Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/828,646

METAL-ORGANIC FRAMEWORK ON GAS DIFFUSION ELECTRODE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 31, 2022
Examiner
KEELING, ALEXANDER W
Art Unit
1795
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
320 granted / 570 resolved
-8.9% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
626
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
53.2%
+13.2% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 570 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered. Status of Rejections All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claims 1 and 3-21 are 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. Claim 1: It is claimed that the metal-organic framework is contiguous with the top surface of a gas diffusion electrode layer, the hydrophobic layer, and that its upper surface is exposed. It is unclear how one layer can be contiguous with 2 different layers and also have its upper surface exposed as only two of those combinations is possible but not all 3. Claim 14: It is claimed that the metal-organic framework is contiguous with the top surface of a gas diffusion electrode layer, the hydrophobic layer, and that its upper surface is exposed. It is unclear how one layer can be contiguous with 2 different layers and also have its upper surface exposed as only two of those combinations is possible but not all 3.. Any claims dependent on the above claim is rejected for their dependence. Relevant Prior Art: Xing et al (“Enhancing carbon dioxide gas-diffusion electrolysis by creating a hydrophobic catalyst microenvironment”, Nature Communications, volume 12, Article number: 13, Jan 8 2021). Xing discloses an electrode (see e.g. page 9, col 1, paragraph starting with “In summary”) comprising: a gas diffusion electrode layer with a top surface and a bottom surface (see e.g. “AVCarb GDS2230” on Fig 2a); and a catalyst layer contiguous with the top surface (see e.g. “Catalyst layer” on Fig 2a); a hydrophobic layer that comprises of a hydrophobic polymer (see e.g. “MPL” on Fig 2a and page 3, col 1, paragraph starting with “Microenvironment”); a porous layer that is contiguous with the hydrophobic layer (see e.g. “CFP” on Fig 2a); and wherein the hydrophobic layer is disposed between, and contiguous with, both the porous layer and the metal-organic framework layer (polymer (see e.g. “MPL” on Fig 2a), the metal-organic framework layer having an upper surface that is exposed (see e.g. “Catalyst layer” on Fig 2a). The hydrophobic layer of Xing is an MPL, which is a commonly used type of layer in the art. MPLs comprising both a hydrophoboic polymer and carbon powder (see e.g. page 2, col 2, paragraph starting with “To”: “The MPL is composed of carbon powder and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) particles, which can maintain the separation of the liquid and gas phases to prevent flooding of the pores in the CFP”). Nguyen et al (“Gas diffusion electrode design for electrochemical carbon dioxide reduction”, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2020, 49, 7488--7504). Nguyen discloses an (see e.g. abstract) electrode comprising: a gas diffusion electrode layer with a top surface and a bottom surface (see e.g. “GDL” on Fig 6b); and a catalyst layer contiguous with the top surface (see e.g. “Catalyst” on Fig 6b); a hydrophobic layer that consists of a hydrophobic polymer (“The pure hydrophobic PTFE layer”, see e.g. page 7495, col 2) wherein the hydrophobic layer provides the top surface (see e.g. “PTFE” on Fig 6b); =a porous layer that is contiguous with the hydrophobic layer (“polypropylene backing layer” which would need to be porous so as to not block the gas diffusing through the hydrophobic layer, see e.g. page 7495, col 2). The configuration disclosed in Nguyen wherein the hydrophobic layer consists only of a hydrophobic polymer does not have a catalyst layer with an exposed surface (see e.g. Fig 6B). The configuration of Nguyen with an exposed surface for the catalyst comprises an MPL, the same as Xing. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 over Nguyen have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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. /ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2022
Application Filed
May 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 06, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 18, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12577689
CATHODE ELECTRODE, COMPOSITE OF CATHODE ELECTRODE AND SUBSTRATE, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING COMPOSITE OF CATHODE ELECTRODE AND SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577694
ALTERNATING CURRENT ELECTROLYSIS SYSTEM, AND METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571117
OPERATION SUPPORT METHOD, OPERATION SUPPORT DEVICE, OPERATION SUPPORT SYSTEM, AND OPERATION SUPPORT PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12559849
WATER SPLITTING CATALYST
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12534812
CATHODIC PROTECTION OF CONCRETE USING AN ANODE ATTACHED TO AN OUTER SURFACE.
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+38.8%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 570 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month