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 .
Claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are missing periods (“.”) at the ends thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 12-15 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 7 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “plate-like”. In this phrase, the word “like” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of Applicants’ invention.
Claims 7, 8, and 15 are indefinite for reciting the limitation “any one of claims 1”, and claims 12-14 are indefinite for reciting the limitation “any one of claims 9”. It cannot be determined if, for example, claims 7, 8, and 15 are intended to depend solely from claim 1, or from any of the preceding claims, or if claims 12-14 are intended to depend solely from claim 9, or from any of the preceding claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are allowed.
Claims 7, 8, and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest Applicants’ claimed molecular sieves in (a) calcined form or (b) as-synthesized form, wherein the calcined form exhibits an X-ray diffraction pattern including at least 14 of the peaks presented in Table 1 of Applicants’ claim 1, and wherein the as-synthesized form exhibits an X-ray diffraction pattern including at least 9 of the peaks presented in Table 2 of Applicants’ claim 4.
The prior art of record also does not teach or suggest the claimed method of preparing the aforementioned claimed molecular sieve in calcined form, wherein a structure directing agent comprising 2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylbenzimidazolium cation is employed.
Lastly, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest Applicants’ claimed method of converting an organic compound to a conversion product by contacting said organic compound with the aforementioned claimed molecular sieve in calcined form.
The closest art of record is Hellring et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,219,547, cited by Applicants), which teaches the preparation of a synthetic mordenite with 1,8-diamino-p-menthane as a structure directing agent, as opposed to Applicants’ employment of a structure directing agent comprising 2-ethyl-1,3-dimethylbenzimidazolium cation. Additionally, the synthetic mordenite disclosed in this reference does not exhibit X-ray diffraction patterns comparable to that recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pham et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0300820), which has common inventors and assignees with the instant application, teach molecular sieves in calcined and as-synthesized forms, but is not qualified as prior art.
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 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights