DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 4 and 14-20 are withdrawn
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species (a) in the reply filed on February 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 4 and 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 17, 2026.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12, 15-17, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/357,432 (copending). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
6. Regarding claim 1, the claims of copending require a modified zeolite comprising: a microporous framework comprising a plurality of micropores having diameters of less than or equal to 2 nm, wherein the microporous framework comprises at least silicon atoms and oxygen atoms; a plurality of mesopores having diameters of greater than 2 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm, wherein the plurality of mesopores are ordered with cubic symmetry; and a plurality of titanium atoms each bonded to four bridging oxygen atoms, wherein each of the bridging oxygen atoms bonded to the titanium atoms bridges one of the plurality of the titanium atoms and a silicon atom of the microporous framework (Claim 1).
7. Regarding claims 1 and 16, the claims of copending further require a method of making the modified zeolite of claim 1, the method comprising: reacting an organometallic chemical with a dehydroxylated zeolite, wherein the dehydroxylated zeolite comprises isolated terminal silanol functionalities comprising hydroxyl groups bonded to silicon atoms of the dehydroxylated zeolite, wherein reacting the organometallic chemical with the dehydroxylated zeolite forms a first intermediate zeolite comprising organometallic moieties each bonded to an oxygen atom of the intermediate zeolite, and wherein each organometallic moiety comprises a portion of the organometallic chemical; reacting the first intermediate zeolite with hydrogen to form a second intermediate zeolite, wherein reacting the first intermediate zeolite with hydrogen converts at least a portion of the organometallic moieties to titanium hydride moieties; and reacting the second intermediate zeolite to form the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein reacting the second intermediate zeolite converts at least a portion of the titanium hydride moieties to titanium atoms bonded to four bridging oxygen atoms (Claim 15).
8. Regarding claim 2, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein the modified zeolite comprises from 0.01 mmol/g to 0.45 mmol/g titanium (Claim 2).
9. Regarding claim 5, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein the mesopores are ordered with cubic symmetry having an Ia-3d, Fm-3m, Pm-3n, Pn-3m or Im-3m space group (Claim 3).
10. Regarding claims 6-7, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein the microporous framework further comprises aluminum atoms, and a ratio of silicon atoms to aluminum atoms is from 1.5 to 1500 (Claim 4).
11. Regarding claim 7, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 4, wherein the microporous framework consists of silica and alumina (Claim 5).
12. Regarding claim 8, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein the modified zeolite is an FAU framework type zeolite (Claim 6).
13. Regarding claim 9, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein the modified zeolite is an USY zeolite (Claim 7).
14. Regarding claim 10, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein a surface area of the modified zeolite is from 200 m2/g to 1500 m2/g (Claim 8).
15. Regarding claim 11, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein a total pore volume of the modified zeolite is from 0.01 to 1.5 cm3/g. (Claim 9).
16. Regarding claim 12, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 1, wherein the modified zeolite further comprises silicon hydride moieties each bonded to bridging oxygen atoms (Claim 10).
17. Regarding claim 13, the claims of copending further require the modified zeolite of claim 10, wherein the silicon hydride moiety comprises a silicon atom bonded to two hydrogen atoms and two bridging oxygen atoms. (Claim 11).
18. Regarding claims 14-15, the claims of copending further require a method of hydrocracking a hydrocarbon feedstock, the method comprising contacting the hydrocarbon feedstock with a catalyst comprising the modified zeolite of claim 1 in the presence of hydrogen and hydrocracking at least a portion of the hydrocarbon feedstock to form a product. (Claim 12).
19. Regarding claim 17, the claims of copending further require the method of making the modified zeolite of claim 15, wherein the modified zeolite comprises from 0.01 mmol/g to 0.45 mmol/g titanium. (Claim 16).
20. Regarding claim 18, the claims of copending further require the method of making the modified zeolite of claim 15, wherein reacting the first intermediate zeolite with hydrogen converts at least 50% of the organometallic moieties to titanium hydride moieties. (Claim 17).
21. Regarding claim 19, the claims of copending further require the method of making the modified zeolite of claim 15, further comprising dehydroxylating an initial zeolite to from the dehydroxylated zeolite, wherein the initial zeolite primarily comprises vicinal silanol functionalities, and wherein dehydroxylating the initial zeolite forms the isolated terminal silanol functionalities. (Claim 19).
22. Regarding claim 20, the claims of copending further require the method of making the modified zeolite of claim 19, wherein: dehydroxylating the initial zeolite comprises heating the initial zeolite at a temperature of 650° C. to 1100° C.; and dehydroxylating the initial zeolite is under vacuum. (Claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
23. 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.
24. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 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.
25. Claim 1 recites the term, "the titanium hydride" in line 8 which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, line 7, the examiner interprets this phrase as “the plurality of titanium hydride moieties”. Clarification is required.
26. Claim 1 recites the term, "bridging oxygen atom bridges" in line 8 which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, lines 7-8, the examiner interprets this phrase as “at least two bridging oxygen atoms bridge”. Clarification is required.
27. Claim 1 recites the term, "titanium hydride moiety" in line 9 which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, lines 7, the examiner interprets this phrase as “plurality of titanium hydride moieties”. Clarification is required.
28. Regarding dependent claims 2-4 and 5-13, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
29. Claim 5 recites the term, "mesopores" in line 1 which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 1, line 5, the examiner interprets this phrase as “plurality of mesopores”. Clarification is required.
30. Claim 13 recites the term, “silicon hydride moiety” in line 1 which lacks antecedent basis. In light of claim 12, lines 1-2, the examiner interprets this phrase as “silicon hydride moieties”. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
31. 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.
32. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et. al., Cubic Pm3n mesoporous aluminosilicates assembled from zeolite seeds as strong acidic catalysts. (Lin) in view of Vidjayacoumar et al. (WO 2020016709 A1) (Vidjayacoumar), taken in view of evidence by Wu, L. et. al., Hierarchically structured porous materials: synthesis strategies and applications in energy storage. (Wu).
33. Regarding claims 1, 3 and 5, Lin teaches cubic Pm3n mesoporous aluminosilicates with 3D interconnected pore structures, were assembled from Al-incorporating zeolite seeds (i.e. a modified zeolite) (Lin, Abstract) to exhibit high catalytic activities (Lin, p. 3182, right column, last paragraph)
wherein the cubic Pm3n mesoporous silica assemblies (Lin, p. 3183, right column, section 2.3) are designated as Al–ZSBA-1 (i.e. a modified zeolite) (Lin, p. 3183, right column, section 2.3)
wherein the Al–ZSBA-1 samples contain small numbers of micropores (Lin, p. 3185, left column, first paragraph), that according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) microporous materials have pore sizes < 2 nm (Wu, 1668, left column, paragraph 1), which encompasses the claimed range.
Lin further teaches ZSM-5 seeds for the micropores comprise silicate (i.e. comprise at least silicon atoms and oxygen atoms) (Lin, p. 3183, right column, section 2.2).
Lin further teaches that the Al–ZSBA-1 (i.e. a modified zeolite) are mesoporous (i.e. a plurality of mesoporous) (Lin, p. 3185, left column, first paragraph), that according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) mesoporous materials have pore sizes of 2-50 nm (Wu, 1668, left column, paragraph 1), which encompasses the claimed range.
Lin further teaches the Al–ZSBA-1 (a modified zeolite) samples exhibit cubic Pm-3n symmetry (Lin, p. 3184, right column, Results and Discussion).
However, Lin does not teach a plurality of titanium hydride moieties each bonded to at least two bridging oxygen atoms, wherein a titanium atom of the titanium hydride is bonded to the bridging oxygen atom, and wherein the bridging oxygen atom bridges the titanium atom of the titanium hydride moiety and a silicon atom of the microporous framework.
With respect to the difference, Vidjayacoumar teaches a metal hydride catalyst comprising a support having [(ºSi-0-)xMH.sub.y][SiH.sub.z] on the surface of the support (i.e. a modified zeolite) (Vidjayacoumar, [0010]).
wherein the support is a microporous silicate or zeolite support (i.e. a microporous framework), that according to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) microporous materials have pore sizes < 2 nm (Wu, 1668, left column, paragraph 1)
Vidjayacoumar further teaches the metal hydride catalyst is a titanium hydride (i.e. a plurality of titanium hydride moieties) (Vidjayacoumar, Title)
wherein the most probable species are mono or bis hydride (i.e. the plurality of titanium hydride moieties) (Vidjayacoumar, [0058]) with two hydrogens and two bridging oxygen atoms attached (Vidjayacoumar, p. 20, Fig. 1 (Stage 2)), see annotated Fig. 1(Stage 2) below,
wherein a titanium atom of the titanium hydride is bonded to the at least two bridging oxygen atoms, and wherein the at least two bridging oxygen atoms bridge the titanium atom a silicon atom (Vidjayacoumar, p. 20, Fig. 1 (Stage 2)) of the microporous silicate or zeolite (i.e. a microporous framework) (Vidjayacoumar, [0010]).
PNG
media_image1.png
181
182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1(Stage 2)
Vidjayacoumar expressly teaches existing processes for ammonia production are energy intensive (Vidjayacoumar, [0003]) wherein the metal hydride catalyst comprising the support produces ammonia in the presence of nitrogen and hydrogen (Vidjayacoumar, [0014]), thus providing a more efficient production of ammonia from nitrogen (Vidjayacoumar, [0002]) that operates at lower temperatures and pressures than existing catalyst used in the production of ammonia (Vidjayacoumar, [0008]).
Lin and Vidjayacoumar are analogous art as they are all drawn to zeolite catalysts.
In light of the motivation for the incorporation of titanium hydrides on a microporous zeolite catalyst support as disclosed by Vidjayacoumar, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the titanium hydride catalyst to the microporous framework of Al–ZSBA-1 (a modified zeolite) of Lin, in order to achieve a catalyst with a more efficient production of ammonia from nitrogen and is able to operate at lower temperatures and pressures than existing catalyst used in the production of ammonia, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
34. Regarding claim 2, Vidjayacoumar further teaches the metal hydride catalyst (i.e. modified zeolite) is a titanium hydride comprising contacting nitrogen and hydrogen to react to produce ammonia (Vidjayacoumar, [0014])
wherein among the Ti-Hx formed (i.e. the plurality of titanium hydride moieties) some specific hydrides are highly active (Vidjayacoumar, [0060])
wherein 200 mg of the metal hydride catalyst (i.e. modified zeolite) was used for the reaction with an active Ti content (i.e. titanium hydride) of 0.0539 or 0.0493 mmol (Vidjayacoumar, [0066]) to achieve the synthesis of catalytic amounts of ammonia to reach a high catalyst efficiency measured as a TON (turnover number) (Vidjayacoumar, [0067]).
After conversion, the amount of active titanium would necessarily be 0.2695 (0.0539 mmol Ti / 0.200 g of metal hydride catalyst) and 0.2469 mmol/g (0.0493 mmol / 0.200 g), which falls within the recited range.
Given that Vidjayacoumar teaches using 0.2695 and 0.2469 mmol/g in the formation of catalytic amounts of ammonia (Vidjayacoumar, [0067]), it is clear using the amount of titanium in the catalyst would achieve a desirable reactivity to produce ammonia.
In light of using the amount of the titanium in the catalyst, as disclosed by Vidjayacoumar, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amount of titanium, i.e., 0.2695 and 0.2469 mmol/g in the microporous framework of Al–ZSBA-1 (i.e. a modified zeolite) of Lin, in order to achieve a desirable reactivity to produce ammonia via highly active Ti-Hx moieties (i.e. the plurality of titanium hydride moieties), the synthesis of catalytic amounts of ammonia to reach a high catalyst efficiency measured as a TON (turnover number), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
35. Regarding claims 6-7, Lin further teaches the Al–ZSBA-1 (i.e. a modified zeolite) are designated xAl–ZSBA-1 where x is the Al/Si molar percentage in the synthesis solution (i.e. further comprises aluminum atoms) (Lin, p. 3183, right column, section 2.3)
wherein the 1Al–ZSBA-1, 3Al–ZSBA-1, and 5Al–ZSBA-1 modified zeolites have a Si/Al molar ratio of 100 (i.e. 100/1), 33.3 (i.e. 100/3), and 20 (i.e. 100/5) (Lin, p. 3186, Table 3), which fall within the recited range.
36. Regarding claim 10, Lin further teaches the Al–ZSBA-1 (i.e. modified zeolite) samples have surface areas in the range of 600–800 m2 g−1) (Lin, p. 3185, left column, first paragraph),
wherein 1Al–ZSBA-1, 3Al–ZSBA-1, and 5Al–ZSBA-1 modified zeolites have surface areas of 759, 677, and 652 m2 g−1 (Lin, p. 3186, Table 3), which fall within the recited range.
37. Regarding claim 11, Lin further teaches the 1Al–ZSBA-1, 3Al–ZSBA-1, 5Al–ZSBA-1 modified zeolites have total pore volumes (Vtotal) of 0.86, 0.70, and 0.66 cm3/g, which fall within the recited range (Lin, p. 3186, Table 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
38. Claims 8-9 and 12-13 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.
39. Claims 8-9 and 12-13 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.
40. While Lin and Vidjayacoumar teach the limitations of claim 1, Lin and Vidjayacoumar do not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 8-9. Specifically, Lin teaches that ZSM-5 seeds were used as the silica and aluminum sources (Lin, p. 3183, right column, section 2.3)
wherein ZSM-5 is an MFI-type framework zeolite and not a USY zeolite.
41. While Lin and Vidjayacoumar teach the limitations of claim 1, Lin and Vidjayacoumar do not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 12-13. Specifically, Vidjayacoumar discloses the support (i.e. modified zeolite) is silica and silica hydride (i.e. silica hydride moieties) (Vidjayacoumar, [0043]).
However, Vidjayacoumar does not disclose or suggest the silica hydride moieties each bonded to bridging oxygen atoms. Further, Vidjayacoumar Fig. 1 - (Stage 2) discloses the silica hydride moieties are not bonded to the bridging oxygens atom, which is outside of scope of the claims.
Even if Vidjayacoumar was to combine with Lin, there would not be proper motivation to combine. Specifically, while Vidjayacoumar discloses the support (i.e. modified zeolite) is silica and silica hydride (i.e. silica hydride moieties). There is no evidence that a modified zeolite with a microporous framework comprising silica hydride moieties in Vidjayacoumar would achieve a substantially identical advantageous property.
Conclusion
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights