DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 23 Aug. 2026, cancelling claims 3 and 18 and amending claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are acknowledged.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/08/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the wrong issue dates are used for the first two U.S. patents 4086187 and 4206085. Additionally, U.S. patent publication 20140245223 A1 cannot be found. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0056 references
paragraphs 0028-0030 which may be the incorrect reference as it has no relevance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (“Synthesis method for introducing mesoporosity in a faujastic-like zeolite system from a sodium aluminosilicate gel composition”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a process of preparing a zeolite material with an aqueous precursor (2.1 Chemicals). The process removes at least 5 wt% of the total water from the aqueous precursor to form a concentrated gel (2.2 Zeolite synthesis procedure). The process ages the concentrated gel before a final crystallization step (see scheme 2, 3.1 Synthesis strategy).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses a process of preparing an aqueous precursor mixture containing water, a silicon source, and an aluminum source (2.1 Chemicals). The process removes at least 5 wt% of the total water from the aqueous precursor to form a concentrated gel (2.2 Zeolite synthesis procedure). The process ages the concentrated gel before a final crystallization step (see scheme 2, 3.1 Synthesis strategy).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses at least 10 wt% of the total water removed from the aqueous precursor (3.1 Synthesis strategy).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses at least 25 wt% of the total water removed from the aqueous precursor (3.1 Synthesis strategy).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses at least 50 wt% of the total water removed from the aqueous precursor (3.1 Synthesis strategy).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses a crystallization step at 100 °C for 2 hours (3.1. Synthesis strategy).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the water is removed by thermal treatment (2.2. Zeolite synthesis procedure).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses a zeolite yield of 35% when 40% of the water is removed (2.3. Yield calculation). A 35% zeolite yield is interpreted as a solid content of 35 wt% solids. Since Wang also discloses removal of 60% water, it is inherent that there will be greater than 35 wt% solids in that sample.
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses the crystallization step is treated at one or more temperatures (3.1. Synthesis strategy).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
The teachings of Wang are applied as above for claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, and 19.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Wang does not disclose a concentrated gel sample where at least 75 and 90 wt% of the total water is removed from the aqueous precursor.
Wang discloses that the amount of water removed impacts the external surface area of the zeolite produced (3.2.1. Direct heating of gels, Table 1) which in turn impacts the catalytic activity (5. Conclusion) (3.4 Catalysis studies), suggesting that the amount of water removed is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, and 19 above, and further in view of Severance (“Rapid Crystallization of Faujastic Zeolites: Mechanism and Application to Zeolite Membrane Growth on Polymer Supports”).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the process of claim 1 but does not disclose a rehydrating step of the aged gel prior to crystallization.
Severance discloses a process for preparing a zeolite material with an aqueous precursor mixture (2.2 Synthesis Protocols). The process removes at least 5 wt% of the total water from the aqueous precursor (2.2 Synthesis Protocols). The process rehydrates the product obtained from water removal (2.2 Synthesis Protocols). The process concludes with crystallizing the solution (2.2 Synthesis Protocols) (3.1 Zeolite Formation from Different Synthesis Protocols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a rehydration step to the process disclosed in Wang because the dehydration-rehydration procedure dramatically decreases the crystallization times when compared to the procedure that does not rehydrate (4.1 Accelerating Zeolite Crystallization) (3.2 Comparison of Synthesis IV with Conventional Hydrothermal Synthesis).
While Severance does not disclose a wt% solids of the solution when rehydrated, Wang provides sufficient motivation to optimize this parameter. Wang discloses that the amount of water removed impacts the external surface area of the zeolite produced (3.2.1. Direct heating of gels, Table 1) which in turn impacts the catalytic activity (5. Conclusion) (3.4 Catalysis studies), suggesting that the amount of water removed or added is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, and 19 above, and further in view of Parvulescu (WO2015067654).
Regarding claims 13-15, Wang does not disclose a spray drying process that results in at least 40, 75, or 80 wt% solids.
Parvulescu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses spray drying of an aqueous suspension with zeolitic material (Page 9, line 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute thermal treatment in Wang with spray drying because Parvulescu discloses spray drying as an equivalent method for heat treatment (Page 10, line 12-15).
Regarding the wt% solids, Wang discloses that the amount of water removed impacts the external surface area of the zeolite produced (3.2.1. Direct heating of gels, Table 1) which in turn impacts the catalytic activity (5. Conclusion) (3.4 Catalysis studies), suggesting that the amount of water removed or resulting wt% solids is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Wang does not disclose a filtration process that results in at least 25 or 35 wt% solids.
Parvulescu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses separating zeolitic material from a suspension by filtration (Page 8 line 33—35). Parvulescu also discloses a further heat-treatment step for the filter cake obtained from filtration (Page 8, line 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute thermal treatment in Wang with filtration because Parvulescu discloses filtration as an equivalent to spray drying for isolation (Page 8, line 5-9) and spray drying is an equivalent method for heat treatment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add further thermal treatment to dry the product the because the product is wet from washing (Page 8, line 33-35).
Regarding the wt% solids, Wang discloses that the amount of water removed impacts the external surface area of the zeolite produced (3.2.1. Direct heating of gels, Table 1) which in turn impacts the catalytic activity (5. Conclusion) (3.4 Catalysis studies), suggesting that the amount of water removed or resulting wt% solids is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendment of gel aging in amended claims 1 and 2 is not taught in neither Wang nor Severance. This is not persuasive because Wang teaches a process that ages the gel after water removal but before crystallization (see rejection of claims 1 and 2 above). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al.
US 7488700 B2
Chinthala et al.
KR 20200026792 A
Sarkar et al.
US 10384948 B2
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.
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 DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
