DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7,8, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano (JP 2010215736 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hirano discloses the IR spectrum band measurements of an FAU
zeolite consisting of silicon and alumina. The prior art discloses the maximum value of the
terminal silanol group appear to be around 3740 cm⁻¹ [Pg 3 L 40-45] and for the hydroxyl
groups the max value is 3630 cm⁻¹ [Pg. 3 L5-6] Furthermore, the prior art discloses peak
absorption ratio between the absorption of peak I, which would be the absorbance value of
silanol ,and II which would be the absorbance value of the OH group [Pg. 3 L37-38]. Therefore,
comparing the absorbance of the silanol and OH groups results in a value of 0.41 [Pg. 12
Table 1 Ex. 6 (Original Doc.)]. This disclosure fulfills the limitations claimed of having the
surface silanol having a local maximum range from 3730 cm⁻¹ to 3760 cm⁻¹, with an acid
hydroxyl group having a local maximum within the range from 3550 cm⁻¹ to 3700 cm⁻¹. The
disclosure also fulfills the ratio of h1/h2 of a peak height (h1) of absorption band 1 to the peak
height of absorption band 2 as being between 0.01 and 1.0.
Hirano also points out that the crystallinity of the product is above 1, which is preferred by the instant invention. See Table 1. Since the prior art shares the same composition to the product claimed, meets the h1/h2 ratio limitation and has a crystallinity value in the preferred range of the instant invention, it would also have an intensity ratio of peaks obtained by XRD in the range claimed . See also MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 8, Hirano discloses the ratio of silicon-alumina to be 33 [Pg. 12 Table 1
Ex. 6 (Original Doc.)]. This disclosure fulfills the limitation within the claim for the silicon-
alumina ratio to be within a range of 10 to 200.
Regarding claims 10, 11, and 12, Hirano does not disclose the pore volume, the
temperature-programmed NH₃ desorption, and the temperature-programmed NH₃ desorption
to H₂O absorption ratio of the zeolite. However, both the prior art and instant application share
a number of similarities in their products and synthesis procedures. For example, regarding the
product, the prior art lists a wavelength of 3740 cm⁻¹ [Pg 3 L 40-45] for the silanol grouping and
3630 cm⁻¹ [Pg. 3 L5-6] for the hydroxyl grouping, the meantime also achieving a x/y absorption
ratio of 0.41[Pg. 12 Table 1 Ex. 6 (Original Doc.)], which is within the range disclosed in the
instant invention. The silica-alumina ratio is also 33 [Pg. 12 Table 1 Ex. 6 (Original Doc.)], which
is within the 10 to 200 range claimed. While not in the claims, the specification of the instant
invention mentions the unit cell size of the zeolite as being between 2.431nm-2.435nm [0017],
the zeolite in the prior art has a unit cell size of 2.435 [Pg. 12 Table 1 Ex. 6 (Original Doc.)].
In regards to the process methods between Hirano and the instant application, the
zeolite sample in the prior art was steamed at 580°C followed by acid treatment with sulfuric
acid [pg. 4 L4-7]. This process closely aligns with the process in specification [0011] which
includes applying a steam treatment to a faujasite zeolite at a temperature between 500°C to
800°C and applying an acid treatment. While the prior art does not contain a second steaming
step as noted in the instant invention, the second steaming does not seem to affect the
properties of the zeolite, such as the pore volume. The second steaming would also not affect
the limitations specified in claims 11 and 12 which rely on the absorbance measurements found
in the IR spectrum.
Both zeolites of the instant invention and the prior art share the same SAR, peak
wavelengths, absorbance ratio, and unit cell size. They also share substantially similar methods
in processing the zeolite, therefore the product of Hirano appears to be the same as that
claimed and would necessarily have the same properties including those required by claims 10-
12. Furthermore, the prior art would also have anticipated the pore volume measurement as
being around 3.5nm to 5nm when measured by nitrogen absorption method less than
0.03g/cm³, the temperature-programmed NH3 desorption to be close to 0.1 mmol/g to 1.3
mmol/g, and the temperature-programmed NH3 desorption to H20 absorption ratio of the
zeolite to be around or close to 0.045 to 0.1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31,2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examples within Hirano does not meet the crystallinity and h1/h2 requirements presented in the claimed invention. However, Hirano does teach a h1/h2 value of 0.41 [Pg. 12 Table 1 Ex. 6 (Original Doc.)]. Therefore, the prior art does meet the 0.01 to 1 range required in the claimed invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the crystallinity of the claimed product) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant also argues that Hirano teaches away from the h1/h2 value presented in the claimed invention since the prior art discloses that the ratio of silanol to acidic hydroxyl group of 1 or more. In response to the allegation that the prior art teaches away, "Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is ‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a rejection under section 102." Twin Disc, Inc. v. United States, 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986) (quoting In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See MPEP 2131.05.
The applicant further argues that the manufacturing process of the FAU zeolites are different, since Hirano does not suggest aluminum extraction via steam treatment and the substitution of aluminum with silicon in the subsequent application of a second steam treatment. In response, it is noted that the claims in the application are drawn to a composition, and the product found in the prior art appears to be the the same as the composition in the claimed invention, as explained in the prior art rejection above, and thus anticipates the product as claimed.
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 ANNETTE H PHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:30 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 5712703591. 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.
/ANNETTE PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736