DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14-30 were subject to a restriction requirement in the Office Action mailed 7/14/2026
Applicant filed a response, elected claims 14-16 and 21-23 with traverse and amended claim 30 on 8/26/2026
Claims 14-30 are pending, of claims 17-20 and 24-30 are withdrawn
Claims 14-16 and 21-23 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 14-16 and 21-23 in the reply filed on 8/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
Applicant notes the claims 17 - 20 in Group II correspond to the as-synthesized zeolite (structure directing agent in pores) that becomes the as-calcined zeolite described in claims 14 - 16 and 21 - 23 after calcination. In view of the USPTO stance of avoiding situations where substantially the same subject matter is covered by separate patents, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 17 - 20 in Group II should be examined at the same time as claims 14 - 16 and 21 - 23 in Group I.
Remarks, p. 9
This is not found persuasive because:
Groups I-IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an aluminosilicate zeolite, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Xu et al., Efficient Synthesis of aluminosilicate RTH zeolite with good catalytic performances in NH3- SCR and MTO reactions (Xu).
Xu teaches the synthesis of RTH aluminosilicate zeolite (Xu, Abstract)
Therefore, since the limitations fail to define a contribution over Xu, they failed to constitute a special technical feature and hence there is lack of unity between the cited claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
4. Claims 17-20, 24-29, and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 8/26/2026.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
6. Regarding claims 14-15, in order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the peaks” to “the following relative intensities measured at degree 2-theta” in Claim 14, line 2 and Claim 15, line 2.
7. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to insert “.” after the table in Claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
8. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “SiO2” to “SiO2” in Claim 16, line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 21 is 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.
11. Claim 21 recites the term, “the tetrahedral (T) atoms” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets this phrase as “tetrahedral (T) atoms in the aluminosilicate zeolite”. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
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.
13. Claims 14-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., Synthesis of reaction-adapted zeolites as methanol-to-olefins catalysts with mimics of reaction intermediates as organic structure-directing agents (Li) in view of Morimoto et al. (US 4578259 A) (Morimoto).
14. Regarding claims 14 and 15, Li teaches reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts (Li, Title) and their synthesis (Li, Abstract) wherein the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts are silicoaluminates (i.e. an aluminosilicate zeolite) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein a general synthesis procedure for silicoluminate materials (i.e. aluminosilicate zeolite) includes an aqueous solution (i.e. a synthesis mixture) of an organic template (OSDA) (i.e. a structure directing agent) in hydroxide was first mixed with the proper amount of water (i.e. synthesis mixture comprising water), and sodium hydroxide (i.e. a source of hydroxide ions) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein a required amount of aluminum hydroxide (i.e. a source of alumina) and the required amount of Ludox HS-40 (i.e. silica source) were added to the aqueous solution (i.e. a synthesis mixture) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein the general synthesis procedure for silicoluminate materials (i.e. aluminosilicate zeolite) is performed using one of above OSDA molecules (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein an example of the above OSDA molecules is 1,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridin-1-ium (OSDA6) (i.e. n = 3 and N,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridinium) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 2).
Given that Li discloses the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts that overlaps the presently claimed aluminosilicate zeolite, including 1,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridin-1-ium (OSDA6), it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts with 1,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridin-1-ium (OSDA6), which is both disclosed by Li and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Li further teaches a final gel composition would be SiO2 / 0.016-0.066 Al2O3 / 0.2-0.4 OSDA / 0-0.1 Na2O / 3-15 H2O (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein the gel heated to 175°C in static condition for 14 days for crystallization (i.e. heated for a time sufficient to form crystals of an aluminosilicate zeolite) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein after crystallization, crystalline products (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5) were filtered and washed with abundant distilled water and dried at 100°C overnight (i.e. recovering at least a portion of the aluminosilicate zeolite) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein the dried crystalline products were calcined at 550 °C in air for 6 hours to properly remove the occluded organic templates (i.e. treating the aluminosilicate zeolite to remove at least part of the structure directing agent) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5).
However, Li does not further teach preparing a synthesis mixture comprising a source of potassium.
With respect to the difference, Morimoto teaches crystalline aluminosilicates and their production (Morimoto, Abstract);
wherein a composition is represented by a general formula pM2/nOAl2O3SiO2
wherein the crystalline aluminosilicates are produced by reacting an aqueous mixture containing (a) a silica source, (b) an alumina source, (c) an alkali metal source, and (d) a pyridine derivative as crystallization agents (i.e. structure directing agent) (Morimoto, column 2, lines 57-64).
Morimoto further teaches a hydrothermal reaction the aqueous mixture is heated under such conditions, temperature and time of 80 to 300 °C, as to form the crystalline aluminosilicate (i.e. heated for a time sufficient to form crystals of an aluminosilicate zeolite) (Morimoto, column 4, lines 4-6);
wherein after the hydrothermal reaction is completed, reaction mass is washed with water, dried at about 120 °C (i.e. recovering at least a portion of the aluminosilicate zeolite) (Morimoto, column 4, lines 25-26);
wherein the reaction mass is further calcined in air at 550 °C. to obtain a ISI-6 crystalline aluminosilicate (Morimoto, column 4, lines 26-27)
wherein examples of the alkali metal source in the aqueous mixture include sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (i.e. a source of potassium and a source of hydroxide ions) (Morimoto, column 3, lines 14-16).
In light of the disclosure of Morimoto of the equivalence and interchangeability of using sodium hydroxide (i.e. a source of hydroxide) as a source of alkali metal as disclosed in Li, with potassium hydroxide as a source of alkali metal (i.e. a source of hydroxide ions and source of potassium) with potassium hydroxide as a source of alkali metal as presently claimed, it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use potassium hydroxide as a source of alkali metal in Li, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Li and Morimoto are analogous art as they are all drawn to aluminosilicate zeolites.
Given the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts in Li in view of Morimoto is formed by the raw materials (Spec, [0047], Spec, [0048], Spec, [0049], and Spec, [0052]) and method of making (Spec, [0046] and Spec, [0100]) the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts are substantially identical to the materials and method of forming an aluminosilicate zeolite used in the present invention (Spec, [0046] and Spec, [0100]), it is clear that the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts in Li in view of Morimoto would inherently meet the X-ray diffraction pattern, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
15. Regarding claim 16, Li further teaches the final gel composition would be SiO2 / 0.016-0.066 Al2O3 / 0.2-0.4 OSDA / 0-0.1 Na2O / 3-15 H2O (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein the gel is heated for crystallization (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein the dried crystalline products were calcined at 550 °C in air for 6 hours to remove the occluded organic templates (i.e. no OSDA after calcination) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5);
wherein calcination also removes water from the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts (i.e. no H2O after calcination) (Li, Abstract);
wherein the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts after calcination (i.e. removal of OSDA and H2O) has a formula of SiO2 / 0.016-0.066 Al2O3 / 0-0.1 Na2O (i.e. 0.016 < m 0.066) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
17. Regarding claim 21, given the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts, namely an aqueous solution (i.e. a synthesis mixture) of an organic template (OSDA) (i.e. a structure directing agent) in hydroxide mixed with the proper amount of water (i.e. synthesis mixture comprising water), sodium hydroxide (i.e. a source of hydroxide ions), a required amount of aluminum hydroxide (i.e. a source of alumina), a required amount of Ludox HS-40 (i.e. silica source) were added to the aqueous solution (i.e. a synthesis mixture) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5), wherein the OSDA molecule is 1,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridin-1-ium (OSDA6) (i.e. n = 3 and N,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridinium) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 2), and an alkali metal source in the aqueous mixture include sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (i.e. a source of potassium and a source of hydroxide ions) (Morimoto, column 3, lines 14-16), are substantially identical to the materials (Spec, [0047], Spec, [0048], Spec, [0049], and Spec, [0052]) and method of forming an aluminosilicate zeolite used in the present invention (Spec, [0046] and Spec, [0100]), it is clear that the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts in Li in view of Morimoto would inherently meet the framework defined by the connectivities in Table 3 for the tetrahedral (T) atoms in the unit cell pattern, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
18. Regarding claim 22, given the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts in Li in view of Morimoto is formed by the raw materials and method of making the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts, namely an aqueous solution (i.e. a synthesis mixture) of an organic template (OSDA) (i.e. a structure directing agent) in hydroxide mixed with the proper amount of water (i.e. synthesis mixture comprising water), sodium hydroxide (i.e. a source of hydroxide ions), a required amount of aluminum hydroxide (i.e. a source of alumina), a required amount of Ludox HS-40 (i.e. silica source) were added to the aqueous solution (i.e. a synthesis mixture) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 5), wherein the OSDA molecule is 1,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridin-1-ium (OSDA6) (i.e. n = 3 and N,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridinium) (Li, p. 553, left column, paragraph 2), and an alkali metal source in the aqueous mixture include sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide (i.e. a source of potassium and a source of hydroxide ions) (Morimoto, column 3, lines 14-16), are substantially identical to the materials (Spec, [0047], Spec, [0048], Spec, [0049], and Spec, [0052]) and method of forming an aluminosilicate zeolite used in the present invention (Spec, [0046] and Spec, [0100]), having a structure that has (a) an orthorhombic space group Pmma with unit cell dimensions a= 22.1 ±0.20 Å, b = 7.4 ± 0.20 Å, and c = 11.8 ± 0.20 Å, and (b) a 10 x 8 x 8 channel system, wherein the 10-ring pores along the c-axis have dimensions of 5.2 ± 0.20 Å by 4.9 ± 0.20 Å, the 8-ring pores along the c-axis have dimensions of 4.7 ± 0.20 Å by 3.1 ± 0.20 Å, and a separate 8-ring pore within the x-z plane has dimensions of 4.7 ± 0.20 Å by 3.1 ± 0.20 Å.
19. Claims 14, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20080107594 A1) (Cao) in view of Iwami et al., Location of Alkali Ions and their Relevance to Crystallization of Low Silica X Zeolite (Iwama).
20. Regarding claim 14, Cao teaches porous crystalline material ITQ-12 (Cao, Abstract) in aluminosilicate form (Cao, [0035]);
wherein a process for synthesizing the porous crystalline material ITQ-12 (Cao, Abstract) includes a reaction mixture that contains sources of water, an oxide with a trivalent aluminum (i.e. a source of alumina) an oxide of tetravalent silicon (i.e. a source of silica), an organic directing agent (R) (i.e. a structure directing agent (Q)) (Cao, [0028]);
wherein the organic directing agent (R) has the general formula (Cao, [0027]), see Annotated Cao Structure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
95
182
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Cao Structure
Cao further teaches n is an integer from 1 to 3 and Q- is an anion (Cao, [0013]) such as hydroxide in 1,2,4,6-tetramethylpyridinium hydroxide (i.e. a source of hydroxide ions and a tetramethyl pyridinium cation) (Cao, Claim 6);
wherein the reaction mixture under conditions sufficient to form crystals of said crystalline material (Cao, [0014]) at a temperature of about 150 to about 200 °C for a time sufficient for crystallization (i.e. heated for a time sufficient to form crystals of an aluminosilicate zeolite) (Cao, [0031]);
wherein after crystallization, crystals are separated from the liquid and recovered (i.e. recovering at least a portion of the aluminosilicate zeolite) (Cao, [0031]) to produce a crystalline material (Cao, [0034]);
wherein the crystalline material produced is subjected to treatment to remove part or all of the organic directing agent (i.e. treating the aluminosilicate zeolite to remove at least part of the structure directing agent) at a temperature of at least about 370 °C for at least 1 minute and generally not longer than 40 hours (Cao, [0034]).
However, Cao does not further teach preparing a synthesis mixture comprising a source of potassium.
With respect to the difference, Iwama teaches a Low Silica X (LSX) and Zeolite A and a method of intermediate addition of alkali ions in formation of Zeolite A (Iwama, Abstract);
wherein LSX and Zeolite A were synthesized by mixing sodium hydroxide (i.e. a source of hydroxide ions), potassium bromide (i.e. a source of potassium), aluminum hydroxide (i.e. a source of alumina), distilled water, and after mixing sodium silicate (i.e. a source of silica) was added (Iwama, p. 3472, right column, paragraph 2)
wherein potassium bromide (i.e. a source of potassium) was added as hydrated potassium ions that function to assemble aluminosilicate precursors to form LSX (Iwama, Abstract)
Iwama expressly teaches intermediate addition of potassium ion into crystallizing media controlling the final precipitating crystalline phase (Iwama, Abstract)
wherein hydrated potassium ions have a great influence on the assembly of aluminosilicate precursors in precipitated hydrogel phase derived from the stronger salting-out effect (Iwama, p. 3479, left column, Conclusions).
Cao and Iwama are analogous art as they are all drawn to aluminosilicate zeolites.
In light of the motivation for intermediate addition of potassium ion into crystallizing media controls the final precipitating crystalline phase kinetically as disclosed by Iwama, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include potassium bromide (i.e. a source of potassium) as hydrated potassium ions that function to assemble aluminosilicate precursors in the porous crystalline material ITQ-12 (Cao, Abstract) in aluminosilicate form of Cao, in order to achieve influence on the assembly of aluminosilicate precursors in precipitated hydrogel phase derived from the stronger salting-out effect, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts in Cao in view of Iwama is formed by the raw materials (Spec, [0047], Spec, [0048], Spec, [0049], and Spec, [0052]) and method of making the porous crystalline material ITQ-12 are substantially identical to the materials and method of forming an aluminosilicate zeolite used in the present invention (Spec, [0046] and Spec, [0100]), it is clear that the reaction-adapted zeolite catalysts in Li in view of Morimoto would inherently meet the X-ray diffraction pattern, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
21. Regarding claim 16, Cao further teaches it its calcined form, the aluminosilicate ITQ-12 generally has a composition involving the molar relationship (m)X2O3:YO2, wherein X is aluminum and Y is silicon (Cao, [0025])
wherein m is from about 0 to about 0.2 (i.e. 0 < m < ~0.2) (Cao, [0025]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
22. Regarding claim 23, Cao further teaches the aluminosilicate ITQ-12 generally has a composition involving the molar relationship (m)X2O3:YO2, wherein X is aluminum and Y is silicon (Cao, [0025]);
wherein m is from about 0 to about 0.2 (i.e. 0 < m < ~0.2) (Cao, [0025]);
wherein the Si/Al molar ratio is 5 (i.e. 1 SiO2 / 0.2 Al2O3) to ∞ (i.e. 1 SiO2 / 0.0 Al2O3), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 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 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights