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 § 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 and 3 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 1 is indefinite because the claim recites the limitation “subjecting the gel to crystallization” without offering any process steps to what “subjecting” includes. This should be amended to include an active process step.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the claim recites the “alkali source” as both “MOH” and “M2O”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al., Chinese Publication No. CN112551539 (hereinafter referred to as Gong) in view of Huan et al., Chinese Publication No. CN105439166A (hereinafter referred to as Huan).
Regarding claims 1-19, Gong discloses a method for preparing a single-layer MWW molecular sieve comprising the steps of (1) formulating a single-layer MWW zeolite gel by mixing a source of silicon, such as, silica sol, a source of aluminum, such as, aluminum sulfate, a source of alkali, such as, sodium hydroxide, a first templating agent (R1), and a second templating agent (R2), and deionized water at molar ratios of SiO2/Al203 = 3-150, OH "/Si02 = 0.01-1, H2O/Si02 = 10-100, R1/Si02 = 0.01-1, R2/Si02 = 0.01-1 to obtain a single-layer MWW zeolite gel; (2) Gel crystallization - the monolayer MWW zeolite gel obtained in step (1) is first aged and then subjected to dynamic hydrothermal crystallization; (3) Calcination - the product obtained from the dynamic hydrothermal crystallization of step (2) is subjected to a calcination treatment to obtain the single-layer MWW molecular sieve.
Wherein step (1) comprises mixing a source of silicon, a source of aluminum, R source of alkali, a templating agent RI, a templating agent R2, deionized water, and seed crystals to give a single-layer MWW zeolite gel. Templating agent RI is cyclohexylamine; templating agent R2 is a halide or hydroxide of a simple quaternary ammonium salt having a side chain length of C1-5 alkyl. The single-layer MWW molecular sieve described herein can be subjected to a liquid phase alkylation reaction as a catalyst to produce ethylbenzene at a benzene to ethylene molar ratio of 2 to 3, a reaction temperature of 190°C to 250°C and a reaction pressure of 3 to 4 MPa. By employing a dual templating agent approach, single-layer MWW molecular sieves can be stably synthesized under cyclohexylamine systems, enriching the crystalline phase that can be synthesized by cyclohexylamine systems, replacing the traditional highly toxic, expensive hexamethyleneimine with cheap and low toxic cyclohexylamine, reducing the cost of the synthesis, and making the synthesis process more green and safe (see Abstract and see Example 1).
Gong discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the specific second templating agent recited in claim 1.
Huan discloses a process for synthesizing a MWW-structured molecular sieve comprising the steps of: a) mixing a source of silicon, a source of aluminum, a source of “OH"-containing alkali, a templating agent R and water to obtain a reaction mixture; b) stirring, drying, grinding the reaction mixture into a dry adhesive powder; c) crystallizing the dry adhesive powder after mixing with water; the crystallized product is water-washed, oven-dried, and calcined to give the MWW-structured molecular sieve.
The templating agent R is selected from at least one of cyclohexylamine, bexamethylenediamine, hexamethyleneimine, heptamethyleneimine, pyridine, piperidine, ethylenediamine, isopropylamine, ethyltrimethylammonium hydroxide, diethyldimethylammonium hydroxide, or triethylmethylammoniam hydroxide (Para. [0008]-[0018]). Huan discloses that at least one of the reagents including cyclohexylamine, bexamethylamine, ethylenediamine, isopropylamine, ethyltrimethylammonium hydroxide and the like can be employed as a templating agent for the synthesis of MWW molecular sieves. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date is motivated to select templating agents, such as, hexamethylenediamine, ethylenediamine, isopropylamine from which to use in combination with the RI template cyclohexylamine in it is readily available to employ other fatty amine templating agents such as disopropylamine, di-n-butylamine, disobutylamine and the like in claim I and to adjust the amount ratio of each templating agent. In addition, ammonium exchange and calcination of the molecular sieve from which the templating agent is removed to form the H-form molecular sieve is further compounded with a binder (inorganic oxide), a peptizing agent (inorganic acid solution), and the like, and dry calcination to form the finished catalyst is also a conventional technique.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of application No. 18/857,283. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The co-pending '283 application discloses the same limitations as does the instant application and would therefore be obvious in light of the disclosures discussed above and incorporated herein by reference.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights