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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 wherein the synthesis mixture can have any composition which is suitable for preparing the desired zeolite framework. The following ranges are given as examples of desirable and preferred ranges for each pair of components in the synthesis mixture (para. [0038]):
PNG
media_image1.png
136
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
then the mixture 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],[0038], table 1, claim 1-5). Kamakoti 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 (see examples 1-16). 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). Kamakoti also teaches seeds can be mixed into the synthesis mixture (para. [0028]) wherein the seeds are suitably present in an amount from about 0.01 to 10.0% by weight, based on the synthesis mixture (para [0039]).
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.
But Kamakoti already teaches structure directing agent Q/(XO2+Y2O3+Z2O5) being 0 to 1.0 and during synthesize ZSM-48 XO2 is SiO2, Y2O3 is Al2O3 with SiO2: Al2O3= 5-500 (table 1, para. [0038]), there is no pentavalent element Z (see examples), therefore, structure directing agent ( i.e. quaternary ammonium structure directing agent -claimed R) Q/SiO2 in a range of 0.002 to 0.167, which overlaps with that of instantly claimed R/SiO2 range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). As for the claimed OH-/ SiO2=0.174-0.179, Kamakoti also teaches structure directing agent OH-/(XO2+Y2O3+Z2O5) from 0.05 to 1.1, and during synthesize ZSM-48 XO2 is SiO2, Y2O3 is Al2O3 with SiO2: Al2O3= 5-500 (table 1, para. [0038]), there is no pentavalent element Z (see examples), therefore, OH-/SiO2 range being 0.0001 to 0.183, such range overlaps with that of instantly claimed OH-/SiO2 range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Similarly, Kamakoti table 1 disclosed H2O/(XO2+Y2O3+Z2O5) range suggests H2O /SiO2 ratio being 0.01 to 16.7, such range overlaps with that of instantly claimed H2O /SiO2 range 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about example 6-14 using solid alumina source (kaolin or aluminum hydroxide) showing improved results as compared to example 1-5 using sodium aluminate solution, the examiner would like to remind the applicant that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (See MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e)). In the instant case, applied closest prior art Kamakoti teaches using solid alumina source, i.e. clay of kaolin, metakaoline are in solid form (para. [0031], [0032]). Therefore, example 6-14 as compared against comparative example 1-5 using sodium aluminate solution is not against the closest prior art. Secondly, instant claim 15 recites at least one source of alumina being selected from aluminum hydroxide, clays selected from kaolin families and metakaolin, but example 6-14 only using kaolin or aluminum hydroxide, but metakaolin not being represented at all. Furthermore, all example 6-14 show SiO2/Al2O3 range being 50-80.57, R/SiO2 only being 0.02, crystallization temperature only being 160-165 °C, even if assuming such example 6-14 showing improved results, but such narrow data range does not show preparing any synthesis mixture using any alumina source as that of claimed, with any of the claimed range of SiO2/Al2O3 being 15 to 80, having R/SiO2 from 0.005 to 0.5 etc. under any heating/crystallization temperature would still show such alleged improve results. Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about Kamakoti disclosed examples using SiO2/Al2O3 of 89 or higher, since non-preferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art MPEP 2123, and a reference is good not only for what it teaches but also for what one of ordinary skill might reasonably infer from the teachings. In the instant case, Kamakoti discloses the synthesis mixture can have any composition which is suitable for preparing the desired zeolite framework. The following ranges are given as examples of desirable and preferred ranges for each pair of components in the synthesis mixture (para. [0038], claims 1-5, table 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
136
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Such teachings suggest respectively overlapping SiO2/Al2O3, OH-/SiO2, M+/ SiO2, R/ SiO2 and H2O /SiO2 ranges as those of instantly claimed as explained during previous office action section. Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
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 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
Prosecution Insights