DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22-24, 93-97, in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 27, 29-31, 34, 39, 44, 50, 57, 61, 68, 70, 90, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/23/2025.
Response to Amendment
The supplemental amendment and reply filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered and the subsequent Office action below is responsive to both the Applicant’s first and supplemental replies.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 14, 19, 22, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016-020318 A to Kajiro et al. (hereinafter Kajiro) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 17, 93-96, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kharchenko et al., “Mixed-Ligand Complexes of Alkaline-Earth Metal Trifluoroacetates with Monoethanolamine,” Russian Journal of Coordination Chemistry, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 804-809 (2010). (hereinafter Kharchenko).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 17, 93-96, Kharchenko teaches mixed-ligand complexes of the formula [M(CF3COO)2(MEA)n], wherein MEA is monoethanolamine, M is Ca, Sr or Ba, (See abstract). Specifically, Kharchenko teaches a complex [Ba(CF3COO)2(MEA)(H2O)] (IIIb) which is a coordination polymer with a layered structure
PNG
media_image1.png
256
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 806-807 ). This meets the claimed layered metal coordination polymer, wherein Ba meets X and (CF3COO)2, meets the trifluoroacetic acid R1 organic linker. Kharchenko also teaches wherein the layers are united through pairs of hydrogen bonds (HBs) each involving the H of the amino group, the adjacent CH2 fragment of MEA, and the two F atoms of two trifluoroacetate ligands of an adjacent layer, (Fig. 3),
PNG
media_image2.png
382
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 807-808), which meets the claimed labile ions (hydrogen and F atoms), and the hydrogen bonding between the hydrogens from amino group, hydrogens from CH2, and F atoms from trifluoroacetate, meets the weak electrostatic interaction with the hydrogens and halogens (F atoms).
Regarding the properties of exfoliation and disassembly/reassembly, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for layered metal coordination polymer of Kharchenko to have the claimed properties of the claimed invention because Kharchenko teaches a substantially identical layered metal coordination polymer to the claimed invention such as the layered metal coordination polymer with hydrogen bonding as the weak electrostatic interaction between the layers, and the Applicant states in their specification that it is the weaker electrostatic interactions between the layers that allow for the exfoliation and disassembly/reassembly properties. (See para 188 of US publication. See MPEP 2112.01. (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)).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 19, 22, 93-96, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al., “Assembling supramolecular networks by halogen bonding in coordination polymers driven by 5-bromonicotinic acid,” Journal of Solid State Chemistry, vol. 213, pp. 256-267 (2014). (hereinafter Gu).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 19, 22, 93-96, Gu teaches a halogen bonded coordination polymer with 5-bromonicotinic acid (5-BrnicH). Specifically, the coordination polymer of {[Zn(5-Brnic)2]·H2O}n contains layers that are interconnected by various halogen bonding such as Br···O or Br···Br, and also by hydrogen bonding of N-H···O and C-H···O,
PNG
media_image3.png
710
1201
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(See Abstract and Fig. 1, page 259-260), which meets the weaker electrostatic interaction (i.e. hydrogen bonding and halogen bonding). The bromonicotinic acid meets the claimed organic linker, and Zn meets the claimed metal.
Regarding the properties of exfoliation and disassembly/reassembly, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for layered metal coordination polymer of Gu to have the claimed properties of the claimed invention because Gu teaches a substantially identical layered metal coordination polymer to the claimed invention such as the layered metal coordination polymer with halogen/hydrogen bonding as the weak electrostatic interaction between the layers, and the Applicant states in their specification that it is the weaker electrostatic interactions between the layers that allow for the exfoliation and disassembly/reassembly properties. (See para 188 of US publication. See MPEP 2112.01. (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)).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 19, 22, 93-96, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zang et al., “Halogen Bonding in the Assembly of Coordination Polymers Based on 5-Iodo-Isophthalic acid,” Crystal Growth & Design, vol. 11, pp. 3395-3405 (2011). (hereinafter Zang).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 14, 19, 22, 93-96, Zang teaches coordination polymers based on 5-iodo-isophthalic acid (5-iipa) and ancillary nitrogen ligands (phen=1,2—phenanthroline), namely [Zn2(5-iipa)2(phen)2)(H20)]n, wherein the structure contains layers that are untied through an interchain I···π interactions (See abstract). See Figure. 1, (page 3397).
PNG
media_image4.png
709
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. The above Figure 1 shows π···π between the two layers and meets the claimed van der Waals interaction. (i.e. weak electrostatic interaction). The above 5-iodo-isophthalic acid (5-iipa) meets the claimed organic linker and Zn meets the claimed metal ion.
Regarding the properties of exfoliation and disassembly/reassembly, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation for layered metal coordination polymer of Zang to have the claimed properties of the claimed invention because Zang teaches a substantially identical layered metal coordination polymer to the claimed invention such as the layered metal coordination polymer with halogen/hydrogen bonding as the weak electrostatic interaction between the layers, and the Applicant states in their specification that it is the weaker electrostatic interactions between the layers that allow for the exfoliation and disassembly/reassembly properties. (See para 188 of US publication. See MPEP 2112.01. (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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 are 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:
The closest prior art cited above does not teach metal coordination polymer with the formula Ce(TCA)2(OH)2·2H2O.
The next closest prior art is Mishra et al., “A molecular precursor approach to monodisperse scintillating CeF3 nanocrystals,” Dalton Transactions, vo. 42, pp. 12633-12643 (2013). (hereinafter Mishra). Mishra teaches a Ce-TFA adduct synthesized from reacting Ce-(OAc)3)(H2O)x with excess trifluoroacetic acid (TFAH) (page 12634). The Ce(m)TFA derivatives has the formula [Ce(TFA)3-(H2O)3]∞, or specifically [Ce(TFA)3-(DMF)2]∞, wherein the structures are one-dimensional. (page 12636).
Mishra does not teach the formula of claim 23 and does not teach the two layers.
The last closest prior art is Junk et al., “Structural Systematics of Rare Earth Complexes. XI (‘Maximally’) Hydrated Rare Earth (III) Trifluoro- and Trichloro-acetates,” Australian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 52, pp. 459-479 (1999), (hereinafter Junk).Junk teaches rare earth trifluoroacetate having the formula Ln(TFA)3.xH2O, wherein Ln=Ce and the adduct forms a two-dimensional polymer, with sheets parallel to the bc plane. (page 459). Junk specifically teaches a complex of Ce(TFA)3.(3H2O) (page 460), and Ce(TCA)3.3H2O (page 469 abd 477).
Junk does not teach the formula of claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
On page 8, the Applicant argues that Kharchenko does not teach any halogen-mediated weak electrostatic interactions between the two coordinated polymer layers. This is not persuasive because Kharchenko teaches in Fig. 3, that the layers are bonded through hydrogen bonding (HBs) by the hydrogens from the amino and CH2 fragments of the monoethanolamine (MEA) and the two fluorine atoms of the two fluoroacetate ligands of an adjacent layer. (See Fig. 3, page 807-808). It is unclear how these hydrogen bonds can be “intraframework” when Kharchenko states that they are “hydrogen bonds between layers,” in Fig. 3. Kharchenko teaches that each barium ion is in a coordinated polyhedron made of the trifluoroacetate and MEA, and that each layer is of the above barium ions united through the carboxylate ligand groups in a zig-zag fashion. (page 807). These adjacent layers are then united above and below to each other through hydrogen bonding. (See Fig 3).
On page 9, the Applicant argues Gu and/or Zang does not teach the claimed halogen-mediated weak electrostatic interactions between the two coordinated polymer layers and also does not teach the two-dimensional microstructure. This is not persuasive because, as cited above, both Gu and/or Zang teaches 2-D metal coordinated polymer layers and further teaches the 3-D perspective of these 2-D layers connected by halogen and/or hydrogen bonding through the halogen of the metal coordinated polymer of one layer with the halogen/hydrogen of the metal coordinated polymer of the adjacent layer. Furthermore, the Applicant’s arguments regarding 2D structures are unclear and confusing because the claims appears to be directed to a 3D structure of 2D-layers connected to each other above and below by the said weak electrostatic interactions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights