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 § 112
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “the total ZSM-48-type material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 25, the limitations “ZSM-48-type” and “EUO-type” render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
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.
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.
Claims 25 and 27-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ojo (US 9,920,260) in view of Miller (US 5,135,638).
With respect to claims 25 and 27-36, Ojo discloses a molecular sieve belonging to the ZSM-48 family of zeolites (see Ojo, column 3, lines 1-3), wherein the molecular sieve comprises a silicon oxide to aluminum oxide mole ratio of 40 to 220 (see Ojo, column 3, lines 13-14), at least 70% polytype 6 of the total ZSM-48-type material in the molecular sieve (see Ojo, column 3, lines 17-18), an additional EUO-type molecular sieve phase in an amount between 0 and 3.5 percent by weight of the total molecular sieve (see Ojo, column 3, lines 26-29); wherein the molecular sieve has a morphology characterized as polycrystalline aggregates comprising crystallites collectively having an average aspect ratio of between 1 and 8 (see Ojo, column 3, lines 30-34). The molecular sieve may further comprise palladium or platinum (see Ojo, column 8, lines 36-38). The molecular sieve is prepared by a method comprising preparing a reaction mixture containing at least one active source of silicon, aluminum, element from Groups 1 and 2 of the Periodic Table, hydroxide ions, hexamethonium cations, and water; and subjecting the reaction mixture to crystallization conditions sufficient to form a product comprising crystals of the molecular sieve (see Ojo, column 3, lines 44-55). The mole ratio of the various sieve components are the same as specified in the claims (see Ojo, Table 1).
Ojo does not explicitly disclose wherein the molecular sieve additionally comprises magnesium.
However, Ojo discloses wherein the molecular sieve may be used for wax isomerization (dewaxing) (see Ojo, column 8, lines 43-44; and claims 16 and 17) and may comprise a Group 2 element (see Ojo, column 5, lines 51-52); the Group 2 element being present at a ratio of 0.05 to 1.0 with respect to silicon dioxide (see Ojo, Table 1). In this regard, Miller discloses a molecular sieve catalyst useful for isomerizing a waxy feed (see Miller, column 1, lines 10-17), wherein a magnesium component (Group II metal) is incorporated therein for the purpose of increasing selectivity for isomerization over cracking (see Miller, column 13, lines 29-33).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the molecular sieve of Ojo to incorporate magnesium as the Group 2 element, such modification increasing selectivity for isomerization, e.g. when used for wax isomerization.
Moreover, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the molecular sieve of Ojo as described above because Ojo and Miller are both directed to molecular sieves that may be used for wax isomerization (dewaxing).
Finally, the magnesium-modified molecular sieve would be expected to have the same ammonia desorption properties as specified in the claims, such modified sieve being substantially as specified in the claims. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 37, and 38 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Prem C. Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-6381. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights