DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, and 26 have been amended. Claims 14, 18, 22, and 27-28 are cancelled. Claims 1-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-26, and 29-31 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 03/12/2026, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. Michael A. Patané on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3, 5, 9, and 26 overcome the reaction. The rejection is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 by further limiting the claimed SCR catalyst “wherein the aluminosilicate in its as-synthesized form comprises within its pores N,N,N,N',N',N'- hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations” overcomes the rejection, because cited the `617 publication does not teach the added limitation. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant’s amended claim 1 by further limiting the claimed SCR catalyst “wherein the aluminosilicate in its as-synthesized form comprises within its pores N,N,N,N',N',N'- hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations”. In addition, Applicant argued that hexamethonium dications, as disclosed in the '231 publication, are chemically distinct from N,N,N,N',N',N'-hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations recites in the amended claim 1 because hexamethonium has methyl groups (-CH3) attached to the nitrogen atoms, whereas the hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations have ethyl groups (-C2H5) attached to the nitrogen atoms. Even if substituting ethyl groups for methyl groups would have been obvious, the claimed invention demonstrates unexpected results that rebut any prima facie case of obviousness. The specification discloses that "[s]urprisingly, upon aging at 820°C, the catalysts comprising Cu-loaded AFT zeolite wherein the AFT zeolite was prepared using the combination of N,N,N,N',N',N'-hexaethyl-1,5-pentanediammonium and 1-methyl-1-propylpiperidinium cations show greatly improved NOx conversions compared with the catalysts having the same Cu/Al ratio but with the AFT zeolite being prepared using hexamethonium and 1-methyl-1-propylpiperidinium cations." Specifically, the hexaethyl version achieved NOx conversions of 54-79% at 200°C after aging at 820°C, while the hexamethonium version (methyl groups on nitrogen, as disclosed in the '231 publication) achieved NOx conversions of no more than 10%, or even "0" under the same conditions. See present application, para. [0211]. This difference in hydrothermal stability (54-79% vs. 0-10%) constitutes unexpected results that rebut any prima facie case of obviousness to substitute ethyl groups for methyl groups. Furthermore, both the '617 publication and the '082 publication fail to cure this deficiency as they both do not disclose or suggest the use of N,N,N,N',N',N'-hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations.
Applicant’s amendment and argument have been considered, and are sufficient to overcome the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Non-status double patenting rejection
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 by further limiting the claimed SCR catalyst “wherein the aluminosilicate in its as-synthesized form comprises within its pores N,N,N,N',N',N'- hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations” overcomes the rejection, because the claims of cited the `432 patent does not teach the added limitation. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The following ODP rejection is necessitated by the amendment filed 06/01/2026 and the IDS summited by Applicant on 03/12/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-26, and 29-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10-17, 19-20, 24, and 33 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/551,419 (“the `419 application”), published as US2024/0174523.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present claims 1-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-26, 31, and claims 1-7, 10-17, 19-20, and 33 of the `419 application are both drawn to process for preparing an aluminosilicate zeolite having AFT framework structure comprising using (A) a source for Al2O3, (B) a source for SiO2, (C1) a source for first organic structure directing agent comprising a N,N,N,N',N',N'- hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cation, and (C2) a source for second organic structure directing agent comprising a 1-methyl-1-alkylpiperidinium cation wherein the piperidinium ring is optionally substituted at one or more of 2 to 6 positions, and (2) subjecting the synthesis mixture to crystallization conditions to form an AFT zeolite; and an aluminosilicate zeolite having AFT framework structure obtained and/or obtainable by the process according to the process thereof; and a method of using the catalyst for selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides.
In terms of claims 29-30, claim 24 of the `419 application teaches an aluminosilicate zeolite having AFT framework structure, which comprises within its pores cations of one organic structure directing agent in its as-synthesized form, comprising N,N,N,N',N',N'-hexaethyl alkylenediammonium cations as defined in claim 1.
Conclusions
Claims 1-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-26, and 29-31 are rejected.
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's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 03/12/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 extension fee 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.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights