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.
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 15 and 16 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 15 recites the limitation "the aluminum source material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "nano-sized zeolite Beta" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner interprets this as the nano-sized zeolite Beta precursor.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (US 10773248 B2), and further in view of Grey (US 20050282699 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ding et al. discloses a synthesis process for forming nano-sized, mesoporous zeolite (col 8, lines 16-17). The zeolites created have a BEA framework type such as zeolite Beta (col 4, lines 48-50). The process crystallizes an aluminosilicate gel with tetraethylammonium hydroxide to produce nano-sized Zeolite beta (col 18, lines 60-66). The nano-size zeolite beta is further treated with a base aqueous solution to form mesopores (col 19, lines 1-8). The synthesis concludes with a calcination at 500° C to 600° C (col 19, lines 11-12). This calcination is well-known in the art for removing templating agents from the pores of the produced zeolite, however Ding et al. does not disclose a heating process prior that uses inert gas.
Grey discloses a process for producing a noble metal-containing titanium or vanadium zeolite that is active in olefin epoxidation with oxygen and hydrogen (paragraph 0006). The process uses a templating agent and then removes it (paragraph 0006). The templating agent is typically a tetraalkylammonium cation (paragraph 0010). The template removal may be performed by a thermal treatment in the presence of inert gas, by an oxidative treatment under conditions that decompose the templating agent, or by a combination of both (paragraph 0021).
A specific embodiment, Example 1B, discloses the dried solids are transferred to a quartz tube, heated under nitrogen flow at 1100° C for 1 hour, 450° C for 3 hours and then cooled to 23° C (paragraph 0038). While it is not explicitly stated that this is a pure nitrogen environment with greater than 99 mol.% inert gas, the examiner interprets it as one because the inert atmosphere is substantially free of oxygen containing preferably less than 2000 ppm (paragraph 0022). This would result in an inert environment with greater than 99.8 mol.% nitrogen.
Mol frac O2 = 2000/1000000 = 0.002
Mol% O2 = 0.002*100% = 0.2 mol %
Minimum mol% of inert gas/nitrogen = 100% -0.2% = 99.8%
The nitrogen treated solids are oven calcined in air by heating to 110° C and holding for 2 hours. Then heating to 300° C and holding for 4 hours (paragraph 0038). Air has an oxygen content of roughly 21 mol% which is greater than 10 mol%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an inert gas treatment step before calcination because zeolite samples in Grey with an inert gas treatment have a higher productivity of propylene oxide and equivalents (POE) than those that were only treated in air (Table 1), so it is a more productive epoxidation catalyst. Furthermore, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use this process in the synthesis of zeolite Beta because the Titanium-containing molecular sieves have framework structures isomorphous to zeolite Beta (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 2, Grey discloses in Example 1B the dried solids are heated under nitrogen flow at 1100° C (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Grey discloses in Example 1B the dried solids are heated under nitrogen flow, which is greater than 99.8 mol.% inert as seen above (paragraph 0038). The solids are first heated at 1100° C for 1 hour and then 450° C for 3 hours in nitrogen (paragraph 0038).
The higher temperature heating happens before the lower temperature which is the opposite order of what is claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to have the lower heating step first followed by the higher heating, because a process with a different order in steps is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144 IV C).
Additionally, the higher temperature heating stage could have been optimized to be within the claimed range of temperatures because the temperature of the inert gas heating stage will affect how much of the organic templating agent is removed from the solid prior to calcination in air.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claim 4, Grey discloses the inert atmosphere in example 1B is nitrogen flow (paragraph 0038). The examiner interprets this as a greater than 99 mol.% nitrogen because the inert atmosphere is substantially free of oxygen containing preferably less than 2000 ppm (paragraph 0022). This would result in an inert environment with greater than 99.8 mol% nitrogen which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Grey discloses the heating of the solids is done strictly under nitrogen (paragraph 0038). The inert atmosphere is substantially free of oxygen containing preferably less than 2000 ppm (paragraph 0022). This would result in an inert environment that is greater than 99.8 mol% nitrogen which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Grey discloses the nitrogen treated solids are oven calcined in air (paragraph 0038). Air has an oxygen content of roughly 21 mol% which is greater than 20 mol%.
Regarding claim 8, Grey discloses the calcination that takes place after nitrogen treatment is in air (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 9, Ding et al. discloses the calcination is at 500° C to 600° C (col 19, lines 11-12). The subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicant’s claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USP 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ.
Regarding claim 10, Ding et al. discloses the precursor gel has tetraethylammonium hydroxide (col 18, lines 54-55) which is an organic templating agent.
Regarding claim 11, Ding et al. discloses the precursor gel has tetraethylammonium hydroxide (col 18, lines 54-55).
Regarding claim 14, Ding et al. discloses forming nano-sized zeolite beta with fumed silica, aluminum power, and tetraethylammonium hydroxide (col 18, lines 49-54). The formed aluminosilicate fluid gel is transferred into an autoclave and crystallization is carried out at 100° C to 150° C (col 18, lines 60-63). This process requires hydrothermal treatment.
Regarding claim 15, Ding et al. discloses the templating agent is tetraethylammonium hydroxide, the silica source is fumed silica, and the aluminum source is aluminum powder (col 18, lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 16, Ding et al. discloses the nano-sized zeolite beta mixture is separated and washed with purified water, and then dried (col 19, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 17, Ding et al. discloses the nano-sized, mesoporous zeolite particle may have a particle size of less than or equal to 100 nm (col 2, lines 56-58).
Regarding claim 18, Ding et al. discloses the nano-sized mesoporous zeolites have a surface area from 500 m2/g to 700 m2/g (col 6, lines 66-67 – col 7, line 1) which overlaps the claimed range.
The subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicant’s claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USP 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ.
Regarding claim 19, Ding et al. discloses the nano-sized mesoporous zeolites have a pore volume from 0.5 to 1.0 mL/g (col 6, lines 57-59) which overlaps the claimed range.
The subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicant’s claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USP 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. in view of Grey as applied to claims 1-11 and 14-19 above, and further in view of Kanazirev et al. (The Effect of O2 on the Thermal Activation of Zeolite Beta).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the method of claim 10 is obvious over modified Ding et al., but the combination of references does not disclose how much of the organic templating agent is removed in both the inert gas heat treatment and air calcination.
Kanazirev et al. discloses calcination of BEA samples in a He reagent gas stream with varying amounts of oxygen or hydrogen (Experimental, paragraph 2). It was found that efficient calcination of zeolites with organic amine templates consists of removing almost all the organic template by heating in the absence of O2, which could be an inert environment, and removing the small amount of residue left in air (Discussion, last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to expect the modified process of Ding et al. to decompose a majority of the organic template in the inert environment and decompose the remainder of the template in air (21 mol.% oxygen).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. in view of Grey as applied to claims 1-11 and 14-19 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (US 20230212018 A1) (Ding ’23).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 1 is obvious over modified Ding et al., but the combination of references does not disclose a relative crystallinity.
Ding ’23 discloses a process for the synthesis of nano-sized zeolite beta having mesopores using a hydrothermal treatment without drying and calcination of the zeolite (paragraph 0006). Ding 23’ discloses a relative crystallinity greater than 100%. The crystallinity is not relative to a precursor, but rather, a known reference beta zeolite.
While Ding ’23 crystallinity is relative to a different reference point, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a relative crystallinity of 95% or greater with respect to the precursor because improved crystallinity results in improved catalytic performance in heavy oil conversion processes (paragraph 0016). Higher crystallinity also indicates improved preservation of the zeolite structure during hydrothermal treatment (paragraph 0037).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weitkamp et al.
EP 2610005 A2
Le-Khae
US 20100076207 A1
Kan et al.
CN 1386703 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
