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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (USP 10,196,465), in view of Seki et al. (US 8,852,428).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 11-13
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 (which is expected to remove the cationic polymer) (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.
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, Seki also directed to zeolites discloses that zeolites can be silica-zirconia or silica-titania (claim 1). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to use a zirconia precursor instead of a titanium precursor to produce a silica-zirconia zeolite instead of a silica-titania zeolite, with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful zeolite, as suggested by Seki.
It is noted that the synthesis method would result in the transition metal atoms being dispersed throughout the entire microporous framework.
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).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (USP 10,196,465), in view of Seki et al. (US 8,852,428, as applied to claims 1 and 8-12 above, in view of Banno (US 20200230583)
Regarding claims 5-7
Although Seki does not teach the claimed precursor, Seki does disclose a silica-zirconia zeolite. However, Banno discloses that as a precursor for zirconia that zirconium nitrate may be used (para 0067). As such it would have been prima facie obvious at the time of the invention to use zirconium nitrate as the zirconium precursor for a silica-zirconia zeolite, with a reasonable expectation of success as suggested by Seki.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue against the 102 rejections.
Applicants amendments to the claims overcome the 102 rejections and they have been withdrawn making these arguments moot.
Applicants argue against the 103 rejections.
Applicants argue against the rejection over claim 4 using the Van Egmond reference. This reference is no longer applied to any claims, as such these arguments are moot.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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