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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 20 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7 are amended; claims 4 and 8 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-20 remain pending in the 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Choi (US 2018/0272288).
Regarding Claim 1, Stassen discloses a metal organic framework film on a substrate (a metal organic framework film on a substrate meets the limitation of a composite film framework comprising a support; claim 1, Fig. 4(c)), with a metal oxide layer (650) on the substrate (610); and partially converting said metal oxide into said metal organic framework (620) (partially converting said metal oxide into said metal organic framework appears to meet the limitation of a metal organic framework film on the metal oxide layer; claim 6, Fig. 4(c)). The present application states “In the degenerated layer, the metal organic framework of the metal organic framework thin film is configured using metal atoms constituting the metal oxide of the metal oxide layer”, per the specification [0043]. Stassen teaches the metal of the metal oxide layer is used to form the metal organic framework (claim 6), such that the metal oxide layer of Stassen would inherently have, on at least a surface layer portion thereof, a degenerated layer having a metal oxide of the metal oxide layer that was degenerated by a metal organic framework of the metal organic framework film.
Stassen is silent to an amine compound being supported on the metal organic framework film.
Shi discloses a MOFs-based carbon dioxide adsorbent, which uses MOFs as a carrier and loads organic amines to achieve the combined effects of physical adsorption and chemical adsorption, wherein the adsorbent has good adsorption capacity, high selectivity and cyclic stability for carbon dioxide [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Shi wherein an amine compound is supported on the metal organic framework film in order to improve the adsorption capacity, which is achieved by the combined effects of physical adsorption (by the metal organic framework) and chemical adsorption (by the amine), as recognized by Shi [0013].
Stassen is further silent to the porosity of the metal oxide layer.
Choi discloses a membrane comprising a support, with an Al2O3 layer (Al2O3 meets the limitation of a metal oxide layer) and ZIF-8 (ZIF-8 meets the limitation of a metal organic framework; [0043]), which appears to meet the limitation of a composite film framework comprising a support; a metal oxide layer on the support; and a metal organic framework film on the metal oxide layer. Choi further discloses the Al2O3 is porous [0058]. Choi further discloses a porous membrane increases stability against physical changes and has high thermal stability [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the metal oxide layer is a porous layer, because porosity increases stability, as recognized by Choi [0008], and providing porous metal oxides is a process parameter well-known in the art of composite film frameworks comprising a support, a metal oxide, and a metal organic framework, as recognized by Choi.
Regarding Claim 2, Stassen further discloses the metal organic framework film (620) is on a surface of the metal oxide (650) ([0122], Fig. 4(c)), which appears to meet the limitation wherein in the degenerated layer, the metal organic framework film is on a surface of the metal oxide.
Regarding Claim 3, Stassen discloses partially converting said metal oxide into said metal organic framework (claim 6), such that Stassen appears to meet the limitation wherein in the degenerated layer, the metal organic framework is configured using metal atoms constituting the metal oxide.
Regarding Claim 5, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is an azole-based organic ligand [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal organic framework includes an organic molecule, and the organic molecule is an azole-based organic molecule.
Regarding Claim 6, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is 2-methylimidazole [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the organic molecule comprises imidazole.
Regarding Claim 7, Stassen discloses a metal organic framework film on a substrate (a metal organic framework film on a substrate meets the limitation of a composite film framework comprising a support; claim 1, Fig. 4(d)), with a metal oxide layer (650) on the substrate (610); and partially converting said metal oxide into said metal organic framework (620) (claim 6, Fig. 4(c)). The present application states “the metal organic framework is configured while containing metal atoms constituting the metal oxide. As a result thereof, metal atoms are shared by both the metal oxide and the metal organic framework between the metal oxide and the metal organic framework (e.g., at the interface)”, per the specification [0043]. Stassen teaches the metal of the metal oxide layer is used to form the metal organic framework (claim 6), such that a metal atom would inherently be shared by a metal oxide in the metal oxide layer and a metal organic framework in the metal organic framework film at an interface between the metal oxide layer and the metal organic framework film.
Stassen is silent to an amine compound being supported on the metal organic framework film.
Shi discloses a MOFs-based carbon dioxide adsorbent, which uses MOFs as a carrier and loads organic amines to achieve the combined effects of physical adsorption and chemical adsorption, wherein the adsorbent has good adsorption capacity, high selectivity and cyclic stability for carbon dioxide [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Shi wherein an amine compound is supported on the metal organic framework film in order to improve the adsorption capacity, which is achieved by the combined effects of physical adsorption (by the metal organic framework) and chemical adsorption (by the amine), as recognized by Shi [0013].
Stassen is further silent to the porosity of the metal oxide layer.
Choi discloses a membrane comprising a support, with an Al2O3 layer (Al2O3 meets the limitation of a metal oxide layer) and ZIF-8 (ZIF-8 meets the limitation of a metal organic framework; [0043]), which appears to meet the limitation of a composite film framework comprising a support; a metal oxide layer on the support; and a metal organic framework film on the metal oxide layer. Choi further discloses the Al2O3 is porous [0058]. Choi further discloses a porous membrane increases stability against physical changes and has high thermal stability [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the metal oxide layer is a porous layer, because porosity increases stability, as recognized by Choi [0008], and providing porous metal oxides is a process parameter well-known in the art of composite film frameworks comprising a support, a metal oxide, and a metal organic framework, as recognized by Choi.
Regarding Claim 10, Stassen further discloses the metal oxide is zinc oxide (ZnO) [0041], or aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [0026].
Regarding Claim 11, Stassen discloses the metal oxide layer has a thickness of 2nm to 40 nm [0028], which is 0.002-0.04 µm.
Stassen does not teach a metal oxide layer with a thickness of 1-10 µm.
Choi discloses an 8 µm thick Al2O3 layer [0056], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal oxide layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the metal oxide layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm in order to provide a process parameter well-known in the art of composite film frameworks comprising a support, a metal oxide, and a metal organic framework, as recognized by Choi.
Regarding Claim 12, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is an azole-based organic ligand [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal organic framework includes an organic molecule, and the organic molecule is and azole-based organic molecule.
Regarding Claim 13, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is 2-methylimidazole [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the organic molecule comprises imidazole.
Regarding Claim 14, Stassen further discloses a metal organic framework film thickness of 1 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding the metal organic framework film thickness in claim 14, it appears that 1 nm to 250 nm taught by Stassen overlaps the claimed range of 10 nm to 100 nm such that the range taught by Stassen obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Bookbinder (US 2020/0095684).
Regarding Claim 9, Stassen, Shi, and Choi teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Stassen is silent to the porosity of the metal oxide layer.
Bookbinder discloses plating a substrate with a porous metal oxide layer [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Bookbinder wherein the metal oxide layer is a porous plating layer, because plating a substrate with a porous metal oxide layer is a process parameter well-known in the art of forming metal oxide layers, as recognized by Bookbinder.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Kim (US 2020/0309571).
Regarding Claim 15, Stassen, Shi, and Choi teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Stassen further discloses a metal organic framework film is suitable for coating sensors, and makes it suitable for integration with MEMS fabrication processes [0164].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas or odor sensor comprising the composite film framework.
Kim discloses selective growth of metal organic framework thin films on conductive metal oxides for gas sensor application [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Kim to form a gas sensor comprising the composite film framework, because Stassen recognizes the metal organic framework film is suitable for coating sensors [0164].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Kim (US 2020/0309571) and Yamada (US 6,495,105).
Regarding Claim 16, Stassen, Shi, Choi, and Kim teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 15.
Stassen teaches a silicon substrate (610) (Fig. 4(c)).
Stassen is silent to the support being a crystal oscillator or a piezoelectric ceramic.
Yamada discloses a gas sensor formed of an oscillator comprising a quartz crystal oscillator coated with a film which adsorbs selectively a specific gas (Col. 4, lines 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Yamada wherein the support is a crystal oscillator or a piezoelectric ceramic, because the use of a crystal oscillator as a support of gas sensors is a process parameter well-known in the art of gas sensors, as recognized by Yamada.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Buelow (US 2022/0219110).
Regarding Claim 17, Stassen, Shi, and Choi teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Stassen discloses metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework.
Buelow discloses a filter unit containing a gas adsorbent material [0018], wherein the gas adsorbent material can include at least one of a metal organic framework (MOF), an alkali metal oxide, an alkaline earth metal oxide [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Buelow to form a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework, because Stassen recognizes metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002], and filtration is a well-known separation technique. Further, the use of metal organic frameworks and metal oxides in a gas adsorption filter is a process parameter well-known in the art of gas adsorption filters, as recognized by Buelow.
Regarding Claim 18, Stassen discloses metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework.
Buelow further discloses the gas adsorbent is a CO2 adsorbent [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Buelow wherein the gas is a carbon dioxide gas, because Stassen recognizes metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002], and filtration is a well-known separation technique. Further, the use of an amine compound and a metal organic framework in a gas adsorption filter wherein the gas is carbon dioxide are process parameters well-known in the art of gas adsorption filters, as recognized by Buelow.
Regarding Claim 19, Stassen discloses metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework.
Buelow further discloses the amine functionalized polymer can have a molecular weight up to 50,000 [0058].
Regarding the amnio-group polymer average molecular weight in claim 19, it appears that up to 50,000 taught by Buelow overlaps the claimed range of 1,000 or more such that the range taught by Buelow obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Buelow wherein the amine compound is an amino group-containing polymer having an average molecular weight of 1000 or more, because Stassen recognizes metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002], and filtration is a well-known separation technique. Further, the use of an amnio-group polymer having a molecular weight of 1000 or more is a process parameter well-known in the art of gas adsorption filters, as recognized by Buelow.
Regarding Claim 20, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is an azole-based organic ligand [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal organic framework includes an organic molecule, and the organic molecule is and azole-based organic molecule.
Claims 7, 10-14 and 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Yang (CN 108918631) and Choi (US 2018/0272288).
In the alternative, regarding Claim 7, Stassen discloses a metal organic framework film on a substrate (a metal organic framework film on a substrate meets the limitation of a composite film framework comprising a support; claim 1, Fig. 4(d)), with a metal oxide layer (650) on the substrate (610); and partially converting said metal oxide into said metal organic framework (620) (claim 6, Fig. 4(c)).
Stassen is silent to an amine compound being supported on the metal organic framework film.
Shi discloses a MOFs-based carbon dioxide adsorbent, which uses MOFs as a carrier and loads organic amines to achieve the combined effects of physical adsorption and chemical adsorption, wherein the adsorbent has good adsorption capacity, high selectivity and cyclic stability for carbon dioxide [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Shi wherein an amine compound is supported on the metal organic framework film in order to improve the adsorption capacity, which is achieved by the combined effects of physical adsorption (by the metal organic framework) and chemical adsorption (by the amine), as recognized by Shi [0013].
Stassen is silent to a metal atom being shared by a metal oxide in the metal oxide layer and a metal organic framework in the metal organic framework film at an interface between the metal oxide layer and the metal organic framework film.
Yang discloses a preparation method of MOFs/ZnO composite (Abstract). Yang further discloses a ZnO nano-particle film layer on an alumina planar motor, then using an immersion ion exchange method to grow MOFs/ZnO composite gas-sensitive film on the growth substrate [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Yang to produce the composite film framework by immersing the metal oxide layer in a solution containing organic molecules constituting a target metal organic framework, as this method is well-known in the art of producing composite film frameworks, as recognized by Yang.
The present application states “The method for forming the metal organic framework thin film is not particularly limited, and specifically, the metal organic framework thin film may be a thin film of (m1) or (m2) formed by the following method. (m1) A thin film produced by immersing the metal oxide layer in a solution containing organic molecules constituting a target metal organic framework, or (m2) A thin film produced by immersing the metal oxide layer in a solution containing a target metal organic framework, drying the metal oxide layer, and then mixing an interface between the metal oxide and the metal organic framework by heat treatment”, per the specification [0115]-[0117].
Regarding Claim 7, the composite film framework product of Stassen in view of Yang is produced by a substantially similar process to that of the present application, such that the characteristics of the composite film framework product of Stassen in view of Yang are substantially similar to that of the present application, and therefore, the composite film framework product of Stassen in view of Yang meets the limitation wherein a metal atom is shared by a metal oxide in the metal oxide layer and a metal organic framework in the metal organic framework film at an interface between the metal oxide layer and the metal organic framework film.
Stassen is further silent to the porosity of the metal oxide layer.
Choi discloses a membrane comprising a support, with an Al2O3 layer (Al2O3 meets the limitation of a metal oxide layer) and ZIF-8 (ZIF-8 meets the limitation of a metal organic framework; [0043]), which appears to meet the limitation of a composite film framework comprising a support; a metal oxide layer on the support; and a metal organic framework film on the metal oxide layer. Choi further discloses the Al2O3 is porous [0058]. Choi further discloses a porous membrane increases stability against physical changes and has high thermal stability [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the metal oxide layer is a porous layer, because porosity increases stability, as recognized by Choi [0008], and providing porous metal oxides is a process parameter well-known in the art of composite film frameworks comprising a support, a metal oxide, and a metal organic framework, as recognized by Choi.
In the alternative, regarding Claim 1, if claim 1 requires, in the degenerated layer, a metal atom is shared by a metal oxide in the metal oxide layer and a metal organic framework in the metal organic framework film at an interface between the metal oxide layer and the metal organic framework film, this rejection is applied to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Stassen further discloses the metal organic framework film (620) is on a surface of the metal oxide (650) ([0122], Fig. 4(c)), which appears to meet the limitation wherein in the degenerated layer, the metal organic framework film is on a surface of the metal oxide.
Regarding Claim 3, Stassen discloses partially converting said metal oxide into said metal organic framework (claim 6), such that Stassen appears to meet the limitation wherein in the degenerated layer, the metal organic framework is configured using metal atoms constituting the metal oxide.
Regarding Claim 5, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is an azole-based organic ligand [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal organic framework includes an organic molecule, and the organic molecule is an azole-based organic molecule.
Regarding Claim 6, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is 2-methylimidazole [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the organic molecule comprises imidazole.
Regarding Claim 10, Stassen further discloses the metal oxide is zinc oxide (ZnO) [0041], or aluminum oxide (Al2O3) [0026].
Regarding Claim 11, Stassen discloses the metal oxide layer has a thickness of 2nm to 40 nm [0028], which is 0.002-0.04 µm.
Stassen does not teach a metal oxide layer with a thickness of 1-10 µm.
Choi discloses an 8 µm thick Al2O3 layer [0056], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal oxide layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the metal oxide layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 10 µm in order to provide a process parameter well-known in the art of composite film frameworks comprising a support, a metal oxide, and a metal organic framework, as recognized by Choi.
Regarding Claim 12, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is an azole-based organic ligand [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal organic framework includes an organic molecule, and the organic molecule is and azole-based organic molecule.
Regarding Claim 13, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is 2-methylimidazole [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the organic molecule comprises imidazole.
Regarding Claim 14, Stassen further discloses a metal organic framework film thickness of 1 nm to 250 nm.
Regarding the metal organic framework film thickness in claim 14, it appears that 1 nm to 250 nm taught by Stassen overlaps the claimed range of 10 nm to 100 nm such that the range taught by Stassen obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Yang (CN 108918631) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Bookbinder (US 2020/0095684).
Regarding Claim 9, Stassen, Shi, Yang, and Choi teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Stassen is silent to the porosity of the metal oxide layer.
Bookbinder discloses plating a substrate with a porous metal oxide layer [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Bookbinder wherein the metal oxide layer is a porous plating layer, because plating a substrate with a porous metal oxide layer is a process parameter well-known in the art of forming metal oxide layers, as recognized by Bookbinder.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Yang (CN 108918631) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Kim (US 2020/0309571).
Regarding Claim 15, Stassen, Shi, Yang, and Choi teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Stassen further discloses a metal organic framework film is suitable for coating sensors, and makes it suitable for integration with MEMS fabrication processes [0164].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas or odor sensor comprising the composite film framework.
Kim discloses selective growth of metal organic framework thin films on conductive metal oxides for gas sensor application [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Kim to form a gas sensor comprising the composite film framework, because Stassen recognizes the metal organic framework film is suitable for coating sensors [0164].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Yang (CN 108918631) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Kim (US 2020/0309571) and Yamada (US 6,495,105).
Regarding Claim 16, Stassen, Shi, Yang, Choi, and Kim teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 15.
Stassen teaches a silicon substrate (610) (Fig. 4(c)).
Stassen is silent to the support being a crystal oscillator or a piezoelectric ceramic.
Yamada discloses a gas sensor formed of an oscillator comprising a quartz crystal oscillator coated with a film which adsorbs selectively a specific gas (Col. 4, lines 8-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Yamada wherein the support is a crystal oscillator or a piezoelectric ceramic, because the use of a crystal oscillator as a support of gas sensors is a process parameter well-known in the art of gas sensors, as recognized by Yamada.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen (US 2017/0198393) in view of Shi (CN 104056598) and Yang (CN 108918631) and Choi (US 2018/0272288) and Buelow (US 2022/0219110).
Regarding Claim 17, Stassen, Shi, Yang, and Choi teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 7.
Stassen discloses metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework.
Buelow discloses a filter unit containing a gas adsorbent material [0018], wherein the gas adsorbent material can include at least one of a metal organic framework (MOF), an alkali metal oxide, an alkaline earth metal oxide [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Buelow to form a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework, because Stassen recognizes metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002], and filtration is a well-known separation technique. Further, the use of metal organic frameworks and metal oxides in a gas adsorption filter is a process parameter well-known in the art of gas adsorption filters, as recognized by Buelow.
Regarding Claim 18, Stassen discloses metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework.
Buelow further discloses a CO2 adsorbent [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Buelow wherein the gas is a carbon dioxide gas, because Stassen recognizes metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002], and filtration is a well-known separation technique. Further, the use of an amine compound and a metal organic framework in a gas adsorption filter wherein the gas is carbon dioxide are process parameters well-known in the art of gas adsorption filters, as recognized by Buelow.
Regarding Claim 19, Stassen discloses metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002].
Stassen is silent to forming a gas adsorption filter comprising the composite film framework.
Buelow further discloses the amine functionalized polymer can have a molecular weight up to 50,000 [0058].
Regarding the amnio-group polymer average molecular weight in claim 19, it appears that up to 50,000 taught by Buelow overlaps the claimed range of 1,000 or more such that the range taught by Buelow obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stassen to incorporate the teachings of Buelow wherein the amine compound is an amino group-containing polymer having an average molecular weight of 1000 or more, because Stassen recognizes metal organic frameworks have received great interest in the last couple of years in the field of separations [0002], and filtration is a well-known separation technique. Further, the use of an amnio-group polymer having a molecular weight of 1000 or more is a process parameter well-known in the art of gas adsorption filters, as recognized by Buelow.
Regarding Claim 20, Stassen further discloses the organic ligand for producing a metal organic framework film [0038] is an azole-based organic ligand [0047], which appears to meet the limitation wherein the metal organic framework includes an organic molecule, and the organic molecule is and azole-based organic molecule.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Stassen's metal oxide film cannot be interchanged with a porous material layer, because Stassen uses atomic layer deposition (ALD) for deposition of the oxide layer, and ALD cannot form a porous metal oxide film. Further, ALD is important for controlling thickness. Forming a porous metal oxide film would necessitate the use of deposition methods other than ALD, which would not easily allow the forming of the metal oxide film at the thickness required by Stassen. (“Remarks”, pg. 6, par. 4-pg. 7, par.1).
However, the use of ALD for deposition of the metal oxide layer is a preferred embodiment in Stassen (See [0023]). Stassen discloses the metal oxide on the substrate can, alternatively, be deposited by sputtering, physical vapour deposition (PVD), electrochemical deposition or thermal oxidation of the metal [0137]. The alternative deposition methods of Stassen do not appear to teach away from forming a porous metal oxide layer at the thickness required by Stassen as well as the claimed thickness. Preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123 (II).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights