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 without traverse of claims 1, and 5-12 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
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 5-12 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.
In claim 5, line 2 the term “modifying” is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “modifying” is the etching step or is a different process step. The word “modifying” appears to be unneeded in the claim.
In claim 5, line 8 the phrase “rinsing rinsing” is indefinite in scope. The duplicate terms should be limited to just “rinsing”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110510633.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘633 teaches a material made of zeolite, which is a molecular sieve material (Abstract). The zeolite is made of a combination of silicon and aluminum (Embodiments) and surface (Figure 2) may have mesopores 2 nm to 50 nm (Specific Embodiment), which overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
CN ‘633 does not expressly state that the pore volume is above 0.25 cm^3/g. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The product of WO ‘394 is substantially similar to the claimed product because it is made of similar materials and has a similar pore structure.
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘633 teaches the process may include mixing a ZSM-5 zeolite with an alkali solution (Claim 1), which forms the mesoporous pore structure (Abstract). The mol ratio of Si-Al may be 38 (Embodiment 1). The mixture is reacted then washed, which would neutralize the pH (Specific Embodiment, Step (3)).
Regarding claim 8, the alkali solution may have a 0.1 mol/L concentration (Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 9, the alkali solution may be sodium hydroxide (Embodiment 1).
Regarding claim 10, the alkali solution and the ZSM-5 may be reacted at 100 to 200 deg. C (Claim 3). The lower limit of 100 deg. C overlaps the claimed upper range of ~80 deg. C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110510633 as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Gui 5759950.
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘633 does not expressly state that after drying the modified molecular sieve obtained in step 2), a dried modified molecular sieve is mixed with water and adhesive to obtain a suspension; processing the suspension by using a forming technique to obtain a molecular sieve material having a desired shape.
Gui teaches a process of making a catalyst support wherein a ZSM-5 material is mixed with a nitric acid as an adhesive is extruded to make a shaped catalyst support (col. 3, l. 50-65).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to use the product of CN ‘633 with the steps of after drying the modified molecular sieve obtained in step 2), a dried modified molecular sieve is mixed with water and adhesive to obtain a suspension; processing the suspension by using a forming technique to obtain a molecular sieve material having a desired shape in view of Gui. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a use as a catalyst support for the product of CN ’663, which was required but not disclosed.
Regarding claim 11, Gui teaches that the ZSM-5 to nitric acid ratio may be 1:0.25-0.6 and that the nitric acid may be 1-5 wt. % (col. 3, l. 50-65), these ranges overlap the claimed ranges recited in instant claim 11. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, in Gui the forming technique is extrusion (col. 3, l. 50-65).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110510633 as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Deeba US 2003/0115859.
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘633 does not expressly state that after drying the modified molecular sieve obtained in step 2), a dried modified molecular sieve is mixed with water and adhesive to obtain a suspension; immersing a porous loading media in the suspension so as to load the modified molecular sieve onto the porous loading media.
Deeba teaches a process of making a catalyst support wherein a ZSM-5 material is mixed with water and a binder to form a washcoat for a porous substrate (Paragraph [0089]).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to use the product of CN ‘633 with the steps of after drying the modified molecular sieve obtained in step 2), a dried modified molecular sieve is mixed with water and adhesive to obtain a suspension immersing a porous loading media in the suspension so as to load the modified molecular sieve onto the porous loading media in view of Deeba. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a use of a catalyst support washcoat for the product of CN ’663, which was required but not disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731