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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 42 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 12/10/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21, 24-27, 29-37, 40, 41 under the Final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 27, 37, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan (CN 105233855) and in view of Li (CN 103191770) and in view of Kim “Acid attack theory of dealumination in cation-exchanged FAU” and in view of Senderov (US Pub.: 2013/0183231).
As to Claims 21, 27, 37 and 40, Guan describes a method of modifying a zeolite (abstract). The process pre-treats zeolite with HCl (pg 2, last line). This treated zeolite is then added to a combined nitric acid and copper solution (embodiment 1, para. 2), followed by adding NaOH (embodiment 1, para. 2). The salt can be copper nitrate or ferric nitrate or manganese nitrate (see page 3, lines 24-28). Guan explains that after processing, the zeolite is aged, filtered and dried (see pg. 3, lines 1-3). This can be considered “isolation the zeolite from suspension”.
As to the feature of increasing the mesoporosity, Guan explains that the acid makes a “hole” in the zeolite, whereby the metal salt is placed (pg 3, para. 3).
Guan does not state that the ratio of zeolite to the salt solution. Guan also does not teach that zeolite, which is pretreated with HCl has a pH of less than 8 (step a of claim 1). Guan also does not state that the pH after treatment with NaOH reaches an amount greater than 11 and less than 14.
As to the ratio of zeolite to the salt solution, Li describes a mesoporous molecular sieve catalyst modified by a metal, such as iron, for use as a catalyst (title). The synthesis reaction is made by combining a molecular sieve (para. 9) with an iron salt, such as Fe(NO3)3 (para. 9, 10). The slurry is combined with a HCl acid solution to this mixture, followed by the addition of ammonia to adjust the pH (para. 12). The mixture creates an iron-containing mesoporous molecular sieve catalyst (para. 12). The amount of iron used may be about 2-3 g molecular sieve to 40-60 mL iron component precursor (para. 14). The ratio of the molecular sieve to the iron amount can range from 50-75g/L.
Li is within the same field of endeavor because Li describes use of their product for the degradation of compounds using the described material as a degradation catalyst, while Guan describes use of their catalyst for the degradation of compounds as well (abstract, in Guan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of iron to molecular sieve used to a range of 50-75 g/L, as taught by Li for use with the catalyst of Guan in order to target other pollutants for degradation.
As to the pH of the zeolite treated with HCl (step a of Claim 1), Kim describes dealumination of zeolite used to hydrolyze and remove aluminum from the zeolite (“Introduction”, line 16-17). Kim explains that the extend of dealumination is determined by the proton concentration (pg. 319, right, last para). Kim shows in Table 1, that dealumination does not occur at a pH of 8.41, but only starts at 8.41 and improves at 6.62, where improved metal exchange occurs at far lower pHs (table 1 and Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). For example, larger metals, such as Fe, Cu and Co are exchanged at lower pH, of about 6 and less (see Table 1, Fig. 1 and 2).
Therefore, since Guan adds transition metals to the zeolite, such as copper (See embodiment 1, and iron, embodiment 2), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the HCl concentration to a pH range, such as 6 or less, that is effective for adding the desired metal ions, as taught by Kim for use with Guan.
Guan teaches that their mixture is treated with NaOH, but does not describe the final pH of the mixture or the conditions for treatment with the base described in step b.
As to the mesopore volume, the concentration of base in terms of the zeolite, the pH of the mixture and the conditions of the treatment used in step b, Senderov teaches a method for introducing mesoporosity into a zeolite using acid and base treatments (abstract). The acids used can include HCl and other acids (para. 32), while the base used can include NaOH (para. 37). The base treatment is performed at elevated temperatures of 30-200 degrees C for 1 mins to 2 days (para. 38) to create pole volumes of 0.05 to .07 cc/g or 0.05 to 0.70 ml/g (para. 45).
As to the amount of base used, Senderov describes using base in ratio with zeolite from 0.1 to 20 mmol per grams of zeolite (para. 38). This can be considered the solid-liquid ratio feature of Claim 21.
As to the pH, Senderov shows in Figure 2 and described in para. 115, that the pH below 10 makes smaller pore sizes, while the base with a higher pH of 10-11.4 makes larger pores (para. 115), which the reference shows can alter the mesopore and micropore ratio in the zeolite (see Fig. 2).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a pH of 10-11.4, as taught by Senderov for use with Guan, Li and Kim because this pH is known to make larger pores in the zeolite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the base treatment using NaOH of Guan, Li and Kim using a concentration of 0.05 to 0.7 ml/g at a temperature of 30-200 degrees C for 1 min to 2 days at a pH of 10-11.4 and a solid-to-liquid concentration of 0.1 to 20mmol/g of zeolite, as taught by Senderov because these conditions are known to alter the micropore and mesopore volume in the zeolites.
As to the metal precipitating, although the references do not specifically state that the metal salts are precipitated, the specification of this application states that at a pH of 8 or above, the metal is precipitated (see published specification, para. 58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same pH with the same composition would produce the same results.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim and Senderov as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN 108069501).
The references describe use of zeolite, but does not describe the framework claimed.
Zhao describes a process for treating organics in wastewater (title). The compound useable in wastewater treatment includes molecular sieves that can have a ZSM-5 framework (page 3, lines 20-23 or para. 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a ZSM-5 framework, as taught by Zhao for use as the framework used in Guan, Li, Kim and Senderov because these frameworks are known to be effective in the treatment of organics in wastewater.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 109107526).
Guan teaches use of NaOH, but does not describe a gradual addition.
Zhang describes a method for synthesizing zeolite (title). The process describes modifying zeolite by the addition of alkali (abstract). As to how this is added, Zhang teaches that NaOH is added dropwise (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add NaOH dropwise, as taught Zhang, for use with Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao because this method of adding NaOH is known to be an effective means of supplying NaOH to treat zeolite.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Li (CN 103721739), Li II.
Guan describing adding salt to the zeolite, which can include a number of salts, one of which is manganese nitrate (page 3, lines 24-28). Guan does not describe that this is added in the ratio disclosed by Claim 26.
Li II describes a process for modifying a molecular sieve used for catalysis (title and abstract). Li II describes a means of modifying zeolite by adding magnesium nitrate salts to the molecular sieve (see embodiment 1). The sieve is treated with an acid, such as citric acid (embodiment 1). The amount added is in ratio to the molecular sieve in the range of 1:1 (embodiment 1).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
Since Guan describes adding magnesium nitrate salt to the molecular sieve, but does not give guidance on the amount, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the metal salt to the zeolite in a ratio of 1:1, as taught by Li II for use with Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao because this ratio is effective use in a zeolite and metal-modified catalyst product.
Claim(s) 29, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Durmaz (TR 201608279) and in view of Meng (CN 105771885).
The reference does not teach performing a “complementary” acid treatment on the zeolite after step c.
Durmaz teaches that zeolite treated with acid activates the zeolite-containing composition (page 3, lines 1-3).
Meng explains that zeolite when treated with HCl can remove impurities, increase specific surface area and activates the zeolite (pg 3, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the zeolite, as taught by Durmaz for use with Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao because Meng explains that HCl is known to remove impurities, increase specific surface area and activates the zeolite.
As to Claims 31 and 32, Durmaz teaches that zeolite treated with acid activates the zeolite-containing composition (page 3, lines 1-3).
Meng explains that zeolite when treated with HCl can remove impurities, increase specific surface area and activates the zeolite (pg 3, lines 11-13).
The references do not teach that the acid treatment of the zeolite post-processing uses one of the acids in Claim 32.
Kim teaches that the zeolite is treated with acid to dealuminate (Introduction, para. 1) using an acid, such as HCl or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (see introduction, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ ethylenediaminetraacetic acid instead of HCl, as taught by Kim for use with the zeolite of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao, Durmaz and Meng because EDTA is a known alternative acid to use instead of HCl for use in treating zeolites. See MPEP sections 2144.06 and 2143.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao, Durmaz and Meng as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Xu (CN 103979573).
The references do not teach that the acid is added slowly.
Xu teaches a method of acidifying zeolite for use of the zeolite in removing contaminants (abstract). The acidification can be HCl (para. 12). As to the rate of addition, Xu explains that acid is added to the zeolite slowly (para. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add acid slowly, as taught by Xu for use with the method of making zeolite of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao, Durmaz and Meng because this is a known and effective method of adding zeolites.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao, Durmaz and Meng as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 105314652).
Durmaz teaches that zeolite treated with acid activates the zeolite-containing composition and Meng explains that zeolite when treated with HCl can remove impurities, increase specific surface area and activates the zeolite.
None of the references describe the acid treatment as the process steps described in Claim 33.
Wang teaches a method of modifying a zeolite (title) by post treating the sieve with acid (see page 3, lines 37-40). In one embodiment, Wang teaches that in one process, 30 g of zeolite is obtained and then treated with 480ml of 0.5 mol/L concentration of nitric acid (see para. 2 of embodiment 1). This results in 0.24 moles of nitric acid to 30 grams of zeolite, which then converts to about 240mmols/30 grams of zeolite, which converts to about 8mmol of acid to 1 gram of zeolite.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the acid in ratio with the zeolite in an amount of 8, as taught by Wang for use with the catalyst of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao, Durmaz and Meng because these concentrations are known to be effective for use in producing a metal-modified zeolite.
Claim(s) 34, 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Beeckman (US Pub.: 2006/0122053) and in view of Ma (CN 108097297) and further in view of Matsuo (JP 2012/024674).
Guan describes a zeolite used in wastewater treatment (title and “Background technology” para. 1).
Guan does not describe a post-treatment ion-exchange step (Claim 34) using ammonium salt, according to the process steps of Claim 35.
Beeckman describes enhancing crystal acidity (title) by exchanging the zeolite with ammonium (abstract). Exchange of zeolite with ammonium ions removes sodium from the zeolite, which increases the catalyst’s acidity (para. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ ammonium exchange, as taught by Beeckman for use with the catalyst of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao because this removes sodium ions from the sieve and increases the catalyst’s acidity.
Beeckman does not specifically describe the features of Claim 35.
As to the conditions of Claim 35, Ma describes, in their examples, to 100 grams of molecular sieve, a solution of 0.5 mol/L ammonium nitrate (see examples 1, 2 and 7). The exchange is treated for 2 hrs (see example 1). Ma does not describe the temperature, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the temperature is at room temperature.
As to the concentration of ammonium salt, Ma teaches that to 100 g of molecular sieve, about 0.5 mol/L ammonium nitrate (see examples 1, 2, 7, 8), which overlaps the values of Claim 35.
The reference does not teach that the exchange has a solids to liquid ratio of 10-300 grams of solid to liquid.
Matsuo teaches a method of preparing a catalyst (title) that comprises zeolite with metals (abstract), where the zeolite is modified with a metal (page 8, lines 20-25). The mixture is slurried in a dispersion medium (page 8, para. 6). As to the total, Matsuo explains that the solids content in the slurry that contains zeolite and metal is from 10% to 60 mass % (page 8, para. 7). When the solids content is lower than 10%, the amount of dispersion medium to be removed is large and may cause difficulties in removing the dispersion medium (see page 8, para. 7). On the other hand, when the solids content is higher than 50 mass %, the metals in the slurry may become difficult to disperse and distribute uniformly on the zeolite (page 8, para. 7).
Therefore, although Guan does not specifically state that the solids content during the base addition step ranges from 5-300 grams of solid per liter of liquid, since Matsuo explains that solids and liquids content in the slurry effect the ability to remove the dispersion medium (too little solids) and the dispersability of the metals in the zeolite (too much solids in the slurry), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the solids content and the liquids content of the zeolite and metal-containing slurry based on the desired dispersability and liquid removal conditions in the process of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov and Zhao as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Drake (US Pat.: 5952259) and in view of Dapsens et al. “Highly Selective Lewis Acid Sites in Desilicated MFI Zeolites. . “, attached.
Guan describes a method of processing zeolite (abstract and Claims), but Guan does not specifically describe that their process is used on MFI zeolites.
Drake describes a process for processing a zeolite (col. 2, lines 1-8) into a hydrocarbon conversion catalyst (col. 1, lines 9-13). The zeolite is treated with a base in order to reduce the silica content in the zeolite (col. 2, lines 5-10) and the zeolite is treated with an acid to reduce the aluminum content (col. 2, lines 8-11). As to the Si/Al ratio, Drake explains that the ratio of Si/Al is from 500:1 to 10:1 (col. 2, lines 35-44). As to the pore volume, Drake teaches adjusting the base to zeolite ratio to a range of 0.01 to 200 (col. 3, lines 40-45) and heating the mixture (col. 3, lines 53-55) to produce a pore volume of micropores ranging from 0.08 ml/g to 0.12 ml/g (see table 1) and a mesopore volume of 0.45 to 0.63 ml/g (see table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a MFI zeolite, as taught by Drake with the desilicate and dealuminating treatment of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao because Drake teaches that use of MFI frameworks are effective in producing hydrocarbon conversion catalysts.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat the MFI zeolite of Drake in order to employ a zeolite with a Si/Al is from 500:1 to 10:1 and has a final pore volume of micropores ranging from 0.08 ml/g to 0.12 ml/g and a mesopore volume of 0.45 to 0.63 ml/g, as taught by Drake for use with the process of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao because Drake explains that MFI zeolites with these characteristics are effective in hydrocarbon conversion catalysis.
As to the Lewis acidity being at least 100 micromoles/g, Dapsens describes desilicated MFI zeolite treated with an alkali metal hydroxide in solution (abstract), used to produce a hierarchical catalyst (abstract). In tests, Depsens teaches that the alkaline treatment alters the acidic properties of the zeolite by generating Lewis Acid centers (see page 833, left col, para. 2). When analyzed using FTIR spectroscopy and a pyridine adsorbent, Depsens teaches that by increasing the NaOH used in the desilicate treatment, the greater the Lewis acidity, which can reach over 100 µmol/g (see Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the NaOH treatment to produce a Lewis acidity of 100 µmol/g, as taught by Dapsens for uses with the desilicated zeolite of Guan, Li, Kim, Senderov, Zhao and Drake because Dapsens explains that this is a known and optimizable feature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as Lewis acidity formed by NaOH treatment through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 January 8, 2026