DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 23 July 2026, amending paragraph [0047] of the specification and amending claim 1 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 .
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US20220032275).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses methods for producing hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites
(paragraph 0003). Hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites have an increased molar ratio of silicon to aluminum (paragraph 0003), so the beta zeolitic framework contains alumina and silica. Hierarchical beta zeolites include both micropores having a pore size of less than 1 nm and mesopores having a pore size of from 2 nm to 50 nm (paragraph 0015). The beta zeolite is mixed with an aqueous metal
hydroxide solution to produce a desilicated beta zeolite (paragraph 0004). The beta zeolite having
hierarchical mesoporous structures contact an ammonium nitrate solution (paragraph 0006). Pore-
Directing agents can also be used in hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites that are alkylammonium
cations (paragraph 0017).
The hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolite has a molar ratio of silicon to aluminum greater than 10, more specifically 10 to 200 (paragraph 0040). When converting to molar ratio of silica-to-alumina we get a range of 20 to 400 which greatly overlaps the claimed range. Additionally, Zhang discloses Ex. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in table 2 all satisfying the molar ratio limitation of claim 1 (double Si/Al ratio to get SiO2/Al2O3 ratio).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the mesopores arranged in a center-radial configuration, but the reference discloses a method of making that is the same as the present invention.
Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the mesopore structure of Zhang’s zeolite would
inherently be the same. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted
to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent
characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject
matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205
USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 2, the hierarchical beta zeolites produced in examples 3-9 all have a total surface area between 500 and 1500 m2/g, within the claimed range (Table 2).
Regarding claim 3, the hierarchical beta zeolites produced in examples 3-9 all have a difference of SBET and Sext between 250 to 750 m2/g (Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, the hierarchical beta zeolites produced in examples 3-9 all have a total pore volume between 0.25 to 1.0 cm3/g (Table 2).
Regarding claim 6, the hierarchical beta zeolites produced in examples 3-9 all have a silica-to-alumina ratio from 10 to 500 (double the Si/Al ratio) (Table 2).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US20180311652).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. produces mesoporous beta zeolites using a top-down desilication
approach with a pore directing agent (paragraph 0033). Mesopores are created by partially dissolving
the zeolite framework by desilication (paragraph 0033). The zeolites produced have micropores with a
diameter of less than or equal to 2 nm and greater than or equal to 0.1 nm (paragraph 0038). They also
have mesopores with a diameter of greater than 2 nm and less than or equal to 50 nm (paragraph
0038). The beta zeolite framework has silicon and aluminum (paragraph 0010), and the molar ratio of silicon to aluminum is from 50 to 250 (paragraph 0014) which is 100 to 500 silica-to-alumina ratio.
Zhang et al. fails to disclose the mesopores arranged in a center-radial configuration, but the
total surface area, microporous surface area, micropore volume, total pore volume, and ratio of silica-
to-alumina fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the
mesopore structure of Zhang et al.’s zeolite would inherently be the same. When the examiner has
reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed
subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to
Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics
relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses samples having a total surface area between 500 and 1500 m2/g (Table 6).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses samples having a microporous surface area between
250 and 750 m2/g (Table 6).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses samples having a micropore volume between 0.1 cm3/g
and 0.25 cm3/g (Table 6).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses samples where the volume sum of microporous and mesoporous pores is between 0.25 cm3/g and 1.0 cm3/g.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses the beta zeolite having a molar ratio of silicon to aluminum of at least 10 (paragraph 0010).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US20220032275).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses hierarchical beta zeolites produced in examples 3-9 that have a micropore volume ranging from 0.27-0.29 cm3/g, slightly outside the claimed range. 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
Zhang ‘22
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the molar ratio of silicon to aluminum less than 12.5 in Zhang ‘22 does not satisfy the amended claim 1 of a molar ratio of silica-to alumina from 50 to 10,000. Applicant maps the intermediate hierarchical mesoporous zeolite of example 2 to the Beta zeolite of claim 1 because the inherency rejection requires the same process of synthesis. The zeolites of examples 3-9 in Zhang ‘22 acid treat the intermediate hierarchical zeolite of example 2; a step that the present invention does not have. Applicant’s reply fails to address how the acid treatment step would result in a Beta zeolite particle different from the present invention. The absence of an acid treatment step in the present invention is not sufficient evidence to show the zeolite Beta particle would NOT have center-radial mesopores. Therefore, the examiner maps the acid treated zeolite to the Beta zeolite of claim 1, so the silica-to-alumina ratio is satisfied, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the alkylammonium cations disclosed in Zhang ‘22 is a background for previous methods of making hierarchical mesoporous beta zeolites and Zhang ’22 does not disclose a hydrothermal desilication that uses a templating agent. Applicant’s reply fails to provide evidence that the absence of a templating agent would result in a Beta zeolite that does not have center-radial mesopores. The silica-to-alumina ratio is greater than 50 which causes center-radial mesopore configuration per the applicant’s arguments. Furthermore, the Beta zeolite has micropores and mesopores of a required size. The absence of a templating agent is not sufficient evidence to conclude the mesopores of the zeolite are not center-radial.
Zhang ‘18
Applicant argues that it is not established how the properties of the zeolite, alone or in combination, disclose or fairly suggest mesopores in a center-radial configuration. Applicant’s reply fails to provide how the presence of these properties would not necessarily result in a zeolite with center-radial configuration. Zhang ’18 discloses a Beta zeolite with the same mesopores, micropores, properties of said pores, and silica-to-alumina ratio. Absent evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that the zeolite has center-radial mesopores.
Applicant argues that the method to produce the Beta zeolite in Zhang ’18 varies significantly from the method disclosed in the present application. Applicant’s reply fails to provide evidence that the different method of Zhang ’18 would result in a Beta zeolite that does not have center-radial mesopores. The Beta zeolite in Zhang ’18 has a molar ratio of silica-to-alumina greater than 50 and micropores and mesopores of the required size. The silica-to-alumina ratio is greater than 50 which causes center-radial mesopore configuration per the applicant’s arguments. The different production method of the zeolite is not sufficient evidence to conclude the mesopores of the zeolite are not center-radial.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ding et al.
US 12378130 B2
Li et al.
CN 113683096 A
Sheng et al.
CN 114715908 A
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights