Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/275,006

YNU-5 ZEOLITE, METHODS OF PREPARATION, AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 30, 2023
Examiner
MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
BASF Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
1017 granted / 1425 resolved
+6.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1475
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1425 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. Claims 14-28, 35-36 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubaki et al. (WO-20191556074-A1), in view of Zhang et al. (US 6,080,698). Regarding claims 14, 16 and 35 Tsubaki discloses a process for catalytic cracking of a hydrocarbon feedstock comprising contacting YNU-5 zeolite and quartz sand (i.e., silica non-zeolitic matrix) with the feedstock (example 1). Tsubaki does not disclose the addition of phosphorus. However, Zhang discloses that zeolites used for hydrocarbon cracking can have preferably 2-8 wt % phosphorous and that such increases the conversion to ethylene and propylene as well as enhance hydrothermal stability (column 5, lines 4-15). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Tsubaki by adding 2-8 wt % phosphorus to the molecular sieve, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the expected benefit of increasing the productivity and stability of the catalyst, as suggested by Zhang. Regarding claim 15 As the amount of phosphorus of the reference overlaps the claimed amount the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. Regarding claim 17 Tsubaki discloses that 1.0 g of the YNU-5 catalyst is mixed with 3.0 g quartz (i.e., 25 wt % YNU-5 catalyst)(Example 1). Regarding claim 18 The acidity of the catalyst is a property of the catalyst. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02. Regarding claim 19 Zhang discloses a SiO/Al2O molar ratio of 15-60 (abstract). Regarding claim 20 Tsubaki discloses a BET surface area of preferably 200 to 800 m2/g (para 0012). Regarding claim 21 Tsubaki discloses the pore volume is preferably 0.2 to 0.4 cm3/g (para 0012). Regarding claim 22 The XRD peaks are property of the catalyst. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02. Regarding claims 23, 26 and 39-40 There is no requirement that the second zeolite and second non-zeolitic matrix are different from the first zeolite and non-zeolitic matrix, as such part of the mix can be considered the first zeolite and non-zeolitic matrix, and another part can be the second. Regarding claim 24 The first part of the zeolite and non-zeolitic matrix could be any size, and as such the limitation of being about 1 wt % to about 25 wt % is obvious. Regarding claim 25 Tsubaki discloses that the pore size is preferably 0.9 to 1.6 nm (para 0012). Regarding claims 27-28 Tsubaki discloses that a second zeolite SAPO-5 can be added to the YNU-5 zeolite (example 2). Regarding claims 36, 38 Zhang discloses the use of phosphoric acid (column 4,lines 5-8). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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. JAMES E. MCDONOUGH Examiner Art Unit 1734 /JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 30, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603189
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR CLOSURE OF DEEP GEOLOGICAL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL REPOSITORY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600672
DECARBONIZED CEMENT BLENDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590007
ZEOLITE NANOTUBES AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576482
POROUS COATED ABRASIVE ARTICLE AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577160
AIR-DRY SCULPTURAL AND MODELING CLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.0%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1425 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month