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 .
Status of Application
Claims 16-18, 20, 22, 24-27 and 30-33 are pending and presented for examination. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 22 January 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 to Pieterse (hereinafter, “Pieterse Declaration at __”) is acknowledged and entered. It is noted that the Pieterse Declaration did not test the entire range of temperatures claimed (200-400 C but stopped at 350 C).
The rejection of claims 16-19, 22, 24, 26, 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Nimsuk is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment dated 22 January 2026 requiring a pore size of 4-8 A as Nimsuk does not disclose such as Nimsuk discloses ~2.5A and that Pt cannot penetrate into the pores due to the presence of Cl (Remarks at 6). The dependent rejection of claim 31 over the same under 35 U.S.C. 103 is WITHDRAWN as the base rejection was. As is the dependent rejection of claim 32 over the same in further view of Berkel.
The rejection of claims 17-19, 24, 26, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103 over Wang (with Hunger and ASAP 2000) is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring an LTA or X type zeolite which is not something Wang discloses nor the cationic Na, Mg, Ba, or K species being present. As is the dependent rejection of claim 32 over the same in further view of Berkel as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The 16, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Yang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring an LTA or X type zeolite as Yang discloses an L type. As is the dependent rejection of claim 32 over the same in further view of Berkel as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 16, 21, 22, 26-28, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li (with Wang as an evidentiary reference to pore size) is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring LTA or X-type zeolite as Li is drawn to ZSM-5. As is the dependent rejection of claim 32 over the same in further view of Berkel.
The rejection of claims 16, 21, 22, 25-28, 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hirose is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring LTA or X-type zeolite as Hirose is drawn to ZSM-5. As is the dependent rejection of claim 32 over the same in further view of Berkel.
The rejection of claims 16, 21, 22, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ballarini with Resasco as an evidentiary reference is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring an LTA or X-type zeolite as Bellarini discloses an L type.
The rejection of claims 16-21, 24, 27 and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ghodhbene is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring impregnation of the metal into the pores and surface of the zeolite as Ghodhbene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16, 20, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20180117573 to Fedeyko in view of “Influence of the Compensating Cation Nature on the Water Adsorption Properties of Zeolites” to Tahraoui et al. (hereinafter, “Tahraoui at __”).
Regarding claims 16, 22 and 26, Fedeyko discloses a multifunctional catalyst comprising particles of a LTA (Fedeyko at [0754]) which is wet impregnated with manganese (which thusly absent evidence to the contrary coats the pores and surface) and has a Si/Al ratio of 46 and the Mn is present at 3.33%.
However, Fedeyko does not expressly state that the sorbent is in the cationic form with sodium, lithium, potassium, barium, magnesium, or calcium cations.
Tahraoui in a LTA zeolite (Tahraoui at “Abstract”) discloses addition of sodium or magnesium cations to the zeolite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the cationic magnesium LTA of Tahraoui in the zeolite of Feedeyko. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being water adsorption (Id.) and that the pore diameter is controlled to 4 A via the sodium inclusion (Tahraaoui at 2).
While the claim also states that the sorbent converts carbon dioxide via RWGS at 200-400 C to form CO and that the metal catalyzes a gaseous mixture, these are parameters of properties of the product that the material is capable of performing, and given that the composition is the same (LTA impregnated with Na+ or Mg2+) is considered to exist within the product absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
Turning to claim 20, this is a LTA-4A due to the 4A pore size.
As to claim 25, iron can be added and it can catalyze dimethyl ether from methanol (Fedeyko at [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 17 and 18, none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination in a LTA/X type zeolite discloses a Si/Al ratio of 1-2 for an impregnated catalyst of the claimed metals on the zeolite wherein the pore and surface are wholly impregnated and cations of sodium, potassium, lithium, barium, magnesium, and/or calcium are present. Fedeyko is the closest piece of prior art and it discloses Si/Al of 15-70:1.
As to claim 24, none of the cited prior art which covers claim 16 either alone or in combination discloses that the metal catalyst is Pt, Zn, Cs, and/or Cu. Fedeyko is the closest piece of prior art and it only discloses Fe and/or Mn.
Claims 27 and 30-33 are allowed.
As to claim 27 (and those dependent thereon), none of the cited prior art either alone or in combination discloses a process for the conversion of carbon dioxide from hydrogen and carbon dioxide by subjecting a gaseous feedstock ot a catalyst comprising particles of LTA or X-type cationic zeolite (wherein the cations are sodium, lithium, potassium, barium, magnesium, and/or calcium) which has been impregnated such that the surface and pores contain 3-40% of the claimed metal and carbon monoxide is formed via heating the gaseous mixture at 200-400 C via a RWGS. Fedeyko is the closest piece of prior art and it does not perform RWGS nor any conversion of carbon dioxide is performed.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Supported Catalysis in Continuous-Flow Microreactors” discloses a K-LTA zeolite but does not disclose it being impregnated with 3-40% of the claimed metals.
US PG Pub No. 20170311637 to Colombo et al., discloses a multifunctional catalyst LTA which is ion exchanged with Pd, not wet impregnated with such.
Conclusion
Claims 16, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected. Claims 17, 18, 20 and 24 are objected to. Claims 27 and 30-33 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights