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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I invention (claims 15-29) in the reply filed on 11/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 15-17 and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamakoti (US2020/0061593).
Kamakoti discloses a method of making ZSM-48 (a molecular sieve having MRE framework) by mixing hexamethonium dichloride (HMDC) (a linear di-quaternary alkylammonium structuring directing agent), water, a sodium aluminate solution (an alumina source), NaOH, colloidal beta seeds and precipitated silica, stirring the mixture to prepare a homogeneous slurry with an approximate molar gel composition of SiO2/Al2O3= 89-100, OH-/ SiO2=0.174-0.179, HMDC/SiO2=0.019, H2O/SiO2=16.8-18.7 and 5100 ppm of seeds. The mix was placed in an autoclave and heated to 160°and held for 28 hours for crystallization. The obtained solid was isolated via vacuum filtration, washed with water and dried in an oven at 120° C (para [0008]-[0013], examples 1-16, claim 1-5).
Although in the examples a sodium aluminate solution is used, Kamakoti also discloses other possible Al sources such as silica-alumina powders, aluminum hydroxide, kaolin, metakaolin can be used wherein clay of kaolin, metakaoline are in solid form (par. [0031]-[0032]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” clay such as kaolin, metakaolin (noted such material are in solid form) to practice the alumina source because choosing such as kaolin, metakaolin from a finite number of identified, predictable alumina source would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine such kaolin or metakaolin with Kamakoti disclosed sodium aluminate as alumina source because combining such prior art elements of alumina sources according to known methods of producing zeolite (e.g. ZSM-48) would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 15, Kamakoti does not expressly teach the claimed R:SiO2 being 0.02 to 0.6. Since Kamakoti already teaches using NaOH in the synthesis mixture wherein the alkali metal is Na whose molar amount is same as that OH-1 in the synthesis mixture, hence, the ratio of Na(from NaOH)/SiO2 is 0.179. Kamakoti disclosed sodium aluminate also contain 7.8 % of Na2O (e.g. example 2, Na2O molar mass is 62 g/mol), which equals to such Na mole amount: 2x(0.61gx7.8%/62g/mol) =7.67x10-4 mol. Kamakoti disclosed NaOH with a molar mass of 40 g/mol, having such Na mole amount: 3.6x10%/40=0.009 mol, therefore, Kamakoti disclosed Na from sodium aluminate (molar ratio) to Na from the NaOH is 7.67x10-4 mol/0.009 mol=0.085, hence, Na from sodium aluminate (molar ratio) to SiO2 molar ratio is 0.085x0.179=0.015. Thus, the total molar ratio of Na (both from sodium aluminate and NaOH)/SiO2=0.179+0.015=0.194.
Furthermore, Kamakoti also broadly teaches the synthesis mixture using containing alkali and/or alkaline earth metal and a source of hydroxide ion (para. [0030]- [0034]), and the ratio of M+/(XO2+Y2O3+Z2O5) being 0 to 1.2, ratio of XO2 / Y2O3 =5 to 500 (table 1, para. [0038]), wherein during synthesize ZSM-48 XO2 is SiO2, Y2O3 is Al2O3, there is no pentavalent element Z. Hence, M+/(SiO2+Al2O3) being 0 to 1.2, SiO2: Al2O3= 5-500, therefore, M+/ SiO2 ranges from 0 to 0.2, wherein such range overlapping with that of instantly claimed M+/ SiO2 thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 16-17 and 19-29, such limitations are taught as discussed above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamakoti (US2020/0061593) as applied above, and in view of Miyahara (US2020/0283303).
Kamakoti also teaches the synthesis process can be used producing molecular sieves having different framework including having a framework code selected from the group consisting of MEI, TON, MRE, MWW, MFS, MOR, FAU, EMT and MSE (para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 18, Kamakoti does not expressly teach the alumina source particle size being 0.01 to 300 µm.
Miyahara teaches zeolite synthesis sol is a raw material solution and includes particles of an aluminum source and a solvent in which the particles are dispersed, wherein the mean particle diameter of the particles is in the range of 5 nm to 500 nm (500 nm is 0.5 µm) (para. [0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such particle size range of aluminum source as shown by Miyahara to modify the aluminum source of Kamakoti because adopting such well-known technique of such mean particle size of aluminum source material for help modifying a well-known zeolite synthesis process for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732