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
Claims 1-20 of J. T. Hupp, et al., US 18/035,876 (05/08/2023) are pending. Claim 9, 11 and 12-20 are withdrawn as drawn to the non-elected Groups or not read the elected species; claims 1-8 and 10 are under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-11), with traverse, in the reply filed on 12/17/2025. Claims 12-20 drawn to non-elected Groups II-III are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Pursuant to the election of species requirement, Applicant elected, without traverse, nu-1000 as the species chemical structure of a metal organic framework molecule, in the reply filed on 12/17/2025, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The elected species was searched and determined to be unpatentable as discussed in the 102 rejection below. The provisional species election requirement is in effect and claims 9 and 11 are withdrawn as not reading on the elected species.
Applicant’s Traversal
Applicant amended claim 12 and traversed the Restriction between Groups I-II on the ground that there is a common technical feature between the instant Groups I-II. This argument has been fully considered, while there is a common technical feature that is the MOF in claim 1 between Groups I-II, as detail discussed in the 102 rejection below that the MOF in claim 1 is anticipated by the prior art, therefore, the common technical feature (the MOF in claim 1) is not a special technical features, thus Group I-II still lacks unity of invention and the Restriction Requirement is proper and is made as Final.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. MPEP § 2111.01 (III).
Interpretation of Claim Term “linker unsaturated nodes”
The claim terms of “linker unsaturated nodes” is recited in the follows context:
A hydrated metal organic framework comprising:
a metal organic framework molecule having positively charged, linker unsaturated nodes and a net positive charge;
. . . .
The specification teaches that:
[0021] . . . . The coordination sites on the nodes may be saturated with organic linker connections. However, MOFs may also have nodes with coordination sites that are not coordinated to organic linkers. Such nodes, which are referred to herein as linker unsaturated nodes, may be coordinated to ligands at the unsaturated sites. These ligands may bind to a single node atom (e.g., metal atom) or may bridge metal atoms within a node.
Specification at page 4, [0021], emphasis added. Thus, The claim term of “linker unsaturated nodes” is interpreted according to the definition in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by P. Deria, et al. 6(9), Chemical science, 5172-5176 (2015)(“Deria”) evidenced with J. E. Mondloch, et al. 135.28, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 10294-10297 (2013)(“Mondloch”).
Deria studied the stability of MOF NU-1000 under water vapor conditions at various vapor partial pressures (or relative humidities, RH) using N2 as carrier gas at a constant total
pressure of 1 bar. Deria at page 5173, left col. Results and discussion, line 3-6.
Deria teaches that:
As can be seen in Fig. 2a, at RH z 70%, the mesoporous NU-1000 channels undergo capillary condensation and reach saturation with 1.14 mg mg-1 total uptake (corresponding to a water accessible pore volume of 1.14 cc g-1, where the N2 accessible pore volume ¼ 1.4 cc g-1).
PNG
media_image1.png
948
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Deria at page 5173, left col. Results and discussion, line 6-10 and Fig. 2 at right col.
Thus, Deria teaches a hydrated metal organic framework comprising a metal organic framework molecule that is NU-1000 and water contained within pores of the NU-1000.
Per Fig. 1a, Deria teaches that NU-1000 has a [Zr6(µ3-O)4(µ3-OH)4(-OH)4(-OH2)4]8+ nodes linked by tetra-carboxylate ligands TBAPy as indicated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
776
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Deria at page 5172, right col. paragraph 2, line 6-10 and Fig. 1 at page 5173, left col.
Therefore, NU-1000 has positively charged, linker unsaturated nodes.
Per supporting information, Deria teaches that his NU-1000 was synthesized according to the method taught by Mondloch. Deria at supporting information page S1, S1. Materials, line 5-6. The evidence from Mondloch indicates that NU-1000 was synthesized as follows:
Synthesis of NU-1000 in DEF. 70 mg of ZrCl4 (0.30 mmol) and 2700 mg (22 mmol) of benzoic acid were mixed in 8 mL of DEF (in a 6-dram vial) and ultrasonically dissolved. The clear solution was incubated in an oven at 80⁰C for 1h. After cooling down to room temperature 40 mg (0.06 mmol) of H4TBAPy was added to this solution and the mixture was sonicated for 20 min. The yellow suspension was heated in an oven at 120⁰C for 48 h. After cooling down to room temperature, yellow single crystals were present on the vial walls. The sample was washed with DMF and subsequently activated with HCl (see Section S5 below).
Synthesis of NU-1000 in DMF. 70 mg of ZrCl4 (0.30 mmol) and 2700 mg (22 mmol) of benzoic acid were mixed in 8 mL of DMF (in a 6-dram vial) and ultrasonically dissolved. The clear solution was incubated in an oven at 80⁰C for 1h. After cooling down to room temperature 40 mg (0.06 mmol) of H4TBAPy was added to this solution and the mixture was sonicated for 20 min. The yellow suspension was heated in an oven at 120⁰C for 48 h. After cooling down to room temperature, yellow polycrystalline material was isolated by filtration (35 mg of activated material, 54% yield) and washed with DMF and subsequently activated with HCl (see Section S5 below).
S5. Activation procedure for NU-1000.
As synthesized NU-1000 was activated using a slightly modified method previously reported by Feng et al..S1 Approximately 40 mg of solvated (“wet”) material was soaked in 12 ml of DMF and 0.5 ml of 8 M aqueous HCl was added. This mixture was heated in an oven at 100⁰C for 24 h. After cooling to room temperature, the solution was removed and the material was washed twice with DMF to remove HCl impurities. Subsequently the solid residue was washed twice with acetone and soaked in acetone for additional 12h. NU-1000 was filtered, briefly dried on a filter paper and activated at 120⁰C under vacuum for 12h on the preparation station of ASAP 2020 instrument. Shown below, the as synthesized NU-1000 sample was characterized by 1H NMR, N2 adsorption measurements, and DRIFTS. The data are consistent with the removal of benzoic acid from the Zr6 node and the incorporation of –OH groups.
See Mondloch supporting information S4-S5, emphasis added.
It should be noted that the Mondloch activation procedure for NU-1000 is substantially same as the method used for the preparation of Formate-free NU-1000 containing chloride (NU-1000-FF-Cl) in the working example of the specification. See specification at page 11, [0040]. Both of the methods are treating of 40 mg as synthesized NU-1000 with 0.5 ml 8 M aqueous HCl.
The specification teaches that when MOF is treated with strong acid such as HCl, “a net positive electrical charge may be imparted to a metal organic framework molecule that lacks a net positive electrical charge by reacting pre-existing ligands on the nodes with a salt such as HCl in an aqueous or non-aqueous solution, whereby the salt dissociates to form a cation that binds to the node and a charge compensating anion that remains unligated”. See specification at page 5-6, [0025]. Therefore, the Deria NU-1000 also comprises1:
(i). a net positive charge that is H+ and is imparted to the NU-1000 nodes; and
(ii). charge compensating anions that is Cl- and is unligated, which can be evidenced by the Mondloch MOF-1000 comprise 0.4% Cl.
See Mondloch supporting information S5, paragraph 2, Elemental analysis data.
To summarized, the Deria hydrated NU-1000 comprises:
(i).a metal organic framework molecule that is NU-1000 having positively charged, linker unsaturated nodes and a net positive charge (H+) that is imparted to the NU-1000;
(ii). water contained within pores of the metal organic framework molecule; and
(iii). charge compensating anions (Cl-) that are not bonded to the linker unsaturated nodes via coordination bonds and that have freedom of motion through the pores of the metal organic framework.
Which meets each and every limitation of claims 1-8 and 10, therefore, claims 1-8 and 10 are anticipated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). This is a procedural burden shifting. The requirement that the prior art necessarily teaches the alleged inherent (functional) element still remains. MPEP § 2112(IV). However, the burden is shifted to Applicant to demonstrate the alleged inherent element is not necessarily present in the cited prior art.