DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of t/e previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 5/19/2025 wherein claim 1 has been amended and claim 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12 and 14 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed 5/19/2025 overcome the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 and 12-14 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Mir (US 9394216), evidenced by Chen et al. (Chemical Communications, 2013, 49, 82, 9500-9502), in view of Malefyt et al. (US 2015/0366230). This rejection is withdrawn as the combination does not describe a composition narrowly enough to be construed as ‘consisting of’ and fail to teach polyacrylonitrile.
New Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12 and 141 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN107022899; translation provided) in view of Mir et al. (US 9394216; of record).
Wang describes porous metal organic framework (MOF) polymer composite materials for use in gas adsorption applications.
The metal(s) of the MOF include zinc ion, zirconium ion, aluminum ion, iron ion, ferrous and magnesium ion (see pages 3 and 11). It is known that aluminum ion is Al3+, magnesium ion is Mg2+, ferrous ion is Fe2+, zirconium ion is Zr4+, etc. (see instant claim 1).
Organic ligands of the MOF include terephthalic acid, 2, 5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid, 2-aminoterephthalic acid and trimesic acid (see pages 3 and 11) (see instant claim 1).
The polymer of the composite material includes polyacrylonitrile, polyurethane and polycarbonate. Polyacrylonitrile is preferred (see page 2) (see instant claim 1).
Wang’s material may be formed in to a fiber (see page 1) (see instant claim 14).
Wang’s examples describe various MOF polymer composite materials. For example, Example 4 describes a MOF/polymer composite material wherein the composite comprises a polymer, polyacrylonitrile, and a MOF, zinc terephthalate (see page 7). MPEP 2143(I)(E) states that it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding the topology of the MOF, upon the selection of a metal and ligands which overlaps with that claimed the result would be expected to possess the identified topologies. That is, if one of ordinary skill selected Mg2+ and 2,5-dihydroxyterephthalic acid, the resulting MOF would be expected to possess a bnn topology given the chemical composition of the MOF is the same as that claimed.
Examples 2 and 3 describes a MOF polymer material where the polymer is present in an amount of about 34% and 50%, respectively (accounting for only polymer and MOF metal substrate; math not shown). Moreover, the basic framework of the instant claims is described by the prior art and it would have been obvious to manipulate the ratio of polymer and MOF to best identify materials suitable for use in electronics and/or gas absorption (field of Wang’s invention). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding the invention being limited by ‘consisting of’ language, Wang’s teaching is sufficiently narrow that would readily envisage a MOF polymer material “consisting of” the MOF and the polymer. This is supported by the Examples of Wang all being composite of polymer and MOF.
Wang fails to teach the organic ligand:metal being in a mol ratio of 0.01 mol to 4.9.
Mir describes a porous metal coordination polymer network wherein the network is comprised of a metal such as Mg, Ca, Cu, Al, Zn, Fe, etc. coordinated with an organic ligand such as 2-methylimidazole, fumarate, terephthalate, etc. (see column 3, lines 61-63 and column 5, lines 40-45). Mir teaches that their metal coordination polymer network is made where the metal is present in an amount of 0.30 mmol (or 0.6) and the organic ligand is present in an amount of 0.03 mmol (or 0.6 mmol) (see column 9, lines 29-30 and 60-61) which yields a ligand to metal ratio of 0.03:0.30 (0.1:1) or 0.6:0.6 (1:1) which are both within the range set forth by instant claim 1. It would have been obvious to use such a ratio for the MOF of Wang with a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding the limitations set forth by instant claims 1, 4, 6, 12, e.g. “An antibacterial composition”, “... the composition ‘has a bacteriostatic rate for each of gram-negative bacteria, gram-positive bacteria and super bacteria of 99% more”, “... wherein the metal component forms a surface having an antibacterial activity value less than 2.0 as measured according to JISZ2801”, these limitations/properties are expected to be associated with obvious MOF materials. That is, because the claims MOFs are suggested by both Wang and Mir, the resulting materials would be expected, absent evidence otherwise, to exhibit the antibacterial properties claimed.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights