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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
The claims are newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 5/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 9-12 under the final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references below.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub.: 2018/0093257) and further in view of Stewart (GB 2193202) and in view of Yang (US Pub.: 2017/0128921).
As to Claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, the claims recite product-by-process features. It has been held that ““[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Nonetheless, these features are taught by Chen.
Chen describes an AEI zeolite (title) made by combining a silica source and an alumina source (para. 48) with water (para. 72), a source of sodium (para. 70). The silica source can include sodium (para. 57). The reaction is performed under autogenous pressure (para. 75) and heated at a range of 100-180 degrees C (para. 74). The reaction mixture can include a zeolite, such as one with a GME framework (para. 56). As to the ratio of Na to Al, the ratio can range from 0.5 to 0.25 (para. 44). As to the crystallinity, Chen teaches that the product made has about a 90-97% AEI crystallinity (para. 20). Although Chen does not specifically state that this crystallinity is determined by X-Ray diffraction analysis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any means of determining crystallinity would be an effective means to determine the crystallinity of the zeolite.
After heating, Chen teaches that the autoclave was cooled to room temperature and then filtered (para. 134). Room temperature overlaps the claimed temperature range of 10-50 degrees C of Claim 1.
The reference does not teach that the alumina source is sodium aluminate.
As to the other ratios, Chen teaches that the SiO2/Al2O3 ratio is from 20-60 in the reaction mixture (para. 69).
Chen does not describe the ratio of Y to the structure directing agent or that the water:Y ratio is from 0.01: 1 to 1:1.
Although the claims are product-by-process feature, this feature is known in the art.
As to the sodium aluminate feature, Stewart describes a method of making zeolite (abstract). The method explains that the silica source can be in the form of Na2SiO2 (pg. 5, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Na2SiO2, as a source of silica, for use as the silica source in the manufacture of zeolite, as taught by Chen because Stewart explains that these are known sources of silica for use in the manufacture of zeolites.
As to the ratio of Y to the SDA and the ratio of water: Y, Yang describes a method of making an AEI zeolite (abstract), which is designed to reduce the water used and optimize the ratio of compounds to increase crystallinity yield (para. 11, 12 and 13). This process also uses less SDA, which are expensive (para. 5, 6, 7 and para. 9-their invention has reduced cost in response to the expensive SDA cost).
Yang explains that a mixture of SDA/SiO2 of 0.01 to 0.2 (para. 13) and a ratio of H2O/SiO2 of 4-60 (para. 13) is effective to achieve an AEI with high yield (para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the SDA/SiO2 ratio to 0.01 to 0.2 and the H2O/SiO2 ratio to 4-60, as taught by Yang for use with the product made in Chen because Yang explains that lowering the SDA and water amounts have the benefit of reducing the cost of expensive SDA, while maintaining the high crystallinity of the AEI.
As to Claim 2, Chen teaches that in one example, to use 2.1 grams of sodium hydroxide with 2.15 g of a zeolite source, used as an alumina/silica source is used to make the product (para. 0133). That more than 75% of silica/alumina to sodium in the reaction mixture.
As to Claim 3, Chen teaches that in some examples, the silica and alumina source can derive from zeolite and not a sodium source (see para. 0133)
As to Claim 10, Chen teaches that the zeolite is modified with a metal, such as copper, iron and other transition metals (para. 92).
As to Claim 11, Chen teaches supporting one of the metals on the zeolite (para. 92) in solution (para. 140) at a temperature of ambient up to 80 degrees C (para. 97). The product produces an ion-exchanged zeolite (para. 97), which is then dried (para. 97), which can be considered a method of “separating” the zeolite material with the metal from the mixture.
As to Claim 12, Chen teaches that the metal in the zeolite can be added in an amount of 0.5 to 5wt% (para. 94).
Claim(s) 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Garcia (WO 2017134001).
Chen does not teach further exchanging the zeolite with ammonium ions.
Garcia describes an AEI zeolite (title). The zeolite is made by adding iron to the zeolite synthesis solution (page 8, line 20) and then ammonium-exchanged (page 10, lines 23-25). The zeolite is effective for use in SCR catalysts (pg. 1, lines 4-7).
As to the method steps, these are product-by-process features and the office’s position on these features was described above and are re-iterated here.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a metal, such as iron, as taught by Garcia for use with the zeolite of Chen because use of iron facilitates effective use in SCR catalysts.
As to Claim 12, Garcia shows that in example 6, there is about 1.10wt % of Fe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights