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 Applicants to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-5, 7, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as understood traversal relies on arguments. Regarding the phrase “binderless adsorbent” the Applicant argues “Applicant asserts that the phrase, "binderless adsorbent", has a meaning that is well understood by a person skilled in the art and is consistent with how it is disclosed and claimed in this Application. … In paragraph 13 of that Affidavit, Mr. Purcell asserts that a person skilled in the art would recognize the meaning of the phrase, "a binderless adsorbent", and that it has a clear meaning in the art whereby an adsorbent material, normally a zeolitic material, is blended with a binder material and then the binder material is substantially converted to a zeolitic material by various procedures, such as caustic treatment, as explained in the Application. Mr. Purcell further advises that "frequently, during the conversion of the binder material to a zeolitic material, there is residual binder material left in the final product that is produced. Yet, in this field of art, the final product is still referred to as a "binderless material".” [Remarks, Page 8, Paragraph 2]. This is unpersuasive in view of NPL “Separation of CO/N2 on binderless 5A zeolite” Mendes et al. which is presented as an evidentiary reference to show a fact about the state of the art. Mendes et al. similarly discloses a “binderless” adsorbent zeolite material “Therefore, a binderless 5A zeolite, with enhanced capacity, was studied as adsorbent for CO2 separation and capture. The capacity gain by not having binder was assessed” [Page 226, Column 1, Paragraph 2, emphasis added]. Furthermore regarding the binder in comparative samples Mendes et al. discloses “Furthermore, this binderless material also shows higher CO2 capacity when compared with binder containing materials (binder around 20%) as can be seen in Fig. 3.” [Page 228, Column 2, Paragraph 4]. It is noted that one of the examples in Fig 3 of a zeolite with binder ([63] Y. Wang, M.D. LeVan, Adsorption equilibrium of carbon dioxide and water vapor on zeolites 5A and 13X and silica gel: pure components, J. Chem. Eng. Data 54 (10) (2009) 2839–2844.) discloses using Zeolite 5A from the company Grace Davison, which lists “clay” as one of the ingredients of their adsorbent zeolites with binder, no other non-clay binders (such as polymers, etc.) are disclosed and Wang et al. refers to their own sample as “our sample with binder.” [Page 2844, Column 1, Paragraph 2] to contrast a “binderless” comparative example. It is therefore understood that “binderless” means a material that may contain at least 5% binder (or possibly more) according to at least one person skilled in the art of zeolite adsorbents, Patrick Purcell, and “binderless” means a material without any binder to at least one person skilled in the art of zeolite adsorbents, Patricia Mendes (and the other listed authors) as well as Yu Wang (and the other listed author). A phrase that has two different meanings to two different people skilled in the art is the definition of a phrase without a definite meaning (indefinite). It is noted that the Applicant has agreed with the interpretation of “binderless” proposed in the First Office action (lacking a binder other than clay) and this interpretation will continue to be used to access the state of the prior art. The rejection regarding the phrase “binderless adsorbent” is MAINTAINED.
Regarding the phrase “a bulk density … as measured by DIN/ISO 787” in the affidavit presented on 9/22/2025 the Applicant argues “The assertion that this phrase "bulk density" is indefinite is traversed by the Applicant as discussed by Inventor Patrick Purcell in the attached Affidavit at paragraph 14.” [Remarks, Page 9, Paragraph 2], said affidavit states “To a person skilled in the art, different phrases are utilized to describe the density of material and yet they have the same or similar meaning, including “bulk density”, “tapped bulk density”, and “tamped density”, when measured by DIN/ISO 787, and would not be “indefinite”.” [Affidavit, Paragraph 14]. This is persuasive upon further review of the DIN/ISO standards which list at least three different methods to determine density, DIN/ISO 787/10, DIN/ISO 787/11, and DIN/ISO 787/23 however only DIN/ISO 787/11 refers to a “tamped density” which is now understood to be equivalent to a “bulk density”. Therefore the phrase “a bulk density … as measured by DIN/ISO 787” is understood to mean “a tamped density … as measured by DIN/ISO 787/11”. It is noted that this interpretation of the phrase “a bulk density … as measured by DIN/ISO 787” was used to access the prior art in the previous Office Action. Amending the Claims to recite “tapped bulk density” as suggested by the Applicant (Remarks, Page 9, Paragraph 4) is not required, but would not be objected to if the Applicant wishes to amend to add clarity. The rejection regarding the phrase “a bulk density … as measured by DIN/ISO 787” is WITHDRAWN.
