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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103933871 B (“CN ’871”) in view of Tsapatsis et al. (US 2013/0059722 A1, “Tsapatsis”).
Regarding claim 1, CN ’871 teaches a method of preparing an MFI zeolite membrane by secondary growth comprising preparing MFI molecular-sieve seed crystals, coating the MFI seeds onto a porous support to form a seed layer, contacting the seeded support with a secondary-growth solution comprising SiO₂ and H₂O, and performing hydrothermal synthesis to form an MFI zeolite membrane. CN ’871 teaches secondary hydrothermal growth at 160–200°C for 4–20 h (CN ’871, claim 1; ¶¶[0006]–[0013]; Examples 1–6). CN ’871 does not teach using a tetraalkylphosphonium salt in the secondary-growth solution or expressly teach that the resulting membrane is hierarchically structured. Tsapatsis Example 1 employs a synthesis composition of 1 SiO₂:0.3 TBPOH:10 H₂O, equivalent upon normalization to 30 TBPOH:100 SiO₂:1,000 H₂O, which falls within the claimed ranges of 5–50:5–500:1,000–50,000 (¶[0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tetraalkylphosphonium structure-directing system, including TBPOH, taught by Tsapatsis in the secondary-growth MFI membrane process of CN ’871 because Tsapatsis teaches that such tetraalkylphosphonium structure-directing agents promote formation of hierarchical MFI/pentasil structures having both microporosity and mesoporosity. One having ordinary skill in the art seeking to impart hierarchical porosity to the MFI membrane of CN ’871 therefore would have had reason to employ the phosphonium-directed MFI synthesis chemistry of Tsapatsis in place of the TPABr-directed synthesis chemistry of CN ’871 to obtain an MFI membrane having hierarchical pore structure. Regarding claim 2, CN ’871 in view of Tsapatsis further teaches that the tetraalkylphosphonium salt is TBPOH, which is expressly encompassed by claim 2 (Tsapatsis, ¶¶[0024]–[0025]). Regarding claim 3, CN ’871 teaches secondary hydrothermal synthesis at 160-200°C for 4-20 h, which overlaps the claimed temperature range of 70–175°C and time range of 12-240 h, namely 160-175°C and 12-20 h (CN ’871, claim 1; ¶[0013]). Tsapatsis additionally teaches hydrothermal synthesis at 115°C for 40 h, which falls within both claimed ranges (Tsapatsis, ¶[0026]). Regarding claim 4, CN ’871 teaches performing the secondary hydrothermal synthesis once after formation of the MFI seed layer, thereby satisfying the claimed alternative that hydrothermal synthesis is performed once (CN ’871, claim 1; ¶¶[0011]–[0013]). Claim 5, CN ’871 teaches washing and drying the MFI membrane after secondary hydrothermal synthesis and before calcination (CN ’871, claim 1; ¶[0013]). CN ’871 does not expressly disclose the claimed drying temperature and duration. Tsapatsis teaches drying hydrothermally synthesized MFI/pentasil zeolite at 70°C for 12 h, which falls within the claimed ranges of 30-200°C for 1-24 h (Tsapatsis, ¶¶[0026], [0028]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the drying temperature and duration taught by Tsapatsis when drying the hydrothermally synthesized MFI membrane of CN ’871 because Tsapatsis teaches such conditions as suitable for drying hydrothermally synthesized MFI/pentasil zeolite prior to calcination. Regarding claim 6, CN ’871 teaches, after hydrothermal synthesis, washing and drying the MFI membrane and thereafter calcining the membrane at 450-600°C for 4-8 h, thereby teaching calcination after drying at a temperature within the claimed range of 350-650°C and for a period overlapping the claimed range of 6-48 h. CN ’871 further teaches a temperature elevation rate of 1°C/min, within the claimed range of 0.2-10°C·min⁻¹ (CN ’871, claim 1; Examples 1–6). Tsapatsis teaches removal of the organic structure-directing agent by calcination at 550°C for 12 h in air, thereby teaching calcination within the claimed temperature and time ranges in the presence of air (Tsapatsis, ¶¶[0026], [0028]). The references do not expressly disclose an air flow rate of 10–1,000 mL·min⁻¹. However, Tsapatsis expressly teaches calcination in air. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow of air during the air calcination and to select an effective air flow rate, including a rate within the broadly claimed range of 10-1,000 mL·min⁻¹, because the amount of air supplied during calcination is a process parameter that would have been routinely adjusted to provide a sufficient oxidizing atmosphere for removal of the organic structure-directing agent. Regarding claim 7, CN ’871 teaches that the porous support may comprise mullite or α-Al₂O₃, each of which is expressly encompassed by the support materials recited in claim 7 (CN ’871, claim 7; ¶[0018]; Examples 1–6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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 C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights