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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered. The reference cited before, Cao, is reused but applied differently in-light of the claim amendments.
The remarks argue the following on pages 9-10:
In contrast to the Examiner's findings, Reference Example 1 of the submitted 132
Declaration is a replication experiment of Example 1 of Cao (WO2007/145724) conducted using "LEV seeds". More specifically, point 14 at pages 3 and 4 of the 132 Declaration states that In contrast to the Examiner's findings, Reference Example 1 of the submitted 132 Declaration is a replication experiment of Example 1 of Cao (WO2007/145724) conducted using "LEV seeds". More specifically, point 14 at pages 3 and 4 of the 132 Declaration states that: (cites to point 14 of the Declaration).
Clearly, the experimental operation described in point 14 of the 132 Declaration was performed by stirring Portion A before the addition of "LEV seeds" and then adding "LEV seeds" to Portion A after the stirring as in Example 1 of Cao. As such, the Examiner's finding is a clear error and the rejection should be withdrawn.
These remarks are respectfully contended. Cao describes several seeds useable in their process (see paragraph 48 of Cao), which include LEV-type seeds. However, Cao states that several other seeds are effective for use in making their product, which can include CHA seeds (see para. 48). Therefore, even though Cao cites use of a LEV seed in Example 1, Cao explains that other seeds are useable instead of the LEV type seed.
The other features of the remarks argue the features newly added and therefore not previously treated, but are newly considered 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) 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.
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). 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).
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
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 March 3, 2026