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 .
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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The limitation of “the amorphous alumina source comprises greater than 90% wt. aluminum oxide” recited in claim 2 is contradicted to the limitation of “an amorphous alumina source comprising predominantly aluminum hydroxide” (emphasis added) recited in claim 1. According to the instant Specification, the term “predominant” is understood to mean present at greater than 50% (PGPUB US 2024/0383762 A1). For the purpose of the examination, the amorphous alumina source comprising greater than 90% Al(OH)3. Clarification and appropriated corrections are required.
The definitions for M and Q recited in claims 8-9 are missing. Appropriated corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al. (US 2009/0060813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burton et al. teach a method of direct synthesis a crystalline aluminosilicate zeolite SSZ-82 ([005]-[0022]) comprising
mixing (a) a source of an amorphous oxide of a trivalent element, alternative an alumina including Al(OH)3 ([0039]-[0041] and [0046]), (b) a source of amorphous tetravalent element including colloidal silica SiO2([0037], [0046], [0053], (c) NaOH, (d) 1,6-bis(N-cyclohexyl pyrrolidinium)hexane dication ([0026], (e) hydroxide solution containing hydroxide ions ([0068] and [0077]), (f) seed crystal having SSZ-82 framework ([0068] and [0077]), and (g) deionized water ([0068] and [0077]);
heating to 160 0C for 10 days,
recovering solid products from the cooled reactor by vacuum filtration and washing ([0068] and [0077]). As drying, the crystal aluminosilicate zeolite SSZ-82 is obtained.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, the process of direct synthesis a crystalline aluminosilicate zeolite SSZ-82 taught by Burton et al. comprises amorphous aluminum oxide including Al(OH)3 as the instant claim ([0038] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, the silicon taught by Burton et al. is colloidal silica as the instant claim ([0037] and [0046]).
Regarding claims 4-6, as discussed above, Burton teach hydroxide of 1,6-bis(N-cyclohexyl pyrrolidinium) hexane and NaOH as the instant claims ([0068] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, the process taught by Burton et al. comprises 0.90-g fumed silica and0.033-g SSZ-82 seeds ([0074]).It reads on the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 8-9, Burton et al. a reaction mixture having a mole ratios as shown below (claim 12):
PNG
media_image1.png
476
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As wee above, the YO2 corresponds to the instant claimed SiO2, and WaOb corresponds to the instant claimed Al2O3.
Regarding claim 10, although Burton et al. do not specifically the resulting crystalline aluminosilicate molecular sieve having FAU framework structure as per applicant claim 10, since the combined reference of Burton et al. teach all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making an aluminosilicate zeolite of SSZ-82, the physical properties of the resulting composition (i.e., FAU framework structure) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II).[1]
Regarding claim 11, the product of SSZ-82 Burton et al. is a pure SSZ-82 according analyzed by XRD pattern. It is expected to have a purity of 100%wt as the instant claim ([0069] and [0075]).
Regarding claim 12, the process taught by Burton et al. is carried out in autoclave reactor at a temperature of 160 0C for 10 days to form crystal SSZ-82 ([0068]).
Burton et al. do not teach applying a pressure for the crystallization in the autoclave pressure reactor. It is considered the reaction would be an autogenous pressure reaction at the temperature of 160 0C as the pressure reactor used for prevent exploration.
Regarding claim 13, Burton et al. teach to remove Structure Directing Agent as the instant claim ([0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
[1][1] “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Prosecution Insights