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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on January 18, 2024, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, the Abstract has been amended, claims 1-21 have been canceled, and new claims 22-41 have been added.
Claims 22-41 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on January 18, 2024.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Materials built of zeolite β nanocrystals,” by Kseniya A. Sashkina et al. (hereinafter “Sashkina et al.”; Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claim 33, Sashkina et al. teach the preparation of zeolite β nanocrystals, wherein aluminum isopropoxide is dissolved in tetraethylammonium hydroxide to form an aluminate solution, sodium hydroxide is dissolved in tetraethylammonium hydroxide, followed by adding thereto silica to form an alkaline template solution. The aluminate solution is then added to the alkaline template solution and stirred to form an opalescent gel (“mixing two or more zeolite precursors to form an organic template-containing synthesis solution”). The gel is then subjected to hydrothermal treatment in an oven at 373 K (49.85°C) for 10 days (“heating the synthesis solution to obtain a nanocrystalline zeolite colloidal suspension”). The resultant product is purified in a series of three steps consisting of centrifugation at a relative acceleration 1500g for 5 h, followed by removal of mother liquor and redispersion in distilled water under ultrasonication during 90 min, and then the procedure was repeated several times until pH of the suspension reached 7 (“concentrating the nanocrystalline zeolite colloidal suspension by centrifugation…”). The resultant zeolite suspension is then (a) centrifuged at a relative acceleration of 1500g for 24 h followed by drying at 298 K (24.85 °C) for 2 days to form monoliths built of closely packed nanocrystals or (b) dried at 323 K (49.85°C) for 2 days to form nanozeolite pellets built of closely packed nanocrystals (“drying…at less than 50°C…”). The monoliths and pellets are then calcined at 823 K (549.85 °C) for 5 hours (“removing organic template to obtain one or more substantially template-free zeolite bodies”). See Section 2 of Sashkina et al.
In view of these teachings, Sashkina et al. anticipate claim 33.
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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Materials built of zeolite β nanocrystals,” by Kseniya A. Sashkina et al. (hereinafter “Sashkina et al.”; Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claim 34, Sashkina et al. teach the preparation of zeolite β nanocrystals, wherein aluminum isopropoxide is dissolved in tetraethylammonium hydroxide to form an aluminate solution, sodium hydroxide is dissolved in tetraethylammonium hydroxide, followed by adding thereto silica to form an alkaline template solution. The aluminate solution is then added to the alkaline template solution and stirred to form an opalescent gel (“mixing two or more zeolite precursors to form an organic template-containing synthesis solution”). The gel is then subjected to hydrothermal treatment in an oven at 373 K (49.85°C) for 10 days (“heating the synthesis solution to obtain a nanocrystalline zeolite colloidal suspension”). The resultant product is purified in a series of three steps consisting of centrifugation at a relative acceleration 1500g for 5 h, followed by removal of mother liquor and redispersion in distilled water under ultrasonication during 90 min, and then the procedure was repeated several times until pH of the suspension reached 7 (“concentrating the nanocrystalline zeolite colloidal suspension by centrifugation…”). The resultant zeolite suspension is then (a) centrifuged at a relative acceleration of 1500g for 24 h followed by drying at 298 K (24.85 °C) for 2 days to form monoliths built of closely packed nanocrystals or (b) dried at 323 K (49.85°C) for 2 days to form nanozeolite pellets built of closely packed nanocrystals (“drying…at less than 50°C…”). The monoliths and pellets are then calcined at 823 K (549.85 °C) for 5 hours (“removing organic template to obtain one or more substantially template-free zeolite bodies”). See Section 2 of Sashkina et al.
Sashkina et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of claim 34 regarding the formation of “one or more zeolite bodies having an envelope density of greater than about 0.7 g/cm3”, the formation of “one or more solid organic template-containing zeolite bodies having a maximum internal diameter of 0.1 mm to 50 mm”, and the step of “heating the one or more organic template-containing zeolite bodies to remove the organic template and obtain one or more substantially template-free zeolite bodies”.
However, given that the method disclosed in Sashkina et al. structurally reads upon the remaining limitations of claim 34 regarding the steps recited therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the method disclosed in Sashkina et al. to result in the formation of zeolite bodies having an envelope density comparable to that instantly claimed. Additionally, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the drying step disclosed in Sashkina et al. to result in the formation of organic template containing zeolite bodies having a comparable maximum internal diameter, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 33, 34, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (CN 109704335; Applicants’ submitted art).
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Tian et al. teach the preparation of a multi-level porous zeolite, wherein a colloidal solution is formed from sources of silicon, aluminum, tetrapropylammonium, polyacrylamide, and water (“mixing two or more zeolite precursors to form an organic template-containing synthesis solution”), followed by aging the colloidal solution at 10°C-35°C for 1-3 days, wherein the reaction temperature is controlled between 70-100°C (“heating the synthesis solution to obtain a nanocrystalline zeolite colloidal suspension”). The solution is crystallized for 2-7 days to obtain a nano-zeolite molecular sieve particle emulsion. The particle emulsion is centrifuged (“concentrating…by centrifugation…”), after which the nano-zeolite molecular sieve particles are dispersed in the aqueous phase to form an emulsion, to which starch is added under stirring conditions, followed by ultrasonication to form a sol. The sol is again dispersed, and dried by centrifugation or evaporation to form stacked nano-zeolite molecular sieve particles to form nano-zeolite aggregates. The nano-zeolite molecular sieve particles are dried at 50°C-90°C (“drying…to form one or more of said zeolite bodies”), and calcined at 500°C-580°C for 5-8 hours (“removing organic template to obtain one or more substantially template-free zeolite bodies”; “heating the one or more organic template-containing zeolite bodies to remove the organic template and obtain one or more substantially template-free zeolite bodies”). See paragraphs [0018]-[0023] of Tian et al.
Regarding claim 36, Tian et al. teach, as stated above, aging of the colloidal solution, followed by crystallizing the solution for 2-7 days under a controlled reaction temperature between 70-100°C; see paragraph [0020] of Tian et al. This teaching is considered to read upon the claim limitation "heating the solution to a temperature of from about 45°C to about 70°C for from about 2 to about 7 days", as recited in claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, Tian et al. teach, as stated above, drying of the molecular sieve particles at 50°C-90°C; see paragraph [0023] of Tian et al. While Tian et al. teach drying by evaporation and a drying temperature reading upon the claim limitation “about 50°C”, this reference does not explicitly teach or suggest a drying duration of “about 6 hours to about 5 days”, the skilled artisan would have motivated to determine through routine experimentation the optimal time of drying by evaporation, such as that recited in Applicants’ claim 37, to obtain nano-zeolite molecular sieve particles that are in optimal form for calcining.
Regarding claim 38, the method disclosed in Tian et al. is silent with respect to whether the drying of the molecular sieve particles “is not carried out under vacuum”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the conditions of the method disclosed in Tian et al. to include atmospheric pressure, thus reading upon the claim limitation “not carried out under vacuum”.
Regarding claim 39, Tian et al. teach tetrapropylammonium hydroxide, sodium aluminate, and ethyl orthosilicate (“tetraethyl orthosilicate”) as exemplary precursors. See paragraphs [0014]-0016] of Tian et al.
Regarding claim 40, it is noted that this claim is a product-by-process claim (“zeolite bodies manufactured according to the method of claim 34”). As such, it has been held that:
"Any difference imparted by the product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct, not the examiner to show that the same is a process of making." In re Brown, 173 U.S.P.Q. 685 and In re Fessmann, 180 U.S.P.Q. 324.
Tian et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the step of “drying…at less than 50°C”, as recited in claims 33 and 34. However, Tian et al., as stated above, teach drying temperatures of 50°C-90°C (paragraph [0023] of Tian et al.); the drying temperature of 50°C is considered close to Applicants’ “less than 50°C”. As such, it has been held that, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-32 and 41 are allowed.
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Neither Sashkina et al., Tian et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of claims 22-32 and 41, regarding mesoporous zeolite bodies having (a) a maximum internal diameter ranging from 0.25 mm to 50 mm or (b) an envelope density ranging from 0.7 g/cm3 to 1.8 g/cm3, or regarding wherein macropores comprise less than 10% of an envelope volume of the or each zeolite body.
For example, Sashkina et al. teach zeolite particles having a mean diameter of about 75 nm (0.000075 mm); see page 11420, in the section titled “Results and discussion”. Tian et al. teach molecular sieve particles exhibiting a particle size of less than 60 nm (0.00006 mm); see paragraph [0010] of Tian et al.
Neither Sashkina et al., Tian et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of claim 35, regarding the employment of an ion exchange method to transform the one or more substantially template-free zeolite bodies to ammonium form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bouvier et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0193586) provides technological background in the art of zeolite bodies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights