (see e.g. page 2, second paragraph, starting “A concentrated aqueous solution…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites that a portion of the crystals show cuboctahedral morphology, and other crystals show non-convex polyhedral morphology. In contrast, Lee teaches that the crystals show tetrahedral, pentacoordinated, and octahedral morphology, but does not teach or suggest that the crystals show cuboctahedral morphology (see e.g. page 4, paragraph bridging first and second columns, starting “The 27Al MAS NMR…”).
Claim 6 recites a specific surface zeolitic surface area and mesopore surface area. Neither of these values are taught by Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736