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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/21/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14-25 are pending. Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14-23 are being examined. Claims 2-6, 10, 12-13 are canceled. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1 and 15 are amended with no new subject matter being introduced.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al. (Du et al., "Preparation of zinc chabazite (ZnCHA) for CO2 capture”, Research on Chemical Intermediates, 2017, Vol. 43, No.3, pages1783-1792) in view of Guo (Guo et al., “Rational Synthesis of Chabazite (CHA) Zeolites with Controlled Si/Al Ratio and Their CO2/CH4/N2 Adsorptive Separation Performances”, Chem. Asian J. 2018, 13, 3222-3230).
Considering claim 1, Du teaches a metal ion-doped crystalline microporous aluminosilicate composition comprising: (a) a three-dimensional aluminosilicate framework containing a-cages with 8-MR openings that are sized to accommodate the molecular dimensions of carbon dioxide (3.3 A), (b) the framework further comprising d6r (or D6MR) composite building blocks having 6-membered rings that face (are part of) or connect the α-cage of the framework; wherein the ratio of metal ions to aluminum within the unit cell is from 0.33 to 0.85; and wherein the metal ion-doped crystalline microporous aluminosilicate composition adsorbs carbon dioxide when exposed to a gaseous mixture comprising carbon dioxide by teaching zinc chabazite (ZnCHA) for CO2 capture with a cell formula of Zn3.7K3.6(Al11Si24.5O71.5) (Du, abstract, 3rd full paragraph on page 1784, page 1786, 1st paragraph on page 1789, and Table 1 on page 1787). Du teaches the three-dimensional aluminosilicate framework has a CHA topology (Du, abstract).
Du does not explicitly teach the crystalline microporous aluminosilicate contains 1.2 to 3 metal ions per unit cell. However, Du teaches the higher the extent of ion-exchange on chabazites corresponds to the smaller surface area (Du, 2nd paragraph of page 1786).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the number of metals per unit cell including to within the claimed range of 1.2-3. One of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired surface area with a reasonable expectation of success.
Du teaches Si:Al of 2.2:1 (Du, bottom of page 1784), he does not explicitly teach the composition has a Si:Al atomic ratio in a range of from 5.5:1 to 8.5:1.
However, Guo teaches synthesizing CHA zeolites with controllable Si/Al ratio and implementing CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 separation experiments by using CHA zeolites with different Si/Al ratios; the adsorption capacities for the three gases and CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 separation selectivities decreases with increasing Si/Al ratio, whereas the regenerability shows the opposite relationship (Guo, Conclusions on page 3228).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the Si:Al atomic ratio of the composition including to within a range of from 5.5:1 to 8.5:1. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired selectivity and regenerability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 7, Du teaches the CHA is synthetic CHA by teaching synthesizing chabazite (Du, top of page 1785 and bottom of page 1784).
Considering claims 8-9, Du teaches Si:Al of 2.2:1 (Du, bottom of page 1784), he does not explicitly teach the composition has a Si:Al atomic ratio in a range of from 6.5:1 to 7.5:1 and/or 7.5:1 to 8.5:1.
However, Guo teaches synthesizing CHA zeolites with controllable Si/Al ratio and implementing CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 separation experiments by using CHA zeolites with different Si/Al ratios; the adsorption capacities for the three gases and CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 separation selectivities decreases with increasing Si/Al ratio, whereas the regenerability shows the opposite relationship (Guo, Conclusions on page 3228).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the Si:Al atomic ratio of the composition including to within a range of from 6.5:1 to 7.5:1 and/or 7.5:1 to 8.5:1. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired selectivity and regenerability with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 11, Du teaches the metal ions such as zinc are positioned within the lattice of the three-dimensional aluminosilicate framework by teaching Zn2+ coordinates site IV (Du, page 1789).
Considering claims 14-15, Du teaches ion-exchanging chabazites enhances the adsorption capacity of CO2 (Du, last paragraph on page 1788 and bottom of page 1789).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the amount of metal ions in the chabazite including to within the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired CO2 adsorption with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 16, Du teaches the ratio of metal ions to aluminum within the unit cell ranges from 0.336 (i.e., ZnCHA) to 0.445 (i.e., CaCHA) (Du, Table 1 on page 1787). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range overlaps the range taught by Du (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Considering claim 17, Du teaches adsorption effect between the cation and the guest gas molecule is enhanced by adjacent Zn2+ near the center of the 8-ring window (Du, bottom of page 1789).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the ratio of metal ions to aluminum within the unit cell including to within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to enhanced adsorption to desired level with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 18-20, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition. Du/Guo teach/obviate the claimed composition. Thus, it would be expected that the composition of Du/Guo would also have the capacity to contain carbon dioxide in the claimed amounts and result in the amounts of claimed carbon dioxide adsorption within the claimed pressure ranges.
Considering claims 21-22, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition. Du/Guo teach/obviate the claimed composition. Thus, it would be expected that the composition of Du/Guo would also have the claimed breakthrough of CO2 under the claimed operating conditions.
Considering claim 23, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition. Du/Guo teach/obviate the claimed composition. Thus, it would be expected that the composition of Du/Guo would also be capable of desorbing carbon dioxide at a temperature of less than 130°C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the disclosure of Du relates to CO2 capture form industrial emissions and designed its materials to adsorb CO2 in highly concentrated streams whereas the composition of the instant invention is effective at CO2 concentrations in the 100’s ppm have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition and the manner in which the composition is used does not impart any additional structural limitations to the composition. Something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a function/property (see MPEP §2112(I)); Du/Guo teach/obviate the claimed composition regardless of its method of use; Du/Guo’s composition would be capable of being used to adsorb CO2 in low concentrations.
In addition, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (see MPEP §2144(IV)).
Applicant’s argument that CHA with Si/Al of 2.2 did not show good performance for 400 ppm CO2 is not commensurate in scope with the rejection. The rejection is based on the combination of Du/Guo wherein the Si/Al is varied to within the claimed range of 5.5:1 to 8.5:1 and not based solely on Du’s CHA with Si/Al of 2.2.
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Guo teaches use of a sodium zeolite have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the instant case, Guo teaches Si:Al is a result effective variable relative to selectivity and regenerability and it would be within the level of one skilled in the art, to determine appropriate Si:Al ratio for desired selectivity and regenerability. This teaching is valid regardless of the cations being used. Guo’s disclosure “Apart from Si/Al ratio, the nature of the extra-framework cations also plays a crucial role in the adsorption properties of CO2” suggests that both Si/Al ratio and the cation play a role but doesn’t suggest that the Si/Al ratio effect is only valid for a sodium ion zeolite as Applicant is suggesting. Gou’s disclosure that an Si/Al of 9.5 is most promising is based on desired balance between CO2 adsorbed/selectivity/regenerability. For example comparing H-CHA-4.0 and H-CHA-9.5, the CHA-4.0 has a slightly lower regenerability but higher adsorption of CO2 and higher selectivity. Thus, Applicant’s assertion that Guo would have led the skilled artisan to a different ratio (i.e., 9.5) than set forth in claim 1 is based on the desire to achieve the same balance between CO2 adsorbed/selectivity/regenerability. However, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to vary the Si/Al and outside of the 9.5 in order to achieve a higher adsorption of CO2 and higher selectivity and accept a slight decrease in regenerability.
Moreover, Du suggests the use of NaCHA among others in addition to ZnCHA with Zn2+ has a positive effect on gas separation between polar gas molecules and non-polar gas molecules (Du, middle of page 1784). Du teaches the CO2 adsorption capacity on ZnCHA was the highest among the chabazites (Due, page 1788); thus, Applicant’s discovery of zinc ion zeolites being superior is not unexpected.
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding criticality of the claimed range of 1.2 to 3 zinc ions per unit cell have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant has not provided any explanation as to how Fig. 30A is evidence of the criticality of the claimed range of 1.2 to 3 zinc ions per unit cell. Paragraph [00186] of instant specification discloses a volcano shape profile with three distinct stages was observed wherein the CO2 capacity increases at two different rates (stage I and stage II, Zn ion loading of 0-2.6) before declining when the Zn ion loading is higher than 2.60. It is unclear as to how this shows criticality of a 1.2-3 range.
Fig. 30A samples were prepared with fixed Al composition (Si/Al=7). The claims cover an Si/Al range of 5.5:1 to 8.5:1. It is unclear whether the range of 1.2 to 3 zinc ions per unit cell would be a critical range for the entire claimed range of Si/Al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734