DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 28 Aug. 2026, amending claim 1 and adding claim 21 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 § 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 1-3, 5-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al. (US 4818509 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dwyer et al. discloses a crystallization process for highly siliceous zeolite with several stages (col 6, lines 44-46). The feed materials entering the process are selected silica source materials and selected alumina sources (col 10, lines 48-55). The silica and alumina source materials require a solvent to be present in the solution, for example, colloidal silica dispersions require solvents to disperse the particles.
The first heating treatment is described in the first stage of Dwyer et al. The first stage is an induction stage in which a precursor is formed and nucleation occurs (col 6, lines 46-49). Additionally, the induction stage involves a precursor formed as a slurry having no more than 15% crystals by weight of the solids (col 7, lines 5-10). Because of nucleation and a weight % limitation of crystals disclosed, the examiner interprets that some portion of the materials in the precursor slurry of the first stage have crystallized.
The first stage is heated at a temperature from sub-ambient up to about 180 °F (82 °C) (col 7, lines 65-67), so there is great overlap with the temperature of the claim. The first stage is an induction tank, and no autogenous conditions are disclosed for this stage, so the examiner assumes that the first stage is under non-autoclave conditions.
The second heating treatment is described in the second stage of Dwyer et al. which accelerates crystallization (col 6, 51-53). The crystallization vessels such as the second stage operate at pressures from autogenous to 400 psig (col 8, lines 22-24) which are autoclave conditions. The second stage is operated in a temperature range of 180°-250° F (82°-121° C) (col 8, lines 25-26), so there is great overlap with the temperature of the claim.
Regarding the temperatures of both the first and second stage, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Dwyer et al. does not explicitly state the process disclosed creates zeolite-Y particles. Although Dwyer et al. fails to disclose synthesis of zeolite-Y particles, the process creates a wide variety of zeolites having selected crystal sizes and other desired characteristics (Abstract). Dwyer et al. discloses the silica-to-alumina ratio of zeolite Y is from 3 to about 6 (col 2, lines 20-23), and the highly siliceous zeolites the process creates includes those having a silica-to-alumina ratio as low as one and will generally be abbreviated as simply zeolites (col 2, lines 51-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create zeolite-Y particles with the multi-stage crystallization process disclosed in Dwyer et al.
Regarding claim 2, Dwyer et al. discloses the precursor is formed in the first stage (col 6, lines 46-47) and it is heated at a temperature up to 180 °F (col 7, lines 65-67). Therefore, the precursor formation and first heating treatment are performed in the same vessel.
Regarding claim 3, Dwyer et al. discloses the holding time of the first stage is four to sixteen hours (col 7, lines 67-68), and the holding time of the second stage is 2-72 hours (col 8, lines 25-29). Because the first stage has overlap with the claimed range, and the second stage completely encompasses the second claimed range, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Regarding claim 5, Dwyer et al. discloses the alumina source materials are sodium aluminate, aluminum sulfate, aluminum nitrate, or aluminum chloride (col 10, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 6, Dwyer et al. discloses the silica source materials are sodium silicate, colloidal silica dispersions, or tetraalkyl-orthosilicates (col 10, lines 50-53).
Regarding claim 7, Dwyer et al. discloses the first stage is heated at a temperature from sub-ambient up to about 180 °F (82 °C) (col 7, lines 65-67), and the holding time of the first stage is four to sixteen hours (col 7, lines 67-68). There is overlap for both claimed ranges, so the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Regarding claim 8, Dwyer et al. discloses the second stage is operated in a temperature range of 180°-250° F (82°-121° C) (col 8, lines 25-26), and the holding time of the second stage is from 2-72 hours (col 8, lines 25-29). Both the duration and temperature encompass the claimed ranges, so the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Regarding claim 9, Dwyer et al. discloses the feed materials are a selected SiO2 source, selected Al2O3 source, bases, and as discussed earlier, these materials require a solvent (col 10, lines 48-58). The materials are fed to the first stage which is capable of thoroughly homogenizing reaction mixtures with high shear agitation (col 7, lines 37-39). The holding time of the first stage is four to sixteen hours (col 7, lines 67-68) which overlaps at least 10 hours. Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Regarding claim 11, Dwyer et al. discloses the temperature of stage 1 is sub-ambient up to about 195 °F (col 9, lines 34-35). While it is unclear if sub-ambient would include the claimed range of 20-40 °C, the temperature can be adjusted so that the crystalline content of solids in the first stage does not get too high (col 9, lines 36-39), so the temperature 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 claim 12, Dwyer et al. discloses the first stage is capable of thoroughly homogenizing reaction mixtures with high shear agitation (col 7, lines 37-39). The holding time of the first stage is four to sixteen hours (col 7, lines 67-68) which overlaps at least 10 to 30 hours. Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Regarding claim 13, Dwyer et al. discloses bases such as alkali metal hydroxides are fed (col 10, lines 56-57). Sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide are alkali metal hydroxides
Regarding claim 14, Dwyer et al. does not disclose the alumina source material as aluminum isopropoxide.
Claims 4, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al. as applied to claim 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Willis (US 3898319 A)
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent fails to disclose the absence of an organic structure-directing agent.
Willis discloses a hydrothermal process that utilizes solid reactive silica derived from waste liquors from previous zeolite synthesis for preparing zeolite Y (col 1, lines 2-6). Nowhere in the Willis reference is there an organic structure-directing agent used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to not use an organic structure-directing agent because the absence of one is known and conventional in the art of zeolite-Y synthesis.
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 9 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent fails to disclose specific solvents such as water used in the precursor solution.
Willis discloses a hydrothermal process that utilizes solid reactive silica derived from waste liquors from previous zeolite synthesis for preparing zeolite Y (col 1, lines 2-6). A reaction mixture is formed having a composition of mole ratios expressed in one of the ranges of Table I (col 2, lines 15-18). All these ranges include water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use water as a solvent because it is well known and conventional in the art of zeolite Y synthesis.
Regarding claim 21, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but patent does not disclose a molar ratio of the zeolite precursor solution.
Willis discloses four separate ranges of reaction mixtures in Table I. Looking at range 3 we can pick ratios of Na2O/SiO2 = 0.65, SiO2/Al2O3 = 14, and H2O/Na2O = 30. We can create a system of equations to find the molar composition of a reaction mixture with these ratios. The molar ratio of Na2O:SiO2:Al2O3:H2O is 9.1:14:1:273 which satisfies claim 21.
Na2O = 0.65*SiO2
Al2O3 = SiO2/14
H2O = 30*Na2O = 30*0.65*SiO2 = 19.5*SiO2
Na2O:SiO2:Al2O3:H2O = 0.65SiO2:SiO2:(1/14)SiO2:19.5SiO2
Divide by SiO2
Na2O:SiO2:Al2O3:H2O = 0.65:1:1/14:19.5
Multiply by 14
Na2O:SiO2:Al2O3:H2O = 9.1:14:1:273
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the reaction mixture in the induction tank to have a Na2O:Al2O3:SiO2:H2O molar ratio of 8-12:1:6-20:200-400 because such molar compositions of a zeolite Y precursor are known and conventional in the art.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Koegler et al. (CN 1331747 C).
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent does not disclose an average particle size.
Koegler et al. discloses preparing Y zeolite with a particle size range of 100 nm to 500 nm; entirely encompassing the claimed range (paragraph 0049). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the optimized particle size taught in Koegler et al. with Dwyer et al.’s process because a zeolite with small crystal size has advantages when used in hydrocarbon conversion processes for example effective diffusion characteristics (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent does not disclose an average pore size.
Koegler et al. discloses preparing Y zeolite with a pore size of 7-8 angstroms (0.7-0.8 nm) (paragraph 0027). These pore sizes fall 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the optimized pore size in Koedgler et al. with Dwyer et al.’s process because catalysts with ideal pore sizes can facilitate the transport of reactants to the active sites of the catalyst (paragraph 0006).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN 107867699 A).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent does not disclose a total pore volume.
Zheng et al. discloses a total pore volume of the structure microporous Y zeolite that is 0.17-1.0 ml/g; entirely encompassing the claimed range (paragraph 012). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time 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 USPQ.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the optimized pore volume in Zheng et al. with Dwyer et al.’s process because microporous catalysts provide abundant active sites (paragraph 0004).
Claim 18 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (“Synthesis of hierarchical porous zeolite NaY particles with controllable particle sizes”).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent does not disclose an average surface area.
Huang et al. discloses preparation of hierarchical porous NaY zeolites. Small aliquots of the samples were taken out of the zeolite gel to study the crystallization process (3.1 Effect of crystallization time, 1st paragraph). A 96h is obtained after 24 hours of initial aging at 25 °C, 24 hours of secondary aging at 38 °C, and 48 hours of hydrothermal treatment at 60 °C (3.1 Effect of crystallization time, 1st paragraph). The 120h sample is obtained after additional hydrothermal treatment at 60 °C (3.1 Effect of crystallization time, 1st paragraph). The surface area of the 96h and 120h samples are greater than 500 m2/g (Table 1. N2 adsorption–desorption results of the samples prepared from Y-20.1H2O gel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optimized surface area taught in Huang et al. with Dwyer et al.’s process because a zeolite with increased external surface area has more exposed active sites (1. Introduction).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 1 is obvious over Dwyer et al., but the patent fails to disclose a relative crystallinity.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang et al. also does not disclose a specific relative crystallinity. However, Huang et al. discloses prolonging crystallization time results in intensified and narrowed XRD peaks which suggests an increase in the relative crystallinity (3.1 Effect of crystallization time, 1st paragraph). Observing Fig. 1 below, the XRD of the 120h sample appears to be close to a 100% relative crystallinity. Furthermore, Huang et al. discloses the increased crystallinity results in a larger primary crystal size making it a result effective variable (3.1 Effect of crystallization time).
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 of relative crystallinity 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the optimized crystallinity taught in Huang et al. with Dwyer et al.’s process because larger primary crystal size is attributed to higher crystallinity (3.1 Effect of crystallization time).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dwyer et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-14 above, and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 20240367987 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Dwyer et al. discloses washing and drying the product after crystallization (col 8, lines 38-40), but does not disclose calcining the product.
Alexander et al. discloses creating a mixture comprising CTAB and Y-zeolite and precipitating solids (paragraph 0035). The solids are filtered, washed, dried, and calcined (paragraph 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the calcination step of Alexander et al. with Dwyer et al.’s synthesis to rid the zeolite-Y of impurities and change the size of mesopores in the product (paragraph 0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that Evans et al. does not teach partial crystallization of the precursor as recited in the amended claims. The examiner agrees but new grounds of rejection have been made in view of Dwyer et al.
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 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
Prosecution Insights