CTNF 18/514,492 CTNF 69382 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-21 are presently pending in this application. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short and in improper format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The use of the terms “F-127”, “P123”, “Pluronic 64L”, “tergitol 15-S-9”, and “Triton X-114”, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application; see page 7, lines 9-11 and the Examples of Applicants’ Specification. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 6 and 7 of claim 1 , either (a) “structure directing agent” in line 6 should be amended to recite “structure-directing agent”, or (b) “structure-directing agent” should be amended to recite “structure directing agent” to ensure continuity. In line 1 of claim 18 , “wherein calcining the resulting product comprising heating” should be amended to recite “wherein calcining the resulting product comprises heating” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 6, 9, 15, 17, and 19 are 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. Claim 6 is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation “water to aluminum molar ratio…”. Claim 1 , from which claim 6 depends, does not recite or refer to a “water to aluminum molar ratio”. It appears that claim 6 should be amended to depend from claim 5 ; for examination purposes; claim 6 will be interpreted as depending from claim 5 . Claim 9 is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation “ammonia to aluminum molar ratio…”. Claim 1 , from which claim 9 depends, does not recite or refer to ammonia. It appears that claim 9 should be amended to depend from claim 8 ; for examination purposes, claim 9 will be interpreted as depending from claim 8 . 07-35-01 AIA Claim 15 contains the trademark/trade name “F-127” . Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a nonionic surfactant and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim 17 is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation “wherein drying comprises drying…”. Claim 13 , from which claim 17 depends, recites “further comprising collecting the precipitate…” and does not recite or refer to a drying step. It appears that claim 17 should depend from claim 16 , which recites “further comprising drying the resulting product…”; for examination purposes, claim 17 will be interpreted as depending from claim 16 . Claim 19 is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation “wherein the heating the resulting product”. Claim 1 , from which claim 19 depends, does not recite or refer to a heating step. It appears that claim 19 should depend from claim 18 , which recites “wherein calcining…comprising heating the resulting product…”; for examination purposes; claim 19 will be interpreted as depending from claim 18 . 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0021754) . Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 , Boualleg et al. teach the preparation of a mesoporous alumina (“meso-alumina”) comprising: (a) at least one first step for the precipitation of alumina, in an aqueous reaction medium (e.g., water), using at least one basic precursor (ammonia), at least acidic precursor (aluminum chloride, nitric acid) to form an aqueous reaction medium, wherein the precursors are selected so as to obtain a pH of the reaction medium ranging from 8.5 to 10.5, said first step being operated at a temperature ranging from 10°C to 50°C and for a time ranging from 2 minutes to 30 minutes, (b) a heat treatment step performed on the suspension obtained at the end of step (a), said heat treatment performed at a temperature ranging from 50°C to 200°C for a time ranging from 30 minutes to 5 hours to obtain an alumina gel, (c) filtration of the suspension obtained at the end of step (b), followed by at least one step for washing the gel, (d) drying the alumina gel obtained at the end of step (c) to obtain a powder, (e) shaping the powder obtained at the end of step (d), and (f) heat treating the material obtained at the end of step (e) at a temperature ranging from 500°C to 1000°C in the presence or absence of a stream of air containing up to 60% by volume of water. See paragraphs [0010]-[0016], [0045]-[0057], [0067]-[0070], and [0102]-[0142] of Boualleg et al. The presence of the at least one acidic precursor (aluminum chloride, nitric acid) in the aqueous reaction medium is considered to read upon Applicants’ claim limitations “preparing a first solution using AlCl 3 and a first solvent”, “first solvent comprises water”, “peptizing…using an acid”, and “acid comprises HNO 3 ” ( claims 1, 5, and 14 ); the presence of the at least one basic precursor (ammonia) in the aqueous reaction medium, and the pH of the reaction medium ranging from 8.5 to 10.5 is considered to read upon Applicants’ claim limitations “adjusting the pH of the first solution…” and “adjusting the pH of the first solution comprises the addition of ammonia to the first solution” ( claims 1 and 8 ), as well as the pH ranges recited in Applicants’ claims 11 and 12 . Boualleg et al. further teach the feasibility in the aforementioned preparation comprising a second precipitation step (a’) after the first precipitation step, wherein step (a’) is carried out between the first precipitation step (a) and the heat treatment step (b), and also teach the feasibility, in the case in which a second precipitation step is carried out, a step for heating the suspension obtained at the end of the precipitation step (a) is advantageously carried out between the two precipitation steps (a) and (a’). See paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Boualleg et al. An embodiment of the aforementioned preparation includes a second step for precipitation of the suspension obtained at the end of the heating step, said second step comprising adding to said suspension at least one basic precursor (e.g., ammonia), at least one acidic precursor (e.g., aluminum chloride, nitric acid). See paragraphs [0071]-[0083] of Boualleg et al., which additionally teaches that the at least one basic and at least one acidic precursors are added to said second precipitation step (a’) as aqueous solutions (“preparing a second solution using the precipitate and a second solvent”; “peptizing the precipitate in the second solvent using an acid”; “second solvent comprises water”; claims 1 and 7 ). In the aforementioned shaping step (e), the powder obtained in step (d) is formed into a green material by a drop coagulation shaping step in which a suspension comprising the dried powder, a pore-forming agent, a surfactant (“reacting…with a structure-directing agent”) and water, with stirring, is formed. Exemplary surfactants include non-ionic surfactants. See paragraphs [0119]-[0137] of Boualleg et al. The heat treatment step (f) is considered to read upon Applicants’ claim limitations “calcining the resulting product…”, as recited in claim 1 and “drying the resulting product of the peptized precipitate and the structure-directing agent” in claim 16 ; the heat treatment temperature range of 500°C to 1000°C overlaps the temperature range of “about 400 to about 700°C” recited in claim 18 . Regarding claim 2 , the aforementioned preparation disclosed in Boualleg et al. results in the formation of alumina that exhibits a specific surface