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 1-6 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US20220032275).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses methods for producing hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites (paragraph 0003). Hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites have an increased molar ratio of silicon to aluminum (paragraph 0003), so the beta zeolitic framework contains alumina and silica. Hierarchical beta zeolites include both micropores having a pore size of less than 1 nm and mesopores having a pore size of from 2 nm to 50 nm (paragraph 0015). The beta zeolite is mixed with an aqueous metal hydroxide solution to produce a desilicated beta zeolite (paragraph 0004). The beta zeolite having hierarchical mesoporous structures contacts an ammonium nitrate solution (paragraph 0006). Pore-directing agents can also be used in hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites that are alkylammonium cations (paragraph 0017).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the mesopores are arranged in a center-radial configuration however the reference discloses a method of making that is the same as the present invention. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the mesopore structure of Zhang’s zeolite would inherently be the same. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 2, the hierarchical beta zeolite produced in example 2 has a total surface area of 611 m2/g, within the claimed range (Table 1).
Regarding claim 3, the hierarchical beta zeolite produced in example 2 has a SBET of 611 m2/g and Sext of 197 m2/g. Taking difference between these, the microporous surface area is 414 m2/g, within the claimed range (Table 1)
Regarding claim 5, the hierarchical beta zeolite produced in example 2 has a total pore volume of 0.57 cm3/g, within the claimed range (Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, the hierarchical beta zeolite produced in example 2 has a Si/Al ratio of 10, within the claimed range (Table 1).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US20180311652).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. produces mesoporous beta zeolites using a top-down desilication approach with a pore directing agent (paragraph 0033). Mesopores are created by partially dissolving the zeolite framework by desilication (paragraph 0033). The zeolites produced have micropores with a diameter of less than or equal to 2 nm and greater than or equal to 0.1 nm (paragraph 0038). They also have mesopores with a diameter of greater than 2 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm (paragraph 0038). The beta zeolite framework has silicon and aluminum paragraph 0010).
Zhang et al. fails to disclose the mesopores arranged in a center-radial configuration, but the total surface area, microporous surface area, micropore volume, total pore volume, and ratio of silica-to-alumina fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the mesopore structure of Zhang et al.’s zeolite would inherently be the same. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses samples having a total surface area between 500 and 1500 m2/g (Table 6).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses samples having a microporous surface area between 250 and 750 m2/g (Table 6).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses samples having a micropore volume between 0.1 cm3/g and 0.25 cm3/g (Table 6).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses samples where the volume sum of microporous and mesoporous pores is between 0.25 cm3/g and 1.0 cm3/g
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses the beta zeolite having a molar ratio of silicon to aluminum of at least 10 (paragraph 0010).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20220032275).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses a hierarchical beta zeolite produced in example that has a micropore volume of 0.28 cm3/g, slightly outside the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights