DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Phys. Chem. C 2015, 119, 8226-8237).
Claim 1: Lee teaches forming and thermally treating ZIF-8 by the exact same process steps as those disclosed in the instant specification. Compare Example 1 in the instant specification to the method of making sample ZIF8-M of Lee (Page 8227, right column, 3-4th paragraph; page 8228, paragraph bridging the two columns). Therefore, the ZIF8-M of Lee inherently assumes the structure as claimed.
Claim 3: Lee teaches carbon nanowire comprising nanoparticles of ZIF8-M which assumes the claimed structure. See Lee, Figure 1, sample ZIF8-M.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 20 and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al (‘‘Metal-organic frameworks with photocatalytic bactericidal activity for integrated air cleaning”, Nature communications, (2019)10-2177) in view of LEE et al.
Claim 20: Li teaches that photocatalytic MOF of ZIF8s are known photocatalytic antibiotic activity and can be incorporated in fabric material for disinfecting purpose (Li, abstract). LEE teaches MOFs of ZIF-8s which possess photocatalytic properties and show thermal stability (Lee abstract). In light of Lee’s teaching, the POSITA would have found it obvious that the thermally treated ZIF-8s of Lee are effective as MOFs for disinfecting purposes.
Claims 22-23: Li teaches ZIF-8 with Zn in the center is capable of photocatalytically killing and/or inactivating at least one of germs and microorganisms upon excitation by a light source (Li, Page 3, right column), and visible light has a wavelength of 300-750 nm, which meets the claimed range of below 800nm (Li, claim 22) and about 400-800 nm (Li, claim 23).
Claim 24: Li shows filter/mask comprising ZIF8s are capable of 99.99% reduction of Ecoli (Li, page 5, right column). Therefore, it is expected that the thermally treated ZIF8s of Lee are equivalently capable as the untreated ZIF-8s.
Claims 25-27: Lee teaches carbon nanowire comprising thermally treated ZIF-8s produced and heat-treated by the exactly same procedures as described in the Example 1 in the instant specification as discussed in claims 1 and 3 above; therefore, the thermally treated ZIF8s, in particular, ZIF8-M which is heat treated at 200C assume the same structure as claimed and the ZIF8s of Lee exhibit particle size of 20-200 nm. See Lee, Figure 1, sample ZIF8-M.
Claim 28: Li teaches making filters and masks comprising ZIF-8 nanoparticles (Li, page 5, left column, last paragraph and entire right column); the proportion of the fabric to the nanoparticles are exemplified in pages 6-8. Alternatively, the proportion effective for antibacterial activity would depend on the concentration of the ZIF8s as taught by Li and also would have been obvious through routine experimentation.
Claims 29-31: Li teaches exposing the filter/mask comprising ZIF-8s to light irradiation, which inherently has a wavelength of 300-750 nm, for over 30 minutes and effective to reduce 99.99% of E.coli (Li, Page 5, right column, and Pages 6-8).
Response to Arguments/Declaration under 37 FFR 1.132
Applying Shang Declaration (filed July 25, 2025) as support, Applicant alleges that “the base compound of the present invention, ZIF-8 is nanostructurally different from Lee’s ZIF-8-M” as the Shang Declaration shows “rough surface texture and nanosized voids (~1-3 nm), suggesting the presence of both micropores (<2 nm) and mesopores (~2-50 nm), and further micro-mesopores (i.e., lighter contrast regions) while “there is no observable mesopores (2-50 nm) under the resolution scale provided in the SEM of Lee’s ZIF-8-M (Fig. 1 of Lee)”. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. microporosity and mesoporosity of the claimed nanoparticles are not recited in the rejected claims. Furthermore, at the time the invention was filed, Applicant did not recognize the specific porosity of the nanoparticles as now presented in the arguments. Therefore, the features presented in the arguments cannot be read into the claims. As far as the Lee reference teaches a method of forming and thermally treating ZIF-8 by the exact same process steps as those disclosed in the instant specification (compare Example 1 in the instant specification to the method of making sample ZIF8-M of Lee (Page 8227, right column, 3-4th paragraph; page 8228, paragraph bridging the two columns)), the ZIF8-M of Lee inherently assumes the structure as explicitly claimed.
Applicant's arguments and Declaration filed July 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
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 HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788