DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended and therefore newly considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 1-10, filed 6/10/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 9 under the non-final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya (WO 99/03779).
The specification of this application describes the features of their product that are claimed, which are produced by their process. Particularly, the specification explains that the hydrotalcite is heated at an elevated temperature range of 450-800 degrees C (see PG Pub, para. 48) for 30 mins to 2 hours (para. 51) and includes a zinc component (see PG Pub, para. 47). The zinc functions to give heat stability during burning (PG Pub, para. 47). The other metals used however, M2+ and M3+ can include any metal (PG Pub, para. 40, “There are no particular restrictions on the type of metals for M2+ and M3+ in formula (1)).
Bhattacharyya describes a catalyst composition (title). The hydrotalcite is calcined to form the catalyst (abstract). The catalyst precursor has the formula of:
[M2+(1-x) M3+x (OH)2x+ (An-x/n) ·m H2O
Where M2+ comprises at least two species of metal ions having a valence of 2+ selected from a group, but can include Zn2+ and Mg2+ (page 2, lines 21-23). M3+ can be Al3+ (page 2, lines 15-24, 28-31). The x value ranges from 0.1 to 0.5 (page 2, lines 31-32). Therefore, the molar amount of Al can range from about 0.1 to 0.5 and the molar amount of Zn and Mg can range from 0.9-0, each, since 1-0.1 is 0.9 and the amounts of Zn and Mg can be split between them where one can be zero or greater. Therefore, the upper limit for Zn and Mg can be 0.9 and the lower value for each can be zero.
Bhattacharyya teaches that the composition is heated at elevated temperatures from a time sufficient to decompose A (page 2, lines 19-20). A can be an oxide (page 7, lines 15-20). Therefore, since the composition, which comprises an oxide, is heated to decompose A, the value of A in the final product differs in the hydrocalcite precursors.
In the final product, Bhattacharyya shows that the final product has an oxide that matches the formula of Claim 1. Specifically, Examples 2-6, these metal describe an oxidation state of 7. In example 6, this meets the feature: Ox+y (3/2)z where Cu is used, but the reference explains that Mg2+ can be used instead (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mg instead of Cu in the same molar amounts as used in example 6.
As to the specific surface area, although Bhattacharyya does not specifically teach what the specific surface area is, as calculated by a BET method, since the method of processing the product using the same compositions are the same, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition processed in the same way would produce the same characteristics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights