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 .
Examiner Note
This is a second non-final sent in response to the amendments of 07/07/2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not introduced new matter and are supported in the specification in at least Example 9 of the instant specification.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome every Claim Objection and one of the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the office action mailed 04/16/2026.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks have failed to overcome a 112(b) rejection and the amendments have introduced a new 112(b) rejection, both of which are detailed in the 112 section below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-7 filed 21 January 2025 with respect to claim 1, have been fully considered however are solely directed to the claim limitation where step (II)ac) is conducted “in the absence of components d) and e) ” introduced in the amendment filed 207/07/2026, which postdates the non-final rejection mailed 04/16/2026. Examiner notes this amendment drastically changes the scope of the claims from a one-pot synthesis where Cu and OSDA are included in the crystallization, consistent with at least Example 1 of the instant specification, to a one-pot synthesis where Cu and OSDA are introduced following a first crystallization of a metal-free CHA zeolite, consistent with at least Example 9 of the instant specification
Upon further search and consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 04/16/2026 is withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vennestrom et al. (WO2020039074A1; cited in IDS dated 11/04/2025).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the term “smaller than” is likely intended to be “less than” in the line “Me/OSDA1”.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and thus are also objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “Me/A1” is unclear and the term “A1” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of clarity is due the term “A1” possibly referring to either the alkali metal “AOH” or the aluminum component, where aluminum is possibly being referred to as its molecular symbol “Al” with a typo for the “l”. Additionally, it is unclear from the claim if the Me/A1 ratio is referring to the ratio in the reaction mixture or the ratio of the two in the final CHA zeolite product. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the term Me/A1 is interpreted to be referring to the molar ratio of the first metal cation to aluminum in the final dried product, where the “1” in A1 is intended to be “Al” in the claims. This interpretation is supported by the instant specification on Pg. 19, line 20, that refers to a “Me/Al” ratio in addition to at least Example 1 on Pg. 42, line 14 that describes the produced zeolite having a Cu/Al ratio of 0.33.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “adding second portions of components d) and e)” is unclear. It is unclear how second portions of d) and e) can be added when step ac) requires that components d) and e) be absent. This lack of clarity is exacerbated by the method claiming to be “one-pot” where a skilled artisan would understand this term to be requiring that all components are mixed in the same reactor. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the limitation was interpreted such that a first portion of component d) and e) are added after mixing and crystallizing a mixture that contains components a), b), and c). See at least Example 9 in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 1, line 2, 16, and 48, the addition of the word “type” to the term “CHA-type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Regarding claim 9, line 2, the addition of the word “type” to the term “CHA-type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Regarding claim 11, line 3, the addition of the word “type” to the term “CHA-type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Regarding claim 12, line 2, the addition of the word “type” to the term “CHA-type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955).
Claims 2-12 all depend from claim 1 and thus, are also rendered indefinite.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vennestrom et al. (WO2020039074A1; cited in IDS dated 11/04/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Vennestrom teaches a method of preparing a molecular sieve of the CHA-type by mixing a non-molecular sieve source of silicon and/or a non-molecular sieve source of aluminum; (b) an organic structure directing agent (OSDA); (c) water; (d) optionally a crystalline molecular sieve containing six-ring structural features; and (e) optionally an alkali or alkaline earth hydroxide (A); in molar ratios of SiO2/Al2O3 about 8 to about 60 OSDA I SiO2 about 0.01 to about 1.0 water / SiO2 about 2 to about 200 A/ SiO2 0 to about 1.0; wherein the molar ratio of (the total amount of non-molecular sieve source of silicon and non-molecular sieve source of aluminum) to (crystalline molecular 5 sieve containing six-ring structural features) is in the range of 100 / 0 to about 5 / 95; 10 (ii) subjecting the mixture to conditions capable of crystallizing the molecular sieve of the CHA-type (Pg 2, line 25-Pg. 3, line 8). Vennestrom teaches Cu-TEPA complex can be added during a crystallization step (Pg. 11, lines 11-22).
Vennestrom teaching crystallization of a mixture absent of TEPA and a metal cation that contains a non-molecular sieve source of silicon and non-molecular sieve source of aluminum, an alkaline hydroxide, and water is consistent with performing steps (II)aa)-ac). Vennestrom teaching that Cu-TEPA can be added during crystallization is consistent with Examiner’s interpretation of step ad), where Cu-TEPA are added to already crystallized CHA zeolite material with further reaction to provide the crystalline zeolite containing Cu.
Regarding the molar ratios of the components are as follows:
Ratio
Vennestrom et al.
Vennestrom Citation
Claims
SiO2/Al2O3
about 8 to about 60
Pg. 7, lines 16-24
about 10 to about 35
SiO2/AOH
5 or less
Pg. 10, lines 26-30
about 1 to about 2
SiO2/H2O
about 0.005 to about 0.2
Pg. 8, lines 24-28
about 0.03 to about 0.2
SiO2/FAUseed
4 to 1,000
Pg. 11, lines 6-9
about 40 to 400
Me/OSDA1
1
Pg. 11, lines 16-22
equal to or smaller than 1.0
Vennestrom further teaches examples where the TEPA/SiO2 ratio is 0.0125 and a Me/Al ratio of 0.48 (0.0125 Cu; 0.05 Al2O3 = 0.026 Al; 0.0125/0.026 = 0.48).
Examiner notes the variables P, FAUseed, and OSDA2 are listed as optional by the claims. While not indefinite, use of the word “optionally” does not constitute necessary aspects required by the claim and are not considered as required in the above rejection over Vennestrom.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Xiao (SiO2/Al2O3 = about 8 to about 60; SiO2/AOH = 5 or less; SiO2/H2O = 0.005 to about 0.2; TEPA/SiO2 = 0.0125; Me/TEPA = 1; Me/Al ratio = 0.48) overlaps with the claimed ranges (SiO2/Al2O3 = about 10 to 35; SiO2/AOH = about 1 to about 2; SiO2/H2O = about 0.03 to 0.2; OSDA1/SiO2 = about 0.01 to 0.1; and Me/OSDA1 equal to or smaller than 1.0). Therefore, the ranges in Vennestrom render obvious the claimed ranges.
Vennestrom teaches that synthesis mixture contains about 20 to about 100 mol % of the total amount of silicon which is present in the synthesis mixture, preferably about 40 to about 100 mol %, more preferably 10 about 40 to about 80 mol %, about 0 to about 100 mol % of the total amount of aluminum which is present in the synthesis mixture, preferably about 0 to about 70 mol %, 100% of the alkali metal hydroxide, and 100% of the water is added (Pg. 7, lines 6-10; Pg. 10, lines 21-30; Pg. 29, lines 9-17).
Vennestrom teaches that all of these components are fully included (i.e. included at 100%) before the final heating step. Vennestrom teaching all the components are included is considered to meet the limitation “wherein in step (II)(aa) 30 to 75 mol-% of the non-molecular sieve source of silicon, 80 to 100 mol-% of the non-molecular sieve source of aluminum, 40 to 100 mol-% of the alkali metal hydroxide AOH and 30 to 90 mol-% of water are added, and wherein in step (II)(ad) 70 to 25 mol-% of the non-molecular sieve source of silicon, 20 to 0 mol-% of the non-molecular sieve source of aluminum, 60 to 0 mol-% of the alkali metal hydroxide AOH and 70 to 10 mol-% of water are added, so that the mixture obtained after the completion of step (II)(ad) contains 100 mol-% each of the non-molecular sieve source of silicon and aluminum, the alkali metal hydroxide AOH and water, and the molar ratios of the components a), b) c), d), e) and optionally g), h) and/or i) of step (I) obtained after the completion of step (II)(ad) are the ones given above,” because the limitation ultimately requires all of the components are present at 100 % (i.e. “so that the mixture obtained after completion of step (II)(ad) contains 100 mol% of each of the…”). Vennestrom differs from the instant claims in that Vennestrom adds all the water at once rather than adding a percentage up to 90%.
However, it has been established that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP. 2144.04.C. Vennestrom teaches providing water at a SiO2/H2O ratio required by the claim and that the water is present in the “final mixture”. Vennestrom further teaches less water in the synthesis mixture gives a higher solid yield and therefore also reduces cost (higher throughput) while also typically leads to faster crystallization due to the higher concentrations (Pg. 8, lines 24-28). Accordingly, in the absence of new or unexpected results, despite the instant invention adding water at different proportions to arrive at a reaction mixture, Vennestrom teaches a water content in the final mixture that overlaps the amount required by the claim and further motivates a skilled artisan to arrive at the water concentration used. Therefore, despite the difference in the order of performing process steps between the prior art Vennestrom and the instant invention, the selection of any order of performing process steps is considered to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results and the method of Vennestrom renders obvious the instantly claimed method.
Vennestrom teaches a CHA molecular sieve can be recovered from the reaction (Abstract; Pg. 1, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 2, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the non-molecular sieve source of silicon is selected from silica, fumed silica, silicic acid, silicates, colloidal silica, tetraalkyl orthosilicates and mixtures thereof (Pg. 33, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 3, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the non-molecular sieve source of aluminum is selected from alumina, boehmite, aluminates and mixtures thereof (Pg. 33, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 4, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the non-molecular sieve source of silicon and the non-molecular sieve source of aluminum is selected from precipitated silica-alumina, amorphous silica-alumina, kaolin, amorphous mesoporous materials and mixtures thereof (Pg. 34, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the metal cation can be copper (Pg. 11, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 7, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the suitable examples of the crystalline molecular sieve containing six-ring structural features include FAU, LTL, GME, LEV, AEI, 35 LTA, OFF, CHA and ERI and mixtures thereof (Pg. 8, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 8, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches metals can be incorporated into the CHA zeolite, including lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, cesium, magnesium, calcium, strontium and barium (Pg. 15, lines 32-35).
Regarding claim 9, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches metals can be incorporated into the CHA zeolite after the synthesis by methods including liquid ion exchange, incipient wetness, and solid state ion exchange (Pg. 14, line 1- Pg. 16, line 36).
Regarding claim 10, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches Cu-TEPA can be used to introduced Cu and TEPA into the CHA zeolite (Pg. 11, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 11, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and Vennestrom further teaches alkali, alkaline earth metal and transition metal cations can be removed from or introduced into a molecular sieve via ion exchange reactions (Pg. 13, lines 11-15).
Regarding claim 12, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and Vennestrom further teaches organic molecules such as the OSDAs can be removed by calcination, evaporation, decomposition, combustion or a combination thereof (Pg. 12, lines 12-16).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vennestrom et al. (WO2020039074A1; cited in IDS dated 11/04/2025) in view of Martens et al. (US020180304242A).
Regarding claim 5, Vennestrom teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the alkali metal hydroxide is sodium hydroxide (Pg. 10, lines 21-25). Vennestrom does not teach a mixture of sodium and potassium and/or ammonium cations.
Martens teaches a one-pot synthesis of Cu-CHA where the process uses a metal hydroxide MOH, where M is selected from alkali metals including sodium and potassium (Abstract; [0020]). Martens teaches the nature of the obtained copper zeolite depends on the what metals are selected as the metal hydroxide ([0038]).
Advantageously, selecting sodium and/or potassium as the metal hydroxide provides CHA zeolite rather than different zeolite frameworks while the process of Martens provides improved flexibility and avoids expensive templates ([0041]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize sodium and/or potassium hydroxide in the process of Vennestrom in order to produce CHA-type zeolite rather than other zeolites without requiring expensive templates, as taught by Martens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