area of preferably more than 220 m 2 /g, which encompasses the claim limitation “of at least 400 m 2 /g”. See paragraph [0147] of Boualleg et al. Regarding claim 10 , Boualleg et al. do not explicitly teach dropwise addition of ammonia. However, it is considered that because Boualleg et al. teach the presence of ammonia in the aqueous reaction medium, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to add the ammonia in a dropwise manner, as dropwise addition thereof is considered a conventional technique. Regarding claim 19 , while Boualleg et al. teach a heat treatment temperature reading upon Applicants’ calcining step comprising heating to a temperature range of “about 400 to about 700°C”, and a heat treatment time of 2 to 10 hours, which encompasses the claim limitation “heating for about 2 to about 6 hours”, as recited in this claim, this reference does not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of claim 19 regarding increasing the temperature at a rate of about 2°C per minute. However, because Boualleg et al. teach a heating temperature and duration comparable to that instantly claimed, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation an optimal increasing temperature rate, such as that recited in claim 19 , to optimize the transition of boehmite to alumina. See paragraph [0141] of Boualleg et al. Boualleg et al. do not explicitly teach Applicants’ recited steps of, for example, “preparing a first solution…”, “adjusting the pH…”, etc. However, because Boualleg et al. teach a method for preparing an alumina that employs the same components recited in Applicants’ claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the method disclosed in Boualleg et al. to result in the performance of Applicants’ actively claimed steps. The presence of, for example, aluminum chloride, nitric acid, and ammonia in the aqueous reaction medium disclosed in Boualleg et al. would be expected to result in the adjusting of the pH of the aqueous reaction medium, formation of a precipitate, and peptization of said precipitate; the inclusion of a surfactant in the shaping step would be expected to result in the reaction of the peptized precipitate with a structure-directing agent, and the heat treatment step (f) would expectedly result in calcination of the reaction product of the peptized precipitate and the structure-directing agent . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0021754) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (CN 102335631; English translation provided and relied upon) . Boualleg et al. is relied upon for its teachings with respect to claim 1 , as stated above. While Boualleg et al. teach the employment of a surfactant (“structure-directing agent”) in the aforementioned preparation of a mesoporous alumina, examples of which include non-ionic surfactants and cationic surfactants (see paragraph [0124] of Boualleg et al.), this reference does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 15 regarding the structure-directing agent comprising F-127. Regarding claim 15 , Yuan et al. teach methods for preparing mesoporous alumina, wherein a surfactant is employed as a templating agent. Exemplary surfactants include “cationic surfactants and neutral surfactants”, e.g., F127. See paragraphs [0022] and [0023] of Yuan et al. Additionally, Yuan et al., in paragraph [0024], teach aluminum chloride as an exemplary aluminum source for the preparation of mesoporous alumina; note that aluminum chloride is also disclosed in Boualleg et al. (e.g., paragraphs [0010] and [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the preparation disclosed in Boualleg et al. by incorporating therein F-127 as a nonionic surfactant, as suggested by Yuan et al., in view of these references’ common teachings regarding the preparation of mesoporous alumina using nonionic surfactants and aluminum chloride . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3, 4, 13, 20, and 21 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. 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 6, 9, and 17 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 . 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 3 and 4 , the aforementioned preparation disclosed in Boualleg et al. results in the formation of alumina that is “mesoporous and free of micropores”, and exhibits a median diameter of mesopores ranging from 7 to 12.5 nm, and a total pore volume ranging from 0.5 to 0.85 mL/g (cm 3 /g). See paragraphs [0149]-[0151] of Boualleg et al. Regarding claims 6, 9, 13, 20, and 21 , neither Boualleg et al. nor Yuan et al. teach or suggest the limitations of these claims, regarding (a) the molar ratios of (i) water to aluminum, (ii) ammonia to aluminum, (iii) the structure-directing agent to aluminum, or (iv) acid to aluminum, or (b) the step of adding a third solution of ammonia to form a precipitate. Regarding claim 17 , neither Boualleg et al. nor Yuan et al. teach the claimed step of drying at a temperature of from about 70°C to about 120°C . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Exemplary prior art includes Wu et al. (CN 102219242; English translation provided), which teaches the preparation of mesoporous aluminum oxide from an inorganic aluminum salt, a templating agent, ammonia as a precipitating agent, wherein the molar ratio of the inorganic aluminum salt to the templating agent is (1-200):1, and the molar ratio of the precipitating agent to the inorganic aluminum salt is (1-50):1 (Abstract). Wu et al. additionally teach that the molar ratio of inorganic aluminum salt to templating agent is (25-100):1, the molar ratio of precipitant to inorganic aluminum salt is (5-20):1; see paragraph [0010] of Wu et al. Inversion of these molar ratios results in a molar ratio of templating agent to inorganic aluminum salt of 1:(1-200) or 1: (25-100), which is outside the molar ratio of structure-directing agent to aluminum of about 0.2 to about 2 (as recited in claim 20 ), and a molar ratio of inorganic aluminum salt to precipitant of 1:(5-20), which is outside the molar ratio of ammonia to aluminum of about 3 to about 5 (as recited in claim 9 ). Wu et al. do not teach or suggest the employment of acid (e.g., nitric acid) in the aforementioned preparation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 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 (Coris) 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. /Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 April 27, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 2 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 3 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 4 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 5 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 6 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 7 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 8 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 9 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 10 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 11 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 12 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 13 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 14 Art Unit: 1732 Application/Control Number: 18/514,492 Page 15 Art Unit: 1732
Prosecution Insights