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
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 04/15/26, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claims 1-5 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, of record) and Tennant et al. (USP 2,465,319) and further in view of Lee et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0303891A1).
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 polypropylene-graft-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.
Lee et al. teaches use of a supramacromolecular complexes, by using polyethylene-graft-maleic acid and polypropylene-graft-maleic acid which are used for healing wounds, see title and [0065].
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 or polyethylene-graft-maleic acid in place of the polypropylene grafted maleic acid anhydride of Muller et al. as taught by Um Yun modified by Lee 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. Additionally, Lee teaches forming complexes with such polymers, polypropylene-graft-maleic acid or polyethylene-graft-maleic acid used for wound healing. 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 polypropylene-graft-maleic acid or polyethylene-graft-maleic acid, based on the guidance provided by Um Yun and Lee et al.
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.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new rejections made above necessitated by claim amendments.
Action is final
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights