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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: technically there is no claim 15. Claim 14 between proper claim 14 and claim 16 should be change to read “15”. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of this examination reference will be made to claim 15 as though the change has already been made by the applicant but change is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: use of the phrase (ZN) without clarification. For example in claim 1, the applicant defines (ZN) with the phrase zeolite nanosheet but that clarification is not provided as relates to claim 25. Clarification 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 1-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "flower-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like")(herein “like” being considered the equivalent of “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the method of claim 15". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As stated above, there is currently no recitation of a claim 15.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements lead to an unclear provision of steps as follows. For example claim 18 depends from claim 17 which states that ZN flake seeds are produced by steps (i), (ii) and (iii). Claim 18 states that the product obtained in (i) is produced by step (b) of claim 1. However, claim 17 further states that the obtaining of seeds (step (a)) is preceded by the production of flake seeds, which as described above as comprises step (b) and steps (i), (ii) and (iii) above. As such, what is claimed is claim 18 is seemingly circular in logical and is unclear if the process is actually functional or at what point step (a) is not intended to be preceded by step (b) and steps (i), (ii) and (iii). Correction is required.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: at what point the ZN plates comprise the wt% of polymer solution. The ZN pates are referenced throughout the claim but it is unclear at what point that ZN plates comprise the polymer solution or even if it is present at the time the ZN plates are obtained in step (a). Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 14 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsapatsis et al. (USPGPub 2015/0045206) .
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 and 14, Tsapatsis teaches that it is known to form additional growth on an already provided MFI-nanosheet coating which has a flake-like morphology [0048] by obtaining them on an alumina disk and growing them further using TEOS as a silica source and TPAOH as a structure directing agent [0062].
Regarding claims 2 and 6-7, Tsapatsis further teaches that the MFI-nanosheet coating provided as described above is provided from a synthesis of silicalite in a form that would be considered nanoparticle scale [0039] grown in a precursor solution comprising TEOS and a structure directing agent for a period of time [0058] to grow single crystalline silicalite ZNs [0046] wherein thereafter the crystallization is stopped and the product is cleaned and thereafter fractured (exfoliated) [0059].
Regarding claim 8, Tsapatsis further teaches wherein the precursor solution is hydrolyzed prior to step (ii) [0058].
Regarding claims 23-24, based on the overall thicknesses of Tsapatsis and the provided layer thickness (claim 7), the invention of Tsapatsis comprises multilayer structure having sheets in the range claimed.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 9-10, 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsapatsis et al. (USPGPub 2015/0045206) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 14 and 23-24 above and further in view of Tsapatsis et al. (USPGPub 2018/0111837)(referred to herein as Tsaptasis2).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of Tsapatsis are as shown above. Tsapatsis fails to teach wherein the SDA is dC5. However, Tsaptasis2 teaches that it is known to produce MFI nanosheets as is done by Tsapatsis using dC5 as an SDA [0154]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dC5 structure directing agent of Tsaptasis2 for the structure directing agent of Tsapatsis as a simple substitution of one known structure directing agent for another in the product of MFI nanosheets wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Tsaptasis2 as his dC5 being suited for the same intended purposes of Tsapatsis.
Regarding claims 9-10, the teachings of Tsapatsis are as shown above. Tsapatsis fails to teach the use of a base treatment step for cleaning. However, Tsaptasis2 teaches that it is known to clean MFI nanosheets using a KOH treatment step. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the KOH cleaning step of Tsaptasis2 in the process of Tsapatsis being ready for improvement wherein the inclusion of the cleaning step of Tsaptasis2 would have been predicable based upon its use in a similar process to that of Tsapatsis and expected to provide the benefit of cleaning as provided in Tsaptasis2.
Regarding claims 15-16, the teachings of Tsapatsis are as shown above. Tsapatsis fails to teach wherein the SDA is dC5. However, Tsaptasis2 teaches that it is known to produce MFI nanosheets as is done by Tsapatsis using dC5 as an SDA [0154]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dC5 structure directing agent of Tsaptasis2 for the structure directing agent of Tsapatsis as a simple substitution of one known structure directing agent for another in the product of MFI nanosheets wherein the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Tsaptasis2 as his dC5 being suited for the same intended purposes of Tsapatsis. Further composition of the secondary growth of Tsapatsis may include several compounds that are considered to be mild bases including TMAdaOH.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsapatsis et al. (USPGPub 2015/0045206) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 14 and 23-24 above and further in view of Rehman et al. (“Two Dimensional MFI Zeolite Nanosheets Exfoliated by Surfactant Assisted Solution Process” Nanometerials, 2021, 11, 2327, pp. 1-14).
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of Tsapatsis are as shown above. Tsapatsis fails to teach wherein the exfoliation of the zeolite is done by ball milling in water. However, Rehman shows that zeolite is known to be exfoliated by ball milling in water (see Experimental section). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ball milling of Rehman for the exfoliation technique of Tsapatsis as a simple substitution of one known zeolite exfoliation technique for another wherein the substitution would be been predictable based upon the teachings of Rehman that ball milling is a suitable means of exfoliation for MFI zeolite material as present in Tsapatsis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights