DETAILED ACITON
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 of Group I, claims 1-2, 10-11, 18, 20, 23-28, 35-36, and 38 in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 22 are withdrawn. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-1118, 20, 22-28, 35-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for preparing a hierarchical zeolite with a silica source, alumina source, alkali metal source, structure directing agent, water, and water-soluble oxidized disulfide oil (ODSO) present, it does not reasonably provide enablement for preparing a hierarchical zeolite with only a silica source, alkali metal source, water, and water-soluble oxidized disulfide oil (ODSO) present (i.e. without alumina and structure directing agent). Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In particular, claim 1 allows the aluminum source and structure directing agent to be optional while all of the inventive examples of the instant application require these components to be present. See [0123], [0131], [0136], [0143], and [0145] in the instant specification.
The factors relied upon to make a determination of enablement include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
See MPEP 2164.
The breadth of the claims includes a method for synthesizing a zeolite comprising forming an aqueous mixture requiring a silica source, an alkali metal source, water, and a water-soluble oxidized disulfide oil and heating to prepare a hierarchical zeolite.
The nature of the invention is a method for producing hierarchical zeolites. For clarity, hierarchical zeolites contain different layers of porosity, for example, mesopores and micropores.
The state of the prior art does not appear to teach or suggest preparing hierarchical zeolites in the presence of oxidized disulfide oils based on a diligent search by the Examiner. The instant invention does not teach or suggest preparing hierarchical zeolites in the presence of oxidized disulfide oils without having a silica source, an alumina source, an alkali metal source, a structure directing agent, and water also present. The prior art does contain methods to obtain zeolites with hierarchical porosity but none teach including an oxidized disulfide oil. For example, the prior art Gu et al. (US20190262779A1) teaches a method of preparing a hierarchical zeolite comprising a silicon source, an aluminum source, an alkali source, a structure-directing agent, and deionized water (Abstract; [0007]; [0012]). Stamires et al. (US20160017238A1) teaches a method of preparing hierarchical zeolites by incorporating a combustive binder component into the a dealuminated or desilicated zeolite followed by combustion to generates hierarchical pores in the material (Abstract; [0141]; [0150]-[0152]).
The level of ordinary skill in the zeolite art is high, as zeolites are an extremely developed class of materials.
The level of predictability in the art for preparing zeolites with oxidized sulfide oil (ODSO) appears to be none, as this feature does not appear to be taught in the prior art.
The inventor provides sufficient direction in the specification on how to prepare hierarchical zeolites when a silica source, alumina source, alkali metal source, structure directing agent, water, and water-soluble oxidized disulfide oil (ODSO) are all present.
The inventor provides working examples in [0123], [0131], [0136], [0143], and [0145] of the instant speciation.
Given the complexity in preparing hierarchical zeolites, a person of skill in the art, in undertaking the experimentation necessary to determine which of the claimed mixture components would be necessary, would have no reasonable expectation that the hierarchical zeolite could be prepared without a silica source, an alumina source, an alkali metal source, a structure directing agent, and water present.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10-11, 18, 20, 22-25, 27-28, and 35 are 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.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:.
The closest prior art reading on the instant invention identified by the Examiner during search is Gu et al. (US20190262779A1).
Gu teaches a method of preparing a hierarchical zeolite comprising a silicon source, an aluminum source, an alkali source, a structure-directing agent, and deionized water (Abstract; [0007]; [0012])
While the prior art teaches preparing a zeolite comprising a silicon source, an aluminum source, an alkali source, a structure-directing agent, and deionized water, the prior art Gu is entirely silent regarding incorporating oxidized disulfide oils in the synthesis of zeolites. A skilled artisan would find not motivation in the prior art Gu to incorporate oxidized disulfide oils in the synthesis of zeolites. For this reason, the limitations would be considered to be novel and nonobvious.
Other relevant prior art identified during search include the following:
Chen et al. (US20210069686A1): Chen teaches a method of preparing a beta-zeolite comprising crystallizing a composition containing an alumina source, a silica source, an alkali source, a tetraethylammonium cation source and water (Abstract). While this reference discloses preparing a beta zeolite, it does not teach or suggest that oxidized disulfide oils are incorporated into the synthesis. For these reasons, Chen et al. does not remedy the deficiencies of Gu et al.
Chaumonnot et al. (US20140021096A1): Chaumonnot teaches a method of preparing a hierarchical porous inorganic material where the method comprises mixing aluminum, an ammonium directing agent, a silica source, water, and an alkali metal source to prepare a zeolite with ZSM-5 (MFI) topology (Abstract; [0099]; [0129]-[0131]). While this reference discloses preparing a hierarchical zeolite, it does not teach or suggest that oxidized disulfide oils are incorporated into the synthesis. For these reasons, Chaumonnot et al. does not remedy the deficiencies of Gu et al.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights