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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 10-12 in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1-5, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP2013173623A).
In regards to claim 1, Ito teaches a method for producing a zeolite-templated carbon material, where a zeolite and organic compound are mixed and heated to adsorb into the pores of the zeolites and carbonized [0040]. Ito teaches an example that uses furfuryl alcohol and zeolite to form a composite [0094]. Ito also teaches that sugar, such as glucose or saccharose, can be used as the organic compound in the process [0051]. In the instant case, Ito teaches that sugar is a suitable organic compound for furfuryl alcohol, so it would have been obvious to select a sugar instead of the furfuryl alcohol in the method for producing a zeolite-templated carbon material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
The zeolite is then dissolved and removed by treating it with an acid [0053; 0094].
In regards to claim 2, Ito teaches that the sugar used is a monosaccharide or disaccharide [0051].
In regards to claim 3, Ito teaches that the sugar used is glucose [0051].
In regards to claim 4, Ito teaches that the zeolite mixed is a Y-type zeolite [0041].
In regards to claim 5, Ito teaches that the zeolite is dissolved with an acid, such as hydrofluoric acid [0053].
In regards to claim 7, Ito teaches that a polymerizable hydrocarbon is introduced to the zeolite at 600-900°C to cause vapor phase carbonization [0048-0049].
In regards to claim 12, Ito teaches that the BET specific surface area is 3600 m2/g or higher [0031; 0095].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Ito (JP2013173623A) and Kawai (JP2009126766A) are considered to be the closest prior art references to the claimed invention in the instant invention.
In regards to claims 6, Ito teaches that the sugar is a monosaccharide or disaccharide [0051]. Ito and Kawai do not teach or suggest that the monosaccharide or disaccharide is adsorbed to the pores of the zeolite by heating at 100°C to 300°C.
In regards to claims 10 and 11, Kawai teaches that starch and cellulose can be used as a starting material along with a zeolite material [0011; 0013; 0019-0020]. Ito and Kawai do not teach or suggest that the cellulose is heated at 300°C to 400°C or that starch is heated to 200°C to 350°C to adsorb into the pores of the zeolite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights