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 Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The remarks argue the following:
The art-related rejections should be withdrawn because Office Action has not met the initial burden presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability with respect to the amended claims ("The examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
For example, by this Amendment, claims 1 and 20 are amended to adopt, inter alia, the subject matter of claim 5, which was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cao in view of Chen. As such, the findings in the Office Action (i.e., relating to the 103 rejection over Cao in view of Chen) are insufficient to support/maintain the rejection (of the amended claims) under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cao in view of Chen. Thus, withdraw of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cao in view of Chen is respectfully requested.
Regarding the remaining rejection, the rejection is deficient at least because the Office Action has not established that the applied references teach the recited CHA-type zeolite, which is formed entirely of an ion-exchanged CHA-type zeolite, which is of a proton type, that has a SiO2/Al₂O₃ ratio of 13.9 or more and less than 15.0. Regarding such features, the Abstract of Li states that (emphasis added):
*citing to the abstract*
In view of such disclosures (i.e., of Li, which repeated teaches a silica-to-alumina ratio (SAR) greater than 15), a person skilled in the art (following the guidance provided by Li) would not have had any proper reason to have: (i) disregarded/ignored such express teachings of Li, and (ii) designed or prepared metal-containing chabazite with a SiO₂/Al₂O₃ ratio of less than 15.0, much less the recited CHA-type zeolite, which is formed entirely of an ion-exchanged CHA-type zeolite, which is of a proton type, that has a SiO2/Al₂O₃ ratio of 13.9 or more and less than 15.0.
Instead, when Li is properly considered, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the Applicant-A reference that teaches away cannot serve to create a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)-A reference may be said to teach away "when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." Id.
Thus, Li (even taken in combination with the other evidence of record) would not have rendered obvious the claimed combination of features (as amended), and the obviousness rejection over Li (and the other asserted secondary references) should be withdrawn.
For at least these reasons, there are various evidentiary gaps in the rejections of the
claims (as amended) that are fatal to a prima facie case of unpatentability (e.g., at least because the Office Action has not established that the reference as applied in the Office Action describes all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the amended claims).
The remarks are respectfully not persuasive. The abstract of Li was not cited in the office action. Instead, the relevant portions of Li cited concerning the Si/Al ratio is found in paragraph 14.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (WO 2007/145724) and in view of Chen (US Pub.: 2018/0071724).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 19 and 20 describe properties of the final product made. The process of making from the specification was relied upon to obtain these features. The claims are still restricted because the method steps described in the other inventions are very narrow, while the specification describes a much broader set of process steps that are useable to obtain the claimed product.
According to the specification, the product made in Claims 1 and 2 can be made by:
Making a CHA precursor, made by combining a silica source, an alumina source, an alkali source, water and an organic structure directing agent (OSDA) and crystallizing the mixture (PG Pub of Spec, para. 89). Useable source of each are listed in the specification, paragraphs 90, 91 and 92 of the published version. The OSDA used can be one of those listed in paragraph 73. Crystallization temperatures are listed in paragraph 101-105 and following this, the zeolite is may be heated to calcination temperatures of about 550 degrees C (see para. 192) and then processed through a hydration treatment (para. 107) with conditions described in para. 111, 112, 113. The hydration treatment conditions include: heating the zeolite in the presence of stream containing water to temperature of 400-700 degrees C to remove the SDA (PG Pub, para. 111).
Cao describes a method of synthesizing a chabazite molecular sieve (para. 20) by preparing a reaction mixture comprising, mixing water, a source of an oxide of a tetravalent element Y and a source of an oxide of a trivalent element X (pg. 7, para. 19, step a). The mixture can also contain a seed, which can have a framework of either: AEI, LEV, CHA, ERI, AFX or OFF (para. 48). Since use of a CHA seed is an option, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that is some embodiments the synthesis mixture only contains CHA seed so that the product made is then formed entirely of a CHA-type zeolite.
Crystallizing the mixture (para. 19, pg. 7, step b). The trivalent element X can be aluminum, the tetravalent element Y can be silicon (pg. 13, para. 37).
The OSDA used can include: N,N,N-trimethyl-adamantanammonium (This is similar to the trimethyl version described in the specification, pg. 73 of the published version). Other compounds listed in Cao include: N,N,N-trimethylcyclohexylammonium (para. 42). Alternatively, the OSDAs can be in cationic form (para. 44) and overlap the claimed group of OSDAs.
The conditions for crystallization in Cao are described as using a reactor that stirs the mixture from 120-220 degrees C from 30 mins to 240 hours (para. 50). This overlaps the conditions used in this application.
The reaction is then calcined from 200-800 degrees C to remove the ODSA (para. 52). After formation of the zeolite product, Cao teaches that the zeolite can be steamed (para. 56). The steaming conditions include: steaming the product at a temperature from 400-650 degrees C from 8 to 120 hours (para. 57). The product made has a X2O3/YO2 ratio of 0.07-0.02 (para. 19), where X is Al and Y is Si. Therefore, the amount of SiO2/Al2O3 is 14-50.
Cao explains that the zeolite is ion-exchanged with a cation (para. 53). The cations in the CHA material, which includes hydrogen ions, are ion-exchanged with other cations, to include one of the metals in the periodic table, to include IB (para. 53). IB include copper.
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 method of making would result in the same features, such as copper present at some locations outside of the CHA framework. This catalyst is effective for converting oxygenates to olefins (title).
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.”
Therefore, absent criticality, the steps of making the CHA zeolite overlap the features of this application and the process of making would make a product with the same features, particularly, the same features when analyzed in a 1H-MAS-NMR and IR spectrum device.
As to the amount of copper used, Cao does not state the amount of copper employed.
Chen describes a zeolite composition (title) that have a number of uses (para. 2, catalysts). One of these uses includes the conversion of oxygenates to olefins (para. 198). The zeolite is modified with a copper metal in an amount of 0.1 to 5wt% (para. 96, Claims 11 and 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add copper metal in an amount of 0.1 to 5wt%, as taught by Chen for use with the zeolite-modified copper-containing catalyst for use in converting oxygenates to olefins because Cao does not state how much metals to add to their catalyst and Chen provides known guidance on this feature.
As to Claim 6, Cao states that in the calcination step, there may be partial removal or the OSDA from the zeolite (para. 52). Therefore, when the zeolite is steam treated, the zeolite would still contain some OSDA.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 102844096) and in view of Beutel (WO 2011073398) and in view of JP 2008521744.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 19 and 20 describe properties of the final product made. The process of making from the specification was relied upon to obtain these features. The claims are still restricted because the method steps described in the other inventions are very narrow, while the specification describes a much broader set of process steps that are useable to obtain the claimed product.
According to the specification, the product made in Claims 1 and 2 can be made by:
Making a CHA precursor, made by combining a silica source, an alumina source, an alkali source, water and an organic structure directing agent (OSDA) and crystallizing the mixture (PG Pub of Spec, para. 89). Useable source of each are listed in the specification, paragraphs 90, 91 and 92 of the published version. The OSDA used can be one of those listed in paragraph 73. Crystallization temperatures are listed in paragraph 101-105 and following this, the zeolite is may be heated to calcination temperatures of about 550 degrees C (see para. 192) and then processed through a hydration treatment (para. 107) with conditions described in para. 111, 112, 113. The hydration treatment conditions include: heating the zeolite in the presence of stream containing water to temperature of 400-700 degrees C to remove the SDA (PG Pub, para. 111).
Li describes a Chabazite composition (title) made by combining an aluminum source, a silica source, an alkali source and a structure directing agent in water (see para. 81, embodiment 3). The SDA is one that is effective according to the current specification (see para. 73 of the published specification). The mixture is crystallized at a temperature of 96 to 160 degrees C (para. 83). The product is then filtered and then calcinated at 550 degrees C (para. 83). The product is then exchanged with a copper precursor (para. 83) in an amount of 1-4wt% (Claim 7). The copper is exchanged with NH4+ (para. 83), which can be considered a proton type. The silica to alumina ratio can range from 15-60 (para. 14). As to where the copper is present, although Li does not specifically state that at least some of the copper is present at a location outside of the CHA framework, 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 method used would result in having the same properties and features.
The reference does not teach that the catalyst is steam treated after the calcination treatment.
Beutel describes copper-exchange of zeolite (title). The reference explains that the calcination of chabazite molecu. The molecular sieves can be performed at a range of 500-750 degrees C (para. 56) and calcinated stepwise at different temperatures (para. 57). Also, the calcination may be performed under a number of different conditions and those different conditions can be used in varying ways, such as by calcining using one method and then calcining using a different method (para. 58). Beutel explains that one way of calcining includes calcining under a first method, such as an oxygen-containing atmosphere and then also calcining under another method, which can include steam (para. 58).
Beutel does not specifically describe a reason for adding a post-steam treatment to the first calcination step.
As to this feature, JP ‘744 explains that post treatment of a CHA molecular sieve by steam treatment helps stabilize the crystal lattice from attach by acids (page 6, last lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to using steam after a first calcinating, as taught by Beutel for use with the process of Li because JP ‘744 explains that steam treatment stabilizes the crystal lattice from attack by acids.
As to the spectrum, absent criticality, the steps of making the CHA zeolite overlap the features of this application and the process of making would make a product with the same features, particularly, the same features when analyzed in a 1H-MAS-NMR and IR spectrum device.
As to Claim 5, JP ‘744 teaches that metals capable of catalyzing NOx is known to be effective either within a molecular sieve or on its surface and that these metals can include copper (page 9, para. 4, 5). One of the metals useable in this step is copper (page 4, para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include some of these copper metal on the surface of the molecular sieve, as taught by JP ‘744 for use with the catalyst of Li because deposition of metals on the surface are known to be as effective for catalytic NOx reduction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights