Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/696,685

SILICON-ALUMINUM ZEOLITE SCM-36, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR AND APPLICATION THEREOF

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Examiner
GOLOBOY, JAMES C
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shanghai Research Institute Of Petrochemical Technology Sinopec
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
846 granted / 1335 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
1407
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.5%
+13.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1335 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 . Use Claims 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. Claim 14 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 applicant regards as the invention. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 14 provides for the use of a composition, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). In order to overcome this rejection, it is advised that the applicant change “use” language in Claim 14 recite a process, and add process steps. 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 1-17 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. In claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 16-17, and their dependent claims, the terms “preferably” and “further preferably” render the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following “preferably” and “further preferably” are part of the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitations following “preferably” and “further preferably” have been disregarded. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13 and 15-17 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. Claim 14 would also be allowable if the additional rejection under 35 USC 101 regarding the use claim language were overcome. The prior art does not teach or render obvious a silicon-aluminum zeolite having the claimed silicon/aluminum ratio and diffraction peaks having the recited relative intensity characteristics. Additionally, the closest prior art does not teach obtaining a silicon-aluminum zeolite from a method using the combination of structure directing agents recited in claim 7. Burton (U.S. Pat. No. 9,504,995) discloses a method of synthesizing a crystalline molecular sieve from a reaction mixture comprising a tetravalent element which can be silicon and a trivalent element which can be aluminum, where a combination of structure directing agents can be used, but the first structure directing agent of Burton is a tetraethylammonium rather than a tetramethylammonium, and the second structure directing agent of Burton is a saturated heterocyclic nitrogen compound rather than a pyridinium-based compound. The resulting zeolites of Burton, even when silicon, aluminum, and both structural agents are used, would therefore not produce zeolites having the claimed diffraction peaks and relative intensities. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30. 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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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. /JAMES C GOLOBOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600918
LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600919
LUBRICATING COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584075
REDESIGNED LUBRICANT MAIN CHAIN REPEAT UNIT FOR ENHANCED THERMAL STABILITY AND TAILORED PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577492
SUCCINIMIDE DISPERSANTS POST-TREATED WITH AROMATIC GLYCIDYL ETHERS THAT EXHIBIT GOOD SOOT HANDLING PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577494
Method of Lubricating an Automotive or Industrial Gear
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+8.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1335 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month