Regarding the phrase “a pore diffusivity (Dp), based on nitrogen pore diffusivity, as described in US Patent No. 6,500,234 B2 and US patent No. 6,790,260 B2”, the previous Office Action concluded that the patents referenced disclose an effective N2 pore diffusivity and Dpi and it was unclear if these terms were identical or merely related but distinct. In the affidavit presented on 9/22/2025 the Applicant argues “to a person skilled in the art “pore diffusivity” has an accepted meaning” and cites the affidavit, said affidavit states “To a person skilled in the art, the phrase “pore diffusivity” has an accepted meaning that is consistent with what is described in the two listed patents.” [Affidavit, Paragraph 14], which cures this particular indefiniteness issue. Accordingly this indefiniteness rejection is WITHDRAWN.
Regarding the phrase “a pore diffusivity (Dp), based on nitrogen pore diffusivity, as described in US Patent No. 6,500,234 B2 and US patent No. 6,790,260 B2” a separate 112(b) rejection was given which alleged that Claim 2 was “attempting to claim what something is based on instead of claiming what something is” and that “Claim 2 is claiming something in reference to something that is variable” which is indefinite. The Applicant does not argue against this rejection and therefore the analysis is presumed correct. The rejection is MAINTAINED.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1-5, 7, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ortiz et al., as understood the traversal relies on arguments.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 requires three compositions (Li13X zeolite, LiLSX zeolite, and halloysite clay) while in contrast “Ortiz et al. contains only two materials: a) a LSX zeolite crystal with a Si/Al ratio in a range from 1.00 to 1.15 and b) a non-zeolitic phase content in an amount from 0 to 8%” [Remarks, Page 12, Paragraph 2]. Applicant further argues “As acknowledged, there is no teaching of the presence of 13X zeolites in Ortiz et al.” [Remarks, Page 12, Paragraph 2]. The Examiner acknowledges the lack of disclosure of Ortiz et al. regarding 13X zeolites, however an inherent feature need not be recognized by the art to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.II.
Applicant further argues “Inventor Patrick Purcell analyzed the disclosure in Ortiz et al. and compared it with the composition disclosed in the Application to confirm this distinction in composition. … As discussed in paragraphs 10 and 11 of his Affidavit, Inventor Purcell confirmed that the only zeolitic composition disclosed by Ortiz et al. was LSX zeolite crystals with an Si/Al ratio in the range from 1.00 to 1.15.” [Remarks, Page 14, Paragraph 2]. This is unpersuasive as the affidavit does not address the rejection set forth. The rational to support inherency given in the First Office Action was “the steps performed on the halloysite clay to transform it into 13X zeolite taken in the instant application are the same as the steps taken by Ortiz et al. to transform halloysite clay into zeolites, and therefore the expected zeolite formed is zeolite 13X.” [Page 5, Paragraph 3]. However by contrast the affidavit shows that kaolin is incapable of forming zeolite 13X “the same formulation … but with the binder being kaolin instead of halloysite.” [Affidavit, Paragraph 9], which is not relevant to the rejection presented. It is acknowledged that Ortiz et al. does not disclose an example using halloysite clay, however said clay is listed as one of the suitable binders to be used. MPEP 2123.II states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.”. In other words a disclosure that uses kaolin clay for the examples does not constitute a teaching away from any of the other binders that are disclosed as effective.
Applicant further argues “Further, a different composition for the zeolitic material is required in Ortiz et al., as stated throughout that reference and as specifically claimed.” [Page 15, Paragraph 2]. This is unpersuasive as the inherent feature need not be recognized at the time (see above). How is one expected to claim a feature they are unaware exists within their disclosure? Ortiz et al. discloses the LiLSX zeolite required, the clay binder required, and an identical method of converting the clay binder into zeolites that causes halloysite to become 13X zeolite.
Applicant further argues “It is acknowledged that there is no disclosure of halloysite clay in any quantity in the composition of Ortiz et al.” [Remarks, Page 16, Paragraph 2]. This is false. Ortiz et al. discloses “The zeolitisable clays which can be used in the context of the present invention typically belong to the class of the kaolinites, halloysites, nacrites, dickites, kaolins and/or metakaolins” [0045]. Furthermore Ortiz et al. discloses incomplete conversion of clay into zeolites “it is easy to obtain zeolitisation of at least 50%, and preferably at least 70%, more preferably at least 80% and even more preferably at least 85%, by weight of the zeolitisable clay or clays present in the binder.” [0050] which would necessarily mean that some of the binder (which may be halloysite clay) is present in the final composition.
Applicant speculates as to what the “non-zeolitic phase” claimed by Ortiz et al. contains. Applicant further argues “no person skilled in the art reviewing Ortiz et al. would understand that this NZP material is a binder” [Remarks, Page 16, Paragraph 2]. It is understood that the “non-zeolitic phase” contains materials that are not zeolites, such as the clay that is disclosed as being necessarily present (minimum amount is 5%) and any other non-zeolite material. Considering that binder material is disclosed as necessary and also not zeolite one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that this non-zeolite material must contain binder as well as any other non-zeolite materials (such as a silica source) that are disclosed as required. Furthermore Applicant appears to be reading the claims of Ortiz et al. as the disclosure. The disclosure includes the claims along with the specification, the latter of which clearly and unambiguously requires a clay binder.
Applicant further argues “Ortiz et al. which lists halloysites among six other zeolitisable clays. Notwithstanding, in the examples in Ortiz et al., the binder material is a kaolinite (para. 0100 and 0108). In no example is there any disclosure of a use of a halloysite.”. This is unpersuasive. MPEP 2123.II states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.”. In other words a disclosure that uses kaolin clay for the examples does not constitute a teaching away from any and all of the other binders that are disclosed as effective.
Applicant further argues “Applicant’s claimed composition using halloysite as the binder material results in a surprising performance that is significantly better than that disclosed in the examples of Ortiz et al. [which use kaolin] Such a surprising performance proves’ the nonobviousness of the claimed composition over that disclosed in Ortiz et al.” [Page 18, Paragraph 3]. This is unpersuasive as Ortiz et al. discloses halloysite (see above). To the extent that the applicant argues that the composition of Ortiz et al. that utilizes halloysite clay is more effective by some measures (such as pore diffusivity) than the disclosed examples presented by Ortiz et al. that utilize kaolin clay this is acknowledged.
In summary, Applicant fails to successfully argue that Ortiz et al. teaches away from or renders the use of halloysite clay non-obvious. Applicant does not attempt to argue that if one of ordinary skill in the art had chosen halloysite clay as the binder and performed the caustic digestion of Ortiz et al. that any zeolite other than 13X zeolite would have been obtained. This analysis is presumed correct. The rejection is MAINTAINED.
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 1-5, 7, and 17-20 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. Specifically Claims 1 and 17 require “a binderless adsorbent” and “halloysite clay”. The Specification discloses “caustically treating the calcined adsorbent particles to convert at least a portion of the halloysite clay binder agent into a 13X zeolite” [0027]. In other words the halloysite clay is a binder and therefore the claims require a binderless adsorbent that comprises a binder. This is internally inconsistent and therefore indefinite as to the scope of Claims 1 and 17. Furthermore it is noted that the term “binderless” has at least two different meanings to at least two different persons skilled in the art of zeolite adsorbents for gas separation (see above). Claims 2-5, 7, and 18-20 do not cure this indefiniteness issue and are similarly rejected. For the purpose of this Office Action “binderless” is interpreted to mean lacking a binder other than clay to be consistent with what is disclosed by the Specification.
Additionally Claim 2 recites “a pore diffusivity (Dp), based on nitrogen pore diffusivity” which is attempting to claim what something is based on instead of claiming what something is. Furthermore US Patent No. 6,500,234 B2 describes the variables to calculate Dpi, in particular ki, “can be determined by fitting the appropriate model to data obtained from a breakthrough experiment.” [Column 8, Lines 34-36]. As best understood, Claim 2 is claiming something in reference to something that is variable. This is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b) II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2019 0388871 A1 Ortiz et al. Principles of inherency are applied below. The rejection is made under 102/103 per the practice in MPEP 2112 III. Claim 1 requires “A binderless adsorbent for separation of a gaseous stream”. Ortiz et al. discloses a product containing only zeolites and clay “The amount by weight of LXS zeolite crystals is generally comprised in a range from 75% to 90% by weight relative to the total weight of said product obtained at the end of step a/, and the amount of zeolitisable clay is generally comprised in a range from 5% to 25% by weight relative to the total weight of said product obtained at the end of step a/.” [0040].
Claim 1 further requires “comprising a blend of a lithium exchanged zeolite 13X (Li13X), a lithium exchanged low silica X zeolite (LiLSX), and halloysite clay”. Regarding the lithium exchange Ortiz et al. discloses “In the present application, “exchangeable sites” refers to all of the exchangeable sites in the LSX zeolite crystals and also the exchangeable sides formed during zeolitisation of the binder. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the lithium exchange is carried out” [0052]. Regarding zeolite 13X Ortiz et al. does not explicitly disclose 13X zeolites, however this is believed to be inherently formed due to the zeolitization of the binder. The rationale to support the inherency is that the steps performed on the halloysite clay to transform it into 13X zeolite taken in the instant application are the same as the steps taken by Ortiz et al. to transform halloysite clay into zeolites, and therefore the expected zeolite formed is zeolite 13X. Specifically, in the instant application “The process of caustically digesting the halloysite clay material occurs at a temperature of about 80°C utilizing a caustic solution. In one embodiment the caustic solution contains primarily sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide. In a further embodiment the caustic solution is substantially sodium hydroxide.” [0031] and “There is no limitation on the exact method of contact of the blended product with the caustic solution.” [0032]. In Ortiz et al. “Zeolitisation can be carried out by immersing the agglomerate in an alkaline basic solution, generally an aqueous solution, for example an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide, … , typically at temperatures on the order of 80° C. to 100° C.” [0049]. Regarding low silica X zeolite Ortiz et al. discloses “It has now been found that it is possible to produce high-capacity zeolitic adsorbent materials, from LSX zeolite crystals, containing lithium” [0013]. Regarding halloysite clay Ortiz et al. discloses “The zeolitisable clays which can be used in the context of the present invention typically belong to the class of the kaolinites, halloysites, nacrites, dickites, kaolins and/or metakaolins” [0045].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the Li13X comprises from about 5 to about 20% of the adsorbent”. Ortiz et al. discloses “the amount of zeolitisable clay is generally comprised in a range from 5% to 25% by weight relative to the total weight of said product obtained” [0040] and “it is easy to obtain zeolitisation of at least 50%, and preferably at least 70%, more preferably at least 80% and even more preferably at least 85%, by weight of the zeolitisable clay or clays present in the binder.” [0050]. This means that the amount of 13X zeolite would be between 2.5% (5% clay with 50% conversion to zeolite) and 21.25% (25% clay with 85% conversion to zeolite) which overlaps the claimed range.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the LiLSX comprises from an 80 to about 90% of the adsorbent”. Ortiz et al. discloses “The amount by weight of LXS zeolite crystals is generally comprised in a range from 75% to 90% by weight” [0040], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 1 further requires “and wherein the halloysite clay comprises from about 0.1% to 5.0% of the adsorbent”. Ortiz et al. discloses “the amount of zeolitisable clay is generally comprised in a range from 5% to 25% by weight relative to the total weight of said product obtained” [0040] and “it is easy to obtain zeolitisation of at least 50%, and preferably at least 70%, more preferably at least 80% and even more preferably at least 85%, by weight of the zeolitisable clay or clays present in the binder.” [0050]. This means that the amount of clay remaining would be between 0.75% (5% clay with 85% conversion to zeolite) and 12.5% (25% clay with 50% conversion to zeolite), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 1 further requires “and wherein the adsorbent has a bulk density of at least about 640 g/L, as measured according to DIN/ISO 787.”. Ortiz et al. discloses “Another preferred feature of the zeolitic adsorbent material of the invention is its apparent density, which is generally comprised in a range from 0.58 kg/m−3 to 0.80 kg/m−3, preferably from 0.60 kg/m−3 to 0.75 kg/m−3, more preferably from 0.62 kg/m−3 to 0.70 kg/m−3.” [0031], however the units are obviously wrong. Firstly unlike either kg/m3 or kg*m-3 the unit kg/m−3 is not a density. Secondly if the interpretation kg/m3 (or the equivalent kg*m-3) was adopted it is noted that the material as disclosed would be lighter than air (at a density of about 1.2 kg/m3) which would be impossible for a solid material containing voids filled with air. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this as an obvious error and therefore the common units of density, g/mL, are adopted. 0.58 to 0.80 g/mL converts to 580 to 800 g/L, which is within the claimed range. It is noted that Ortiz et al. uses a different standard, “The apparent density of the zeolitic adsorbent material according to the present invention is measured as described in standard DIN 8948/7.6.” [0080], rather than DIN/ISO 787. It is understood that these two standards generate similar but not identical densities and therefore Ortiz et al. is understood to disclose densities of about 580 to about 800 g/L.
Given the above uncertainties about the density disclosed by Ortiz et al. an alternative rejection based on the inherency rationale is given for the limitation of “the adsorbent has a bulk density of at least about 640 g/L, as measured according to DIN/ISO 787.”. The material of Ortiz et al. would have inherently had a density of at least about 640 g/L as measured according to DIN/ISO 787 because it has an identical composition and method of making as the claimed invention and therefore the physical properties, such as density as measured according to DIN/ISO 787, must also be the same. The identical composition can be seen by the mapping of Claim 1 (above). The method of converting clay into zeolite was already relied upon in an inherency rationale (above). Prior to the step of converting clay into zeolite both the instant application [0027] and Ortiz et al. [0032] disclose agglomerating a mixture of zeolite and clay, drying, and calcining. The calcination temperature of the instant application “calcined at a temperature from about 500 to about 700°C” [0030] and Ortiz et al. “calcining can be performed under a flow of oxidizing and/or inert gas … in a range from 250° C. to 700° C., preferably from 300° C. to 650° C” [0042] is the same. After the conversion of clay into zeolite both the instant application [0027] and Ortiz et al. [0032] disclose ion exchange with Li, drying, and activating. Therefore both inventions have an identical composition and method of making and the physical properties must also be the same.
Or alternatively, whatever differences in the composition of the zeolite formed by Ortiz et al. and zeolite 13X and density (no such concession is given) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 requires “a median pore diameter greater than or equal to 5 microns, a percentage of pores less than 0.1 micron lower than 6.0 percent, and a pore diffusivity (Dp), based on nitrogen pore diffusivity, as described in US Patent No. 6,500,234 B2 and US patent No. 6,790,260 B2, greater than 5.0 x 10-6 m2/s.”. Ortiz et al. does not disclose pore diameter, percentage of pores less than 0.1 micron, or pore diffusivity, however these features are believed to be inherent to the material of Ortiz et al. The rationale to support inherency is that both inventions have an identical composition and method of making and the physical properties must also be the same (see Claim 1).
Or alternatively, whatever differences in the pore diameter, percentage of pores less than 0.1 micron, or pore diffusivity (no such concession is given) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 requires “the adsorbent exhibits a crush strength greater than 8 N/mm.”. Ortiz et al. does not disclose a crush strength measured in N/mm or an equivalent but rather discloses “a bulk crushing strength (BCS), measured according to standard ASTM 7084-04, of greater than 1.5 MPa, preferably greater than 2.0 MPa, preferably greater than 2.5 MPa” [0027] and “a grain crushing strength, measured according to standards ASTM D 4179 (2011) and ASTM D 6175 (2013), comprised in a range from 0.5 daN to 30 daN” [0027]. A crush strength of greater than 8 N/mm is believed to be inherent to the material of Ortiz et al. The rationale to support inherency is that both inventions have an identical composition and method of making and the physical properties must also be the same (see Claim 1).
Or alternatively, whatever differences in the crush strength (no such concession is given) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 requires “the adsorbent has a hysteresis factor of at least about 0.6, as measured by the Hg porosimetry method described in US Patent No. 9,486,732 B2.”. Ortiz et al. does not disclose a hysteresis factor of at least about 0.6, however this feature is believed to be inherent to the material of Ortiz et al. The rationale to support inherency is that both inventions have an identical composition and method of making and the physical properties must also be the same (see Claim 1).
Or alternatively, whatever differences in the hysteresis factor between inventions (no such concession is given) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 requires “the adsorbent has a median pore diameter greater than or equal to 5 microns and a hysteresis factor of at least about 0.6, as measured by the Hg porosimetry method described in US Patent No. 9,486,732 B2.”. Ortiz et al. does not disclose a median pore diameter or hysteresis factor, however these features are believed to be inherent to the material of Ortiz et al. The rationale to support inherency is that both inventions have an identical composition and method of making and the physical properties must also be the same (see Claim 1).
Or alternatively, whatever differences in the hysteresis factor and/or median pore diameter between inventions (no such concession is given) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 requires “the halloysite clay has a tubular shape with a length from about 0.5-2.0 micron and a diameter of about 50- 100 nm.”. Ortiz et al. does not disclose the morphology of the halloysite clay used, however these are understood to be physical properties of the clay which would have been naturally present whether disclosed by Ortiz et al. or not. The instant application contains no mention of modifying the morphology or selecting a particular halloysite clay from a particular location to obtain these features and therefore it is understood that all halloysite clay contains this morphology.
Or alternatively, the selection of halloysite clay with a tubular shape, a length from about 0.5-2.0 micron, and a diameter of about 50- 100 nm would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the method of Ortiz et al. requires a clay such as halloysite and is not restricted to any particular morphology.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 recites the same limitations of Claim 1 verbatim, with the exception of having no limitation to the bulk density. Support for the rejection of Claim 17 can therefore be found entirely within the rejection of Claim 1 (above).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Claims 18 and 19 solely recite limitations which are addressed in Claim 2. Support for the rejection of Claims 18 and 19 can therefore be found entirely within the rejection of Claim 2 (above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019 0388871 A1 Ortiz et al. in further view of EP 0893157 Plee. Claim 20 requires “the low silica X zeolite and the 13X zeolite are lithium exchanged at least about 95%.”. Ortiz et al. discloses “Step c/ of replacing the cations at the exchangeable sites of the product obtained in step b/ by lithium cations is carried out according to methods which are likewise well known to the person skilled in the art and are described for example in patent EP0893157.” EP 0893157 Plee discloses “Five successive exchanges are then carried out using 1 M lithium chloride solutions, at a rate of 20 ml/g of solid. Each exchange is continued for 4 hours at 100°C, and intermediate washes are carried out to remove excess salt at each stage. … Li exchange rate (%) (expressed as Li2O/(Li2O + K2O + Na2O) 98,4 %” [0029].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Ortiz et al. with the Li exchange method of Plee because Ortiz et al. specifically uses the Li exchange method of Plee as an example. The motivation to combine the method of Ortiz et al. with the Li exchange method of Plee is to generate zeolites with most of the cations exchanged for Li which are known to be effective in nitrogen/oxygen separation (“and by lithium exchange, adsorbents can be produced which are particularly efficient not only in nitrogen/oxygen separation but also in nitrogen-carbon monoxide/hydrogen separation.” [Plee 0014]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736