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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. Claims 1 – 19 are pending in this application. Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks, filed December 23, 2025, is entered, wherein claims 1, 3 – 4, 6, 14, and 19 are amended.
Claims 1 – 19 are currently examined.
Priority
4. This application is a national stage application of PCT/EP2020/066154, filed June 11, 2020, which claims benefit of foreign priority document FR1907089, filed June 28, 2019, this foreign priority document is not in English.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
“Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application” is only pertinent when interference arises.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The rejection of claims 1 – 19 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 25, 2025, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. in view of Wach et al. and Bouvier et al. has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amend claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1 - 19 in the previous Office Action, mailed September 25, 2025, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 14, and 17 – 18 of copending Application No. 17/622,895 in view of Wach et al. has been considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 1.
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:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. 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 – 4, 7 – 11, and 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Bergh (US2017/0342511A1) in view of Cheng (Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1992, Vol. 40, Issue 4, page 498 – 504, Reference included with PTO-892), with evidence provided by Dabbawala et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, 2020, Vol. 608, Reference included with PTO-892), Francisco et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, Vol. 172, Issue 1, page 184 – 192, Reference included with PTO-892), and Berger et al. (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2005, Vol. 83, Issue 1 – 3, page 333 – 344, Reference included with PTO-892).
a. Regarding claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, and 15 – 19, Van den Bergh teaches a process for the separation of monosaccharides from an aqueous solution comprising the monosaccharide (Abstract). The invention is for separating monosaccharides from aqueous solution because monosaccharide like glucose, xylose, and mannose have significant direct use and commercial interest and they are also a more attractive starting point for making interesting derivative molecules in higher yield and purity and with less complicated processes (para. [0016]). The process comprising (a) the solution comprises one or more salts and/or mineral acids; (b) the solution is contacted with a zeolite adsorbent for adsorbing the monosaccharide on the zeolite; (c) the zeolite with the adsorbed monosaccharide is separated from the solution; and (d) the monosaccharide is separated from the zeolite absorbent (para. [0018 – 0020]). The separation process steps (b) – (d) are conveniently carried out in a chromatography type of process, wherein the zeolite adsorbent is the stationary phase and water is used as eluent (para. [0022]). Suitable zeolite may be FAU zeolites (para. [0023]). These zeolites are shaped in the form of spheres with a spherical diameter between 100 – 1500 micron. The shaped zeolite comprises zeolite in the form of powder and a binder. The binder may be alumina and silica (para. [0025]). Water acts as a desorbent for glucose. Van den Bergh further teaches that simulated moving bed (SMB) technology would be very suitable to perform this separation since people skilled in the art know that full peak separation on the column is with this technology not required to work at high glucose purity and yield (para. [0073]). The following is the schematic of SMB configuration (page 18, Figure 6):
PNG
media_image1.png
429
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
This SMB configuration consists of 8 columns divided in 4 zones in a 2-2-2-2 configuration. The system is operated at 20 ⁰C. The feed, extract, raffinate, eluent, and waste flows are set to 0.84, 1.92, 2.0, 7.0, and 3.92 mL/min, respectively (para. [0080]). The monosaccharide that is not adsorbed will be forming a raffinate stream and the monosaccharide desorbed from the adsorbent will form the extract stream.
However, Van den Bergh does not teach that the FAU-type zeolite crystals has an Si/Al atomic ratio of greater than 1.5 to 2.74 and comprising barium. Van den Bergh does not teach the zeolite crystals having a diameter of less than or equal to 2 μm.
Cheng teaches a separation of fructose and glucose in an adsorption column (Abstract). Adsorptive separation is the current commercial practice using zeolite Y, wherein the cations for zeolite Y are most likely calcium, barium, and potassium (page 498, Left Col., para. 1). Cheng conducts the separation study of glucose-fructose using an isothermal column packed with zeolites for the effectiveness of adsorbents as well as the equilibrium and kinetic parameters for the adsorption (page 498, Right Col., para. 2). The zeolite is Y type with 5.78% Na, 14.63% Al, and 18.31% Si. The degree of exchange is about 68% (page 499, Left Col., para. 2). Cheng determines that the flow rate of desorbent, temperature, amount of mixture injected, and exchangeable cations in the zeolite are important factors that affect the separation of glucose and fructose. The criterion for quantifying the effectiveness of separation is the efficiency of separation (ES), which takes into account the mean distances of the elution peaks of the species as well as the spread of each peak. Hence the larger the ES factor, the less overlapping of the two peaks and the better separation in general (page 500, Left Col., para. 1). Based on the summary results of separation (page 500, Table I):
PNG
media_image2.png
341
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Ba-Y zeolite as an adsorbent provides the best separation results (page 502, Left Col., para. 1).
Francisco et al. teach the recovery of glucose on different types of zeolite-based adsorbents from an aqueous solution (Abstract). Francisco et al. conclude that X- and Y-type zeolites exhibiting Faujasite structure show higher glucose uptake than LTL structures. In terms of Si/Al ratio, X-type zeolites show higher adsorption capacity for glucose than Y-type. From the differences found for X and Y zeolites (same FAU network but different Si/Al ratio), Francisco et al. conclude that the higher the Si/Al ratio, the higher the equilibrium adsorption for D-glucose. The extent of zeolite adsorption of glucose from aqueous solutions depends on the strength of the complex formed between sugar and the zeolite cations and on the geometric constrains imposed by number, type, and position of the cations within the zeolitic cavities (page 186, Left Col., para. 6; Right Col., para. 1).
Berger et al. teach that zeolite Y is obtained with a particle size of ca. 1 μm or below in the conventional industrial scale synthesis.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the zeolite used in the separation process of a monosaccharide as taught by Van den Bergh with Ba-Y zeolite in the form of Faujasite structure in view of Cheng and Francisco et al. for separating a mixture comprising xylose and glucose by adsorption of glucose on the zeolite adsorbent because Van den Bergh teaches that the method disclosed may be applied to separate monosaccharides, such as glucose and xylose, by adsorption using FAU-type zeolite, Cheng discloses that Ba-Y is the best adsorbent for glucose, and Francisco et al. confirm that Y-zeolite exhibiting Faujasite structure has the higher glucose uptake and the zeolite that has the higher Si/Al ratio exhibits higher equilibrium adsorption for glucose. One would have been motivated to substitute the zeolite used in the separation process of a monosaccharide as taught by Van den Bergh with Ba-Y zeolite in the form of Faujasite structure in view of Cheng and Francisco et al. for separating a mixture comprising xylose and glucose by adsorption of glucose on the zeolite adsorbent because Cheng teaches that Ba-Y is the best adsorbent for glucose and Francisco et al. teach that FAU-type zeolite with higher Si/Al ratio is preferred for adsorbing glucose. For the Si/Al ratio, Dabbawala et al. disclose that Zeolite Y, a member of Faujasite family, has a Si/Al atomic ratio > 1.5 (page 1, Right Col., para. 1). One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best Si/Al atomic ratio for the optimal glucose adsorption because Francisco et al. clearly indicate that Si/Al atomic ratio will affect the glucose adsorption. Although Van den Bergh teaches a general process for separating monosaccharide with the indication of using said process to obtain glucose from a mixture comprising glucose and xylose, the combination of Van den Bergh with Cheng and Francisco et al. yields a process of separating monosaccharide, in particular glucose, from a mixture comprising xylose and glucose using the substitute FAU-type Ba-Y zeolite with Si/Al atomic ratio that is greater than 1.5, which will result in glucose being adsorbed and xylose being carried in the liquid phase, therefore, reads on the limitation of claim 1. It would have been obvious to employ zeolite Y having a crystal size of about 1 μm or less in the process of Van den Bergh because the Berger et al. teach that zeolite Y is conventionally obtained in that size range. Thus, the claimed size represents a known and conventional size for zeolite Y, and employing such known zeolite Y in the known adsorption process would have been an obvious matter. For the pressure used in SMB, Van den Bergh does not explicitly teach increasing or decreasing pressure. It is expected that the system is operated at atmospheric pressure. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the zeolite used in the separation process of a monosaccharide as taught by Van den Bergh with Ba-Y zeolite in the form of Faujasite structure in view of Cheng and Francisco et al. for separating a mixture comprising xylose and glucose by adsorption of glucose on the zeolite adsorbent because Van den Bergh teaches the general process of separating monosaccharide, such as glucose, by adsorption and Cheng and Francisco et al. teach the possible adjustment on the zeolite used for optimizing the glucose adsorption.
Claims 5 – 6 and 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Bergh (US2017/0342511A1) in view of Cheng (Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1992, Vol. 40, Issue 4, page 498 – 504, Reference included with PTO-892), with evidence provided by Dabbawala et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, 2020, Vol. 608, Reference included with PTO-892), Francisco et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, Vol. 172, Issue 1, page 184 – 192, Reference included with PTO-892), and Berger et al. (Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2005, Vol. 83, Issue 1 – 3, page 333 – 344, Reference included with PTO-892) as applied to claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, and 15 – 19 above, and further in view of Chao et al. (US4516566, cited in the previous Office Action).
b. Regarding claims 5 – 6 and 12 – 14, the references teach the limitations discussed above.
However, these references do not teach the zeolite comprising barium, wherein the barium is in the form of barium oxide with the exchange rate of greater than 50%. These references do not teach that the zeolite has a total content of oxides of alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal ions other than barium and sodium, wherein an exchange rate of all said ions to the alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal ions is less than 30%.
Chao et al. teach a process for a liquid phase separation of sugar mixture (Col. 1, lines 8 – 11). Chao et al. use three different zeolites including NaX, BaX, and BaY (Col. 10, lines 5 – 10):
PNG
media_image3.png
121
344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
wherein BaY contains Na2O and BaO, wherein each Na+ and Ba2+ has an exchange level of 30% and 70%, respectively.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the BaY zeolite composition disclosed by Chao et al. for the use in the monosaccharide separation process as taught by Van den Bergh, Cheng, Francisco et al., and Berger et al. because Van den Bergh teaches the general chromatographic adsorption process for separating monosaccharides on a zeolite adsorbent, Cheng teaches that Ba-Y provides the best separation results among the tested Y-type zeolites, Francisco et al. teach that FAU-type zeolites are suitable for glucose uptake, and Chao et al. teach a known BaY exchanged cation composition for sugar separations in which barium is the main exchanged cation in BaO form. Chao et al. disclose a BaY zeolite only containing Na and Ba as the exchanged cations in the BaY zeolite. The total content of oxides of alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal ions other than barium and sodium would have absent, which satisfies the limitation “an exchange rate of all said ions to the alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal ions is less than 30%”. One would have been motivated to select the BaY zeolite composition disclosed by Chao et al. for the use in the monosaccharide separation process as taught by Van den Bergh, Cheng, Francisco et al., and Berger et al. because Chao et al. show that such BaY exchange composition is known and suitable for saccharide adsorption separations. One would have been considered the BaY composition disclosed by Chao et al. as a starting point and would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best content of BaY composition for optimal glucose adsorption. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to select the BaY zeolite composition disclosed by Chao et al. for the use in the monosaccharide separation process as taught by Van den Bergh, Cheng, Francisco et al., and Berger et al. because Chao et al. teach that BaY exchanged cation composition is known in the art and is known to be suitable for liquid phase sugar separations.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 23, 2025, have been fully considered and are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding Chao et al., Applicant argues that Chao et al. do not disclose the separation of multiple sugars, including glucose and xylose, using BaX zeolite because Chao et al. only disclose that arabinose is adsorbed onto the zeolite and that the other sugars are eluted as one peak. Applicant argues that other evidences, such as separation factor, reflect that the particular adsorbent is selective for arabinose and other sugars may not be eluted separately under the tested conditions. Finally, Chao et al. fail to disclose several critical features of the process described in claim 1, including adsorption of glucose on a zeolite adsorbent based on FAU-type zeolite crystals having an Si/Al atomic ratio strictly greater than 1.5 to 2.74, obtaining a xylose-enriched liquid phase and a glucose-enriched adsorbed phase; and desorbing said glucose-enriched adsorbed phase from the adsorbent using a desorption solvent.
Regarding Wach et al., Applicant argues that Wach et al. do not establish a general principle suggesting a Si/Al ratio greater than 1.5 to 2.74 in FAU zeolites would enhance performance in saccharide separation and the disclosure is related to a calcium-exchanged Y-zeolite.
Regarding Bouvier et al., Applicant argues that Bouvier et al. do not overcome the deficiencies of Chao et al. and Wach et al. because it is completely silent concerning the use of such materials in the specific adsorption of glucose over xylose.
However, these arguments are moot because the rejection over Chao et al. in view of Wach et al., and further in view of Bouvier et al. has been withdrawn. The new rejection is relied upon the combination of Van den Bergh, Cheng, Francisco et al., and Berger et al., and further in view of Chao et al. Van den Bergh teaches a process for separating monosaccharide by adsorption of zeolite and Van den Bergh provides the motivation of separating xylose and glucose, using FAU-type zeolite. Cheng, on the other hand, teaches that BaY is the best adsorbent for glucose and Francisco et al. teach that the higher the Si/Al ratio, the higher the adsorption equilibrium for glucose, thereby, providing a motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Si/Al under routine experimentation to achieve the optimal glucose adsorption. The combination of Van den Bergh, Cheng, and Francisco et al. encompasses the limitations of claim 1. Although Van den Bergh teaches a general process for separating monosaccharide with the indication of using said process to obtain glucose from a mixture comprising glucose and xylose, the combination of Van den Bergh with Cheng and Francisco et al. yields a process of separating monosaccharide, in particular glucose, from a mixture comprising xylose and glucose using the substituted FAU-type Ba-Y zeolite with Si/Al atomic ratio that is greater than 1.5, which will result in glucose being adsorbed and xylose being carried in the liquid phase. Therefore, the combination of Van den Bergh, Cheng, Francisco et al., and Berger et al., and further in view of Chao et al. renders the claims obvious.
Regarding the unexpected results, Applicant argues that barium-exchanged Y-zeolite exhibits superior selectivity for glucose over xylose when compared to Y-zeolite exchanged with calcium. The argument is not persuasive because Cheng explicitly teaches that BaY is the best adsorbent for glucose. Therefore, the results are not unexpected.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 14, and 17 – 18 of copending Application No. 17/622,895 in view of Cheng (Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1992, Vol. 40, Issue 4, page 498 – 504, Reference included with PTO-892), with evidence provided by Dabbawala et al. (Applied Catalysis A: General, 2020, Vol. 608, Reference included with PTO-892), and Francisco et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, Vol. 172, Issue 1, page 184 – 192, Reference included with PTO-892).
a. Regarding claims 1 – 19, ‘895 teaches a process for the liquid-phase separation of xylose from a mixture of C5 and C6 sugars comprising at least xylose and glucose, by adsorption of xylose on a zeolitic adsorbent based on FAU-type zeolite crystals comprising barium, wherein the mixture is brought into contact with said adsorbent, by liquid chromatography, to obtain a glucose-enriched liquid phase and a xylose-enriched adsorbed phase and the glucose-enriched liquid phase is recovered and the phase adsorbed on said adsorbent is desorbed by means of a desorption solvent in order to recover the xylose (claim 1). The adsorbent comprises zeolite crystals having a diameter of less than or equal to 2 µm or less than or equal to 1.7 µm (claims 2 and 12) and the adsorbent has the content of BaO that the exchange rate is greater than 70% or greater than 90% (claims 4 and 14). Furthermore, the adsorbent has a total content of oxides of alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal ions other than barium, potassium, and sodium that the exchange rate of all the ions relative to all of the alkali metal or alkaline-earth metal ions is less than 30% or between 0% to 5% (claims 7 and 17). The adsorbent is in the form of an agglomerate comprising a binder and the number-average diameter of the agglomerates is from 0.4 to 2 mm or between 0.4 and 0.8 mm (claims 11 and 18). ‘895 also teaches that the separation by adsorption is carried out in a simulated moving bed, wherein the glucose-enriched liquid phase is removed from contact with the adsorbent to form a raffinate stream, and the xylose-enriched phase adsorbed on the adsorbent is desorbed under the action of a desorption solvent, and is removed from contact with adsorbent to form an extract stream, wherein the desorption solvent is water (claims 8 – 9). The process is further limited to be a separation by adsorption that is carried out in an industrial adsorption unit of simulated countercurrent type with the following conditions: (i) 6 to 30 beds; (ii) at least 4 operating zones between a feed point and a withdrawal point; (iii) a temperature from 20 ⁰C to 100 ⁰C; and (iii) a pressure between atmospheric pressure and 0.5 MPa (claim 10).
However, ‘895 does not teach the process for liquid-phase separation of glucose to obtain the glucose from the adsorbent and does not teach the Si/Al atomic ratio of the adsorbent to be greater than 1.5 (claim 1).
Cheng teaches a separation of fructose and glucose in an adsorption column (Abstract). Adsorptive separation is the current commercial practice using zeolite Y, wherein the cations for zeolite Y are most likely calcium, barium, and potassium (page 498, Left Col., para. 1). Cheng conducts the separation study of glucose-fructose using an isothermal column packed with zeolites for the effectiveness of adsorbents as well as the equilibrium and kinetic parameters for the adsorption (page 498, Right Col., para. 2). The zeolite is Y type with 5.78% Na, 14.63% Al, and 18.31% Si. The degree of exchange is about 68% (page 499, Left Col., para. 2). Cheng determines that the flow rate of desorbent, temperature, amount of mixture injected, and exchangeable cations in the zeolite are important factors that affect the separation of glucose and fructose. The criterion for quantifying the effectiveness of separation is the efficiency of separation (ES), which takes into account the mean distances of the elution peaks of the species as well as the spread of each peak. Hence the larger the ES factor, the less overlapping of the two peaks and the better separation in general (page 500, Left Col., para. 1). Based on the summary results of separation (page 500, Table I):
PNG
media_image2.png
341
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
Ba-Y zeolite as an adsorbent provides the best separation results (page 502, Left Col., para. 1).
Francisco et al. teach the recovery of glucose on different types of zeolite-based adsorbents from an aqueous solution (Abstract). Francisco et al. conclude that X- and Y-type zeolites exhibiting Faujasite structure show higher glucose uptake than LTL structures. In terms of Si/Al ratio, X-type zeolites show higher adsorption capacity for glucose than Y-type. From the differences found for X and Y zeolites (same FAU network but different Si/Al ratio), Francisco et al. conclude that the higher the Si/Al ratio, the higher the equilibrium adsorption for D-glucose. The extent of zeolite adsorption of glucose from aqueous solutions depends on the strength of the complex formed between sugar and the zeolite cations and on the geometric constrains imposed by number, type, and position of the cations within the zeolitic cavities (page 186, Left Col., para. 6; Right Col., para. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for the liquid-phase separation of xylose from a mixture of C5 and C6 sugars comprising at least xylose and glucose, by adsorption of xylose on a zeolitic adsorbent based on FAU-type zeolite crystals as taught by ‘895 to a process of liquid-phase separation of glucose by adsorption of glucose by substituting the zeolite to a FAU-type BaY zeolite with Si/Al atomic ratio greater than 1.5 in view of Cheng and Francisco et al. because ‘895 discloses a process of monosaccharide separation, especially targeting xylose and glucose, Cheng discloses that BaY zeolite is the best adsorbent for glucose, and Francisco et al. confirm that Y-zeolite exhibiting Faujasite structure has the higher glucose uptake and the zeolite that has the higher Si/Al ratio exhibits higher equilibrium adsorption for glucose. One would have been motivated to modify the process for the liquid-phase separation of xylose from a mixture of C5 and C6 sugars comprising at least xylose and glucose, by adsorption of xylose on a zeolitic adsorbent based on FAU-type zeolite crystals as taught by ‘895 to a process of liquid-phase separation of glucose by adsorption of glucose by substituting the zeolite to a FAU-type BaY zeolite with Si/Al atomic ratio greater than 1.5 in view of Cheng and Francisco et al. because Cheng et al. teach that Ba-Y is the best adsorbent for glucose and Francisco et al. teach that FAU-type zeolite with higher Si/Al ratio is preferred for adsorbing glucose. For the Si/Al ratio, Dabbawala et al. disclose that Zeolite Y, a member of Faujasite family, has a Si/Al atomic ratio > 1.5 (page 1, Right Col., para. 1). One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best Si/Al atomic ratio for the optimal glucose adsorption because Francisco et al. clearly indicate that Si/Al atomic ratio will affect the glucose adsorption. Although ‘895 teaches a process for separating xylose from glucose, the combination of ‘895 with Cheng and Francisco et al. yields a process of separating monosaccharide, in particular glucose, from a mixture comprising xylose and glucose using the substituted FAU-type Ba-Y zeolite with Si/Al atomic ratio that is greater than 1.5, which will result in glucose being adsorbed and xylose being carried in the liquid phase, therefore, reads on the limitation of claim 1. One of the skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the process for the liquid-phase separation of xylose from a mixture of C5 and C6 sugars comprising at least xylose and glucose, by adsorption of xylose on a zeolitic adsorbent based on FAU-type zeolite crystals as taught by ‘895 to a process of liquid-phase separation of glucose by adsorption of glucose by substituting the zeolite to a FAU-type BaY zeolite with Si/Al atomic ratio greater than 1.5 in view of Cheng and Francisco et al. because it is known in the art that glucose adsorption may be achieved by adjusting different parameters of the process, such as Si/Al atomic ratio of the zeolite.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed December 23, 2025, have been fully considered and are found to be not persuasive.
Regarding ‘895, Applicant argues that ‘895 serves as a comparative test, which demonstrates that lowering the Si/Al ratio to a value equal to or lower than 1.5 leads to a higher selectivity over glucose. Applicant further argues that the claimed Si/Al ratio is not an obvious modification. However, these arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection is relied upon the combination of ‘895, Cheng, and Francisco et al. Francisco et al. clearly state that the Si/Al ratio is important for glucose adsorption and Francisco et al. teach that the higher Si/Al ratio will lead to higher adsorption equilibrium of glucose. This provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Si/Al ratio for adsorbing glucose and one of ordinary skill in the art would consider testing a higher Si/Al ratio to find the best ratio for glucose adsorption. The optimal Si/Al ratio for glucose adsorption is achieved by routine experimentation and is not considered as unexpected.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is 571-270-0265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, SCARLETT GOON can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/H.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693