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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 7-9 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Lines 4-5, the phrase “…is preferably se to 40°C or above and 100°C or below” is likely intended to read “…is preferably set to 40 °C or above and 100 °C or below”
Line 8 has a misspelling where “s16 or less” is likely intended to read “16 or less”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, line 4, the terms “40°C” and “100°C” are likely intended to be “40 °C” and “100 °C”.
Regarding claim 9, line 10, the terms “100°C” and “200°C” are likely intended to be “100 °C” and “200 °C”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (ACS Omega, 2018, 3, 18935-18942; cited in IDS dated 06/27/2023), with evidentiary support provided by Hausmann et al. (ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571).
Regarding claim 7, the Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim, when read in the context of the entire claim, is interpreted as being a treatment of beta zeolite obtained by a synthesis that does not include an organic-structure directing agent, and is not a method of producing beta zeolite from raw materials. This distinction is supported by the working example in [0039]-[0041] of the instant specification.
In this regard, Zhang teaches a method for treating organic-structure directing agent (OSDA) free beta (ß) zeolite obtained from a method that provides beta-zeolite without OSDA (Abstract; Pg. 18940, right col.). Zhang teaches the OSDA-free beta (ß) zeolite is treated with 0.2 M NaOH solution at 65 °C (Abstract; Pg. 18940, right col.). Zhang describes this operation as a post-synthetic treatment of OSDA-free beta-zeolite (Pg. 18940, right col.) which is consistent with method outlined in claim 7 and supported in the instant specification in [0041] as “treatment of parent powder with alkaline aqueous solution.”
Zhang does not explicitly mention the pH of the 0.2 M NaOH solution, however, as evidenced by Hausmann, 0.2 M NaOH solution at 65 °C would provide a pH of at least about 12 (estimated from Figure 2; Table 1). Accordingly, the 0.2 M NaOH solution taught by Zhang meets the limitation of providing “an alkaline aqueous solution having a pH of 12 or higher.”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (ACS Omega, 2018, 3, 18935-18942) in view of Zhang ‘974 et al. (CN101920974A English; cited in IDS dated 06/27/2023), with evidentiary support for the rejection of claim 7 provided by Hausmann et al. (ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571). NOTE: Zhang et al. (CN101920974A English) is referred to as “Zhang ‘974” to differentiate it from Zhang et al. (ACS Omega, 2018, 3, 18935-18942).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the method of claim 7 and Zhang further teaches when the OSDA-free beta-zeolite and alkaline aqueous solution are mixed they are heated at 65 °C (Pg. 18940, right col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the value taught by Zhang (65 °C) overlaps with the claimed range (set to 40 °C or above and 100 °C or below). Therefore, the value in Zhang render obvious the claimed range.
The claim further requires “a ratio of the parent powder to the alkaline aqueous solution is set to 10 g/L or greater and 1000 g/L or less.” Zhang is silent regarding the amount of parent beta zeolite powder and alkaline aqueous solution being subjected to treatment.
Zhang ‘974 teaches a method of treating zeolite powders for improving dispersibility by adding zeolite powder into alkali liquor and dispersing (Abstract). Zhang ‘974 teaches the alkali liquor used includes NaOH (also referred to as lye), where the ratio of zeolite to lye is 5-40 g zeolite/100 mL lye (Pg. 1, Claim 4; Pg. 2, par. 7). Converting the g/mL units of Zhang ‘974 to g/L units used in the claim provides a range of 50 g/L to 400 g/L taught by Zhang ‘974 (see calculations below). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Zhang ‘974 (50 g/L to 400 g/L) overlaps with the claimed range (10 g/L or greater and 1000 g/L or less). Therefore, the range in Zhang ‘974 renders obvious the claimed range.
Calculations:
100 mL = 0.1 L
5 g zeolite / 0.1 L = 50 g/L zeolite to lye
40 g zeolite / 0.1 L = 400 g/L zeolite to lye
Advantageously, providing the ratio of zeolite to alkali liquor taught by Zhang ‘974 improves the dispersibility of the zeolite powder being treated and does not destroy the crystallinity of the zeolite being treated (Pg. 2, par. 2, 12).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a zeolite to alkali liquor ratio of 50 g/L to 400 g/L in the method of Zhang in order to improve the dispersibility of the zeolite without destroying the crystallinity, as taught by Zhang ‘974.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (ACS Omega, 2018, 3, 18935-18942; cited in IDS dated 06/27/2023) in view of Itabashi et al. (US20190177173A1; cited in IDS dated 06/27/2023), with evidentiary support for the rejection of claim 7 provided by Hausmann et al. (ACS Energy Lett. 2021, 6, 3567−3571).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the method of claim 7 and Zhang further teaches that the reaction mixture comprising beta zeolite seed crystals, prepared by a method that is free of organic-structure directing agent, is prepared with 14 wt.% of beta zeolite based on silica (Pg. 18940, right col.). Weight percent (wt.%) is equivalent to mass%. Zhang teaches the reaction mixture obtained has a molar composition of 1 SiO2 :0.1425 Al(OH)3 :0.6 NaOH :25 H2O which is then heated at 140 °C for 4 days (Pg. 18940, right col.). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the values taught by Zhang (14 wt.% beta zeolite to silica; H2O/SiO2 = 25; heating at 140 °C) overlaps with the claimed ranges (from 0.1 to 20 mass% beta zeolite to silica; H2O/SiO2 = from 10 to 50; heating at 100 °C to 200 °C). Therefore, the values in Zhang render obvious the claimed ranges.
The claim further requires “the reaction mixture has a composition with molar ratios below: SiO2/Al2O3 = from 10 to 200, Na2O/SiO2 = from 0.18 to 0.4” and that the heating is performed “in a sealed state” to which Zhang does not explicitly teach these limitations.
Itabashi teaches a method of producing beta zeolite that is organic structure-directing agent free where the composition of the reaction mixture prior to heating has a general range of SiO2/Al2O3 = 8 or more and less than 40 and Na2O/SiO2 = 0.05 or more and 0.3 or less (Abstract; [0077]; Claim 4) while teaching examples that have a SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of 16 and Na2O/SiO2 molar ratio of 0.23 (Table 1-3, Examples 1-20). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the range taught by Itabashi (SiO2/Al2O3 = 8 or more and less than 40 and Na2O/SiO2 = 0.05 or more and 0.3 or less) overlaps with the claimed ranges (SiO2/Al2O3 = from 10 to 200; Na2O/SiO2 = 0.18 to 0.4). Therefore, the ranges in Itabashi render obvious the claimed ranges.
Itabashi further teaches the reaction mixture was placed in a sealed vessel and heated at 150 °C ([0073]; [0088]).
Advantageously, preparing a reaction mixture comprising a SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of 8 or more and less than 40 and a molar ratio of Na2O/SiO2 of 0.05 or more and 0.3 or less provides a uniform reaction mixture that can be easily dispersed ([0070]). Additionally, heating the reaction mixture in a sealed vessel (i.e. under autogenous pressure), increases the generation efficiency of the beta zeolite product and allows for the synthesis to be performed without using a high pressure autoclave ([0073]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat a reaction mixture comprising a SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio of 8 or more and less than 40 and a molar ratio of Na2O/SiO2 of 0.05 or more and 0.3 or less in a sealed atmosphere in the method of Zhang in order to provide a uniform mixture that can be easily dispersed while also increasing the efficiency of beta zeolite production and avoiding the use of high pressure autoclaves, as taught by Itabashi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamimura et al. (J. Phys. Chem. C 2011, 115, 744–750); Kamimura teaches a process of preparing zeolite beta without organic structure-directing agent (Abstract). Li et al. (US20110286914A1); Li teaches a method of preparing an organic-free, metal-containing zeolite Beta (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738