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 .
Detailed Action
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/17/25 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of maleate as a species is also acknowledged.
Claims 9-21 and 23-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Written Description)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1176-77 (Fed. Cir. 2010). When there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP 2163. The instant specification does not provide possession of the compounds in sufficient detail falling into the genus maleate and terephthalates that are complexed with copper ions. For instance, as few examples, the prior art by Cooper et al. (WO 2006/104396A1) disclose triethylenetetramine maleate salts on page 5, line 13 which is not disclosed in the instant specification. Similarly, (WO 2005/100475A1) discloses polyalkylene terephthalate, and polytrimethylene terephthalate (page 12, line 17) which is not disclosed in the instant specification. Conversely, the specification discloses/reduces to practice only a limited number of species at (maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene, maleic anhydride-grafted polyethylene, poly[ethylene-alt-maleic anhydride], poly[propylene-alt-maleic anhydride], maleic acid-grafted polypropylene, maleic acid-grafted polyethylene, poly[ethylene-alt-maleic acid], or poly[propylene-alt-maleic acid]) as shown in [0044] and a terephthalate ethylene glycol ester or terephthalate propylene glycol ester in [0010] and these are not viewed as being reasonably representative of the entire genus in its claimed scope because no readily apparent combination of identifying characteristics is provided, other than the disclosure of those specific species as examples of the claimed genus. Accordingly, the specification does not appear to adequately describe the claimed genus and one skilled in the art cannot reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (CN108336307).
Feng et al. discloses a metal copper organic framework supporting sulfur material and application thereof, see title. Copper chloride is taught in claim 2, (Cu2+). Feng et al. teaches that the preparation method includes the steps of: a) adding dimethyl formamide and anhydrous ethanol to a mixture of copper salt and trimesic acid, heating the mixture from room temperature to 80-90 degree celsius and maintaining temperature for at least 20 hours, and filtering and drying the mixture to form the metal copper organic framework; b) uniformly mixing the metal copper organic framework with sulfur to obtain a solid powder; c) under an inert gas condition, heating the solid powder to 150-160 degree celsius and maintaining temperature for 10-12 hours, and naturally cooling the product to room temperature. In the method, the metal copper organic framework is produced through simple chemical synthesis, filtration and drying, see abstract.
The reference thus anticipates claims 1-2.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN106120015, EP translations attached and PE2E text translation attached).
Huang et al. teaches an antibacterial fibers with copper-based metal organic framework and method of preparations thereof, see title. The reference teaches antibacterial fibers with a copper-based metal organic framework (reads on the claimed MOF). The antibacterial fibers with the copper-based metal organic framework are prepared from 80-99.9% of polyester, 0.1-20% of a copper-based metal organic framework material and an antibacterial agent, wherein the antibacterial agent is at least one of a quaternary ammonium salt antibacterial agent of vitamin C at the mass percent concentration of 5-20% and a halogen amine antibacterial agent of vitamin C at the mass percent concentration of 5-20%, see (EP translation of abstract, [0009] to [0010], example 2, [0017] to [0018]). The polyester taught is polyethylene terephthalate or polypropylene terephthalate, (see [0019] and example 2 of EP translation).
In another embodiment, in claims 4-5 of the PE2E translation, disclosed is use of a polyester wherein the polyester is one of polyethylene glycol terephthalate (reads on the claimed terephthalate glycol ester, terephthalate ethylene glycol ester).
The reference thus anticipates claims 1-5.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinicker et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0060434).
Reinicker et al. teaches a method for manufacturing of a stabilized polyamide-containing composition, which contains at least 20% by weight of polyamide, which comprises the steps of incorporating of a metal organic framework, which is a copper-based metal organic framework comprising metal ions, which are copper(II)-ions, and a C6-C24 aromatic hydrocarbon, which is substituted with at least two carboxylate groups, wherein two of the at least two carboxylate groups are forming coordinative bonds to the metal ions, into a polyamide-containing composition, which contains at least 20% by weight of polyamide, to obtain a mixture for molding, which contains at least 20% by weight of polyamide; and heating of the obtained mixture for molding comprising the polyamide-containing composition and the metal organic framework to a temperature between 170°C and 380°C., see abstract, [0018] to [0025].
The reference thus anticipates claims 1-2.
Claims 1-2, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller et al. (US PG Pub. 2007/0227898).
Muller et al. teaches in Example 1 that a benzen-1,2,3,5-tetracarboxylic acid (terephthalic acid) is added to copper sulfate, and further grafted maleic anhydride is added and reacted at 90 degrees Celsius for 3 days to obtain a metal-organic framework composite material, and the above-mentioned metal-organic framework composite material is obtained by reacting copper ions with maleic acid and corresponds to the metal-organic framework (MOF) of the claimed invention. Example 3 in Muller et al. discloses the production of a copper-containing metal-organic framework (MOF) by electrolysis of copper electrodes in the presence of terephthalic acid and dimethyl maleate, (thus reading on the claimed copper ions complexed with maleate and terephthalate).
Therefore, claims 1-2, 6 and 8 are anticipated by the reference.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cantwell et al. (CANTWELL G. CARSON ET AL: "Synthesis and Structure Characterization of Copper Terephthalate Metal-Organic Frameworks", EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INORGANIC CHEMISTRY, vol. 2009, no. 16, 1 June 2009 (2009-06-01), pages 2338-2343, presented in IDS).
Cantwell et al. teaches copper terephthalate metal organic framework (MOF) wherein copper is Cu2+., see abstract.
The reference thus anticipates claims 1-3.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN110204767 A, presented in IDS and translation attached).
Zhang et al. discloses a process whereby a polypropylene non-woven fibre material is grafted with maleic anhydride and then contacted with a copper-containing metal organic framework (MOF) made by the reaction of copper(II) sulphate with a terephthalate in the form of 2-mercapto-terephthalic acid, see [0095] to [0097] and example 3.
Zhang et al. teaches polymer substrate, which is polypropylene substrate, see [0032] of the translation. The reference teaches that the preparation method involves a metal salt and an organic ligand is first dissolved to form a MOF (metal organic framework) reaction solution for reaction. A polymer substrate is immersed in the MOF for reaction. The organic ligand is a rigid conjugated compound with at least two carboxyl groups at both ends and a benzene ring in its main structure. The main
structure has modifying substituents selected from one or more of amino, hydroxyl, and thiol groups. The carboxyl groups at both ends of this type of compound enable the ligand to react with metal ions or metal clusters in the metal salt to form a MOF structure. Its benzene ring structure ensures the rigidity of the MOF structure, and its side-end modifying groups provide active groups for the MOF structure, thereby forming a specific MOFs film layer nanoporous material with a micro-nano composite structure in situ on the surface of the polymer substrate, see [0034] and [0044] of the translation. The metal ions taught is Cu2+, [0048], [ 0057] to [0058], [0059], [0062] and [0080-0081].
The reference thus anticipates claims 1-3, 6 and 8.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinicker et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0060434).
Reinicker et al. teaches a method for manufacturing of a stabilized polyamide-containing composition, which contains at least 20% by weight of polyamide, which comprises the steps of incorporating of a metal organic framework, which is a copper-based metal organic framework comprising metal ions, which are copper(II)-ions, and a C6-C24 aromatic hydrocarbon, which is substituted with at least two carboxylate groups, wherein two of the at least two carboxylate groups are forming coordinative bonds to the metal ions, into a polyamide-containing composition, which contains at least 20% by weight of polyamide, to obtain a mixture for molding, which contains at least 20% by weight of polyamide; and heating of the obtained mixture for molding comprising the polyamide-containing composition and the metal organic framework to a temperature between 170° C. and 380° C., see abstract, [0018] to [0025].
Reinicker et al. teaches that C6 to C24 aromatic hydrocarbon can be benzene-1,4 dicarboxylate (terephthalate), see [0029].
The prior art is not anticipatory because it involves picking and choosing of terephthalate amongst various other compounds. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have utilized the taught terephthalate which is a C6-C24 aromatic hydrocarbon in making a copper (II) metal ion organic frame work and come to the claimed invention. Thus, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results of making a metal organic framework comprising copper ions (II) and terephthalate, see MPEP 2143 part (I)(A).
Claims 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US PG Pub. 2007/0227898) in view of Um Yun et al. (KR 2016/0060979A, translation attached) and Tennant et al. (USP 2,465,319).
Muller et al. teaches in Example 1 that a benzen-1,2,3,5-tetracarboxylic acid (terephthalic acid) is added to copper sulfate, and further grafted maleic anhydride is added and reacted at 90 degrees celsius for 3 days to obtain a metal-organic framework composite material, and the above-mentioned metal-organic framework composite material is obtained by reacting copper ions with maleic acid and corresponds to the metal-organic framework (MOF) of the claimed invention. Example 3 in Muller et al. discloses the production of a copper-containing metal-organic framework (MOF) by electrolysis of copper electrodes in the presence of terephthalic acid and dimethyl maleate, see (Example 3). Muller et al. teaches sheets in [0028].
Muller et al. do not teach use of poly[propylene-alt-maleic acid].
Muller et al. also do not teach use of terephthalate glycol ester.
Um Yun et al. teaches polypropylene-graft-maleic acid resin and a method for producing a laminated sheet of a method for manufacturing polypropylene-graft-maleic acid resin and method for manufacturing multiple-layered sheet, see description of the translation, title and abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known polypropylene-graft-maleic acid in place of the polypropylene grafted maleic acid anhydride of Muller et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because both the references teach use of such in making a sheet. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have utilized the polypropylene grafted maleic acid to the copper organic framework of Muller et al. with an expectation of obtaining a similar metal-organic framework because Muller teaches metal-organic framework composite material is obtained by reacting copper ions with maleic acid anhydride. Combining prior art elements according to known methods would have provided predictable results of obtaining a copper metal organic framework comprising copper ions complexed with propylene-alt-maleic acid.
Muller et al. also do not teach use of terephthalate glycol ester.
Tennant et al. teaches polymeric linear terephthalic esters, see title. The reference teaches polymerized esters of terephthalic acid and glycols of the series HO(CH2)nOH, where n is an integer within the range of 2 to 10, see column 1, lines 40-46. The fibers are made by using these terephthalate esters, see column 1, lines 48-50. In columns 3-4, the reference teaches use of terephthalate polymeric ethylene glycol esters of terephthalic acid. The process of making filament is taught in column 14, lines 5-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known terephthalate ethylene glycol ester as taught by Tennant et al. into the metal organic framework of Muller et al. in place of terephthalic acid with an expectation of obtaining a similar metal-organic framework because Muller teaches metal-organic framework composite material is obtained by reacting copper ions with terephthalic acid. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have utilized the to the copper organic framework of Muller et al. with an expectation of obtaining a similar metal-organic framework because Muller teaches metal-organic framework composite material is obtained by reacting copper ions with terephthalic acid and making sheets out of it. Combining prior art elements according to known methods would have provided predictable results of obtaining a copper metal organic framework comprising copper ions complexed with terephthalate ethylene glycol ester used for making filaments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612