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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (USP 10,196,465).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11-12
Han discloses a method of making a zeolite comprising forming an aqueous mixture of a cationic polymer structure directing agent, and precursors of silica, titania (i.e. transition metal) and alumina for a mesoporous zeolite; optionally heating the mixture for form an intermediate that comprises micropores; and calcining at 550 C (column 12, line 47 to column 13, line 19).
Han discloses that the cationic polymer can be of Chemical Structure #3 (Column 7, lines 22-35), which has two or more quaternary nitrogen atoms and reads directly on the claimed cationic polymer.
Regarding claim 8
Han discloses that the zeolite is an MFI framework (column 5, lines 5-38).
Regarding claims 9-10
Han discloses that the zeolite has a surface area greater than 350 m2/g and a pore volume greater than 0.3 cm3/g (abstract).
Regarding claim 12
Han discloses that the
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (USP 10,196,465), as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-12 above, in view of Van Egmond et al. (USP 7,626,067).
Regarding claim 4
Although Han does not disclose the use of zirconia, Han does disclose the other limitations of the claims and discloses titania. However, Van Egmond discloses that as metal oxides titania and zirconia are functionally equivalent (column 6, lines 42-53). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Han by replacing the titania with zirconia, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Van Egmond.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (USP 10,196,465), as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-12 above, in view of Lee et al. (KR-20170069356-A).
Regarding claims 5-7
Although Han does not teach one of the claimed transition metal precursors, Han does disclose tetrabutyl orthotitanate (i.e., titanium butoxide) (column 12, line 47 to column 13, line 19). However, Lee also directed to zeolites discloses that as a titania precursor that titanium butoxide and titanium nitrate are functionally equivalent (approx. para 0018). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Han by using titanium nitrate as the titanium precursor with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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 E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights