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 A. Singh et al., US 18/042,169 (Aug. 24, 2021) are pending . Claims 1 17, to non-elected inventions of Groups (I) to (V), are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). Claims 18-20 are under examination on the merits. Claim s 19 and 20 are rejected. Claim 18 is in condition for allowance, subject to the specification objections. Election/Restrictions Applicant elected Group (V I ), claims 18-20 , drawn to drawn to an automated apparatus for producing diazomethane of Formula I (CH 2 N 2 ), by way of the Supplemental Reply filed on February 27, 2026. Claims 1-17 , to non-elected inventions of Groups ( I ) to (V), are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). The restriction/election requirement is made FINAL . Applicant’s Traversal Applicant argues that the Groups are technically linked by a single inventive feature, i.e., a process for producing and quenching diazomethane of Formula 1 (CH 2 N 2 ), which is novel and inventive and thus, searching all claim groups together places no additional burden on the Examiner. This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. As discussed b elow , claims 18-20 were found free of the art in view of the claim 18 limitation of “a solid MOF quencher configured to degrade unused diazomethane”. This limitation is not required by Groups (I)-(VI). Elected Group (VI) does not have a special technical feature in common with withdrawn Groups (I)-(V) and therefore unity of invention is lacking. Furthermore, R. Maurya et al., Angewandte Chemi, International Edition, 5952-5955 (2011) (“Maurya”) clearly teaches each and every limitation of claim 1 ( claim 1 is a linking claim linking Groups (I)-(V)) . Maurya was discussed in detail below as the closest art of record to c laim 18 . In Table S2, Maurya teaches optimization of reaction conditions for in-situ generation, separation, and reaction of diazomethane with benzoic acid to give the methylated ester in PVSZ coated dual-channel microreactor, where dimethylformamide is the solvent. Maurya page S8 (Table S2). Here, Maurya teaches that KOH and Diazald were injected into bottom channel at a flow rate of 4 μL/min, and benzoic acid into upper channel at a flow rate of 4 μL/min. Maurya page S8 (Table S2). In Table S2 Entry 6, the Diazald concentration ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 M and the KOH concentration ranges from was 0.5 M to 2 M, which concentrations were considered optimized because there was not clogging in the microreactor channels. Maurya page S8 (Table S2). As discussed below, Maurya clearly teaches each and every limitation of claim 1. Furthermore, elected Group (VI) is directed to a separat e inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 than any of Groups (I)-(V) because the Group (VI) apparatus is not considered ‘specifically designed for carrying out’ the Group (I) process. That is, the Group (VI) apparatus’s contribution over the prior art is the limitation of “a solid MOF quencher configured to degrade unused diazomethane”, which limitation is not required by any of Groups (I)-(V). And the only common technical features between Group (VI) and any of Groups (I)-(V) are “a capillary micro reactor” and “a continuous flow micro-separator”. Both of these common technical features are found in R. Maurya et al., Angewandte Chemi, International Edition, 5952-5955 (2011) (“Maurya”) with respect to diazomethane generation and reactions. See, Maurya at page 5953, Figure 1. Applicant’s argument respecting search burden is not persuasive because the instant restriction was issued under the unity-of-invention rules governing restriction in international applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 (see MPEP § 802; MPEP § 1893.03(d); 37 CFR § 1.499), therefore MPEP 803 cited by Applicant does not apply in the instant case . Under the applicable PCT rules there is no requirement of a serious search burden . The instant Application is an international application entering the National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. Under the rules governing multiple inventions under 35 U.S.C. 371 (see MPEP § 1893.03(d)), an international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (Rule 13.1). International Preliminary Examination Under Chapter II Of The PCT , Chapter 10, Unity of Invention , (Oct. 3, 2011). As such, in the instant case, there is no requirement that the Examiner prove or show a serious search burden . Objections to the Specification Statute 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are as follows . Objection to Specification First Grounds The specification is objected to because the specification ’ s statement of “ BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS ” does not correspond to the referenced Figures. MPEP § 608.01(f). The following inconsistencies are noted. The specification states: Figure 6 represents powder XRD analysis of the pristine HKUST and one-hour diazo-methane treated HKUST. Specification at page 5, lines 16-17. However, Figure 6 does not appear to correspond to the specification’s description. Rather, the specification statement of “Figure 7 describing the contact angle of the treated and untreated HKUST moiety and result shows that the contact angle has been increased to 125 in formula 13g”, appears to correspond to Figure 6. Specification at page 11, lines 26-27. The specification states: Figure 7 represents hydrophobicity analysis of the pristine HKUST and one-hour diazo-methane treated HKUST. Specification at page 5, lines 17-18. However, Figure 7 clearly does not correspond to the specification’s description. The specification states: Figure 8 represents color change experiment of the HKUST-coated cotton and one-hour diazomethane exposed HKUST. Specification at page 5, lines 20-21. However, Figure 8 clearly does not correspond to the specification’s description. The specification states: Figure 10 represents ATR-IR analysis of the UiO-66 and varied time diazo-methane treated UiO 66-60M. Specification at page 5, lines 24-25. However, Figure 10 clearly does not correspond to the specification’s description. Rather, Figure 10 appears to be directed to the MOF MIL-101-Cr. The specification states: Figure 11 represents ATR-IR analysis of the pristine MIL-101-Cr and varied time diazomethane treated MIL-101-Cr-60M Specification at page 5, lines 26-27. However, Figure 11 clearly does not correspond to the specification’s description. Objection to Specification Second Grounds The specification further improperly discusses and / or improperly references figures in multiple other portions. For example, the specification states that: Figure 2 is an illustration of a schematic integrated continuous flow total process system for the production of formula 5-13. The diazo-pen total process system consists of the components viz. synthesis, quenching, extraction, liquid-liquid micro-separator to continuous generation of the diazomethane . Specification at page 10, lines 9-12 . Figure 2 does not correspond to the above text. In another example, t he specification states that: The IR result shows that unreacted carboxylic acid group is getting converted to ester form (Figure 4). Specification at page 11, lines 20-21. This is not what Figure 4 depicts. Numerous other instances of improper reference to and/ or discussion of Figures are present throughout the specification. Substitute Specification Required A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because of the numerous errors referred to above. A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied . Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown. The description is a dictionary for the claims and should provide clear support or antecedent basis for all terms used in the claims. MPEP § 608.01(g). Rejections 35 U.S.C. 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. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112, the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp ., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a). Rejection of Claim 20 , Indefinite Language -- “ the continuous flow micro-separator has a residence time ” Claim 20 is rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as indefinite because the recitation of “the continuous flow micro-separator has a residence time” is unclear within the claim’s context . Claim 20 recites: 20. The automated apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the continuous flow micro-separator has a residence time of 0-10 min and a pressure of 0-10 bar. First, as taught in the specification (see discussion in Subject Matter Free of the Art below) a “continuous flow micro-separator” itself can not have a residence time. Rather the specification teaches that it is the diazomethane-aqueous layer within the “continuous flow micro-separator” that ha s the residence time. The indefiniteness issue is as follows. With respect the claim 20 “continuous flow micro-separator”, base claim 18 recites : 18 . . . a continuous flow micro-separator configured to separate an aqueous layer and an organic layer . . . Under its plain language, the claim 18 “continuous flow micro-separator” has no “aqueous layer and an organic layer” within; rather it is “ configured to separate an aqueous layer and an organic layer”. Claim 20 is thus unclear because it recites “a residence time”, where no substance is earlier recited that can have a “residence time” within the “continuous flow micro-separator” (e.g., an aqueous layer and an organic layer) . This is similar to a lack of antecedent basis issue. MPEP § 2173.05(e). As discussed in the MPEP a lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference . MPEP § 2173.05(e). Alternatively, c laim 20 is unclear because it recites what appears to be a method step within an apparatus claim . Stated differently, there can be no “residence time” within claim s 18 or 20 unless a substance is physically within the “continuous flow micro-separator” and is physically being separated ; that is, it must physically move through the separator . A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus/product is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP § 2173.05(p) (citing Ex parte Lyell , 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation , 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Also, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories , processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. MPEP § 2106(I). Here the claim 20 preamble is directed to the statutory category of apparatus/machine but claim 20 recites what appears to be a method step in terms of residence time of a flowing-through organic/aqueous layer. It is thus unclear whether claim 20 is directed to the statutory category of machine or process, or both. This rejection can be obviated, for example, by way of the following amendment: 20. The automated apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the continuous flow micro-separator is configured to has permit a residence time of 0-10 min and a pressure of 0-10 bar of the aqueous layer and the organic layer . or similar language suitable to Applicant. Claim 19 Unclear Structure Claim 19 is rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as indefinite because the structure of the “ continuous flow micro-separator ” is unclear. Claim 19 recites: 19. The automated apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the continuous flow micro-separator comprises a long-serpentine tunnel sandwiched in a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-hydrophobic membrane with three alternate (PTFE) sheets with an identical dimension of groove channels sandwiched between two metal holders tightly pressed by a screw. It is not clear how the “a long-serpentine tunnel” is “sandwiched in a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-hydrophobic membrane”. The specification provides no guidance in this regard, but rather just repeats the claim language. Specification at page 7, lines 9-14. The specification contains no drawing of the claim 19 “continuous flow micro-separator”. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). The specification states that a modified micro-separator as disclosed in V. Sthalam et al., 23 Organic Process Research Development, 1892-1899 (2019) (“Sthalam”) was employed in specification Example 1. Specification at page 14, lines 20-25. Sthalam discloses a microseparator comprising a polypropylene-coated polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane sandwiched between two Teflon sheets with identical dimensions to fit the groove channels and coupled to each other by inserting metal pins through the holes at the film corners. Sthalam at page 1896, col. 1, referencing Figure 3. The Sthalam microseparator separates aqueous waste from the desired organic layer (allows permeation of the organic layer but not the aqueous). Sthalam at Figures 2-3. Sthalam teaches that the Teflon sheets fit within the groove channels, which makes sense with claim 19 language of “identical dimension of groove channels”. Sthalam at page 1896, col. 1, referencing Figure 3. In sum, the Sthalam microseparator appears to be the concept Applicant intended to claim. However, Sthalam does not disclose or discuss the claim 19 “long-serpentine tunnel” and is no help in deciphering this aspect of the claim 19 structure. What is structural purpose of the “long serpentine tunnel and how is it sandwiched ”? Absent a drawing or other literature reference, the structure of the claim 19 “continuous flow micro-separator” is unclear to one of skill in the art . Subject Matter Free of the Art of Record Claims 18-20 are free of the art of record. The art of record does not teach (§ 102) or suggest (§ 103) the claim 18 limitation of “ a solid MOF quencher configured to degrade unused diazomethane ” as highlighted below: 18. An automated apparatus for producing diazomethane of Formula 1 (CH 2 N 2 ), the automated apparatus comprising: a pump configured to pump a stock solution of N-methyl-N-nitroso amine in an organic solvent and an aqueous inorganic base; a capillary micro reactor configured to form diazomethane from a reaction of the N-methyl-N-nitroso amine in the organic solvent with the aqueous inorganic base; a continuous flow micro-separator configured to separate an aqueous layer and an organic layer, wherein the organic layer comprises 0.1-0.4 M diazomethane; and a solid MOF quencher configured to degrade unused diazomethane . A s well-known in the art, metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) are crystalline porous materials possessing highly ordered structures consisting of networks formed by single metal ions or metal clusters connected by multidentate organic groups acting as linkers; a main MOF feature is porosity . C. Pettinari et al., 66 Polymer International, 731-744 (2016) (page 731, col. 1); see also, J. Liu et al., 46 Chem. Soc. Rev., 5730-5770 (2017). No prior art was found in searches that teaches or motivates one of ordinary skill to degrade, adsorb or otherwise remove diazomethane with a metal organic framework (MOF). The closest art is discussed below. The Invention of Claim 18 The specification discloses an automated apparatus (Diazo-M-pen and Diazo-M-cube) for production, utilization and quenching of highly toxic diazomethane of formula 1 comprising integrated pumps, tubular flow reactor, liquid-liquid micro-separator, solid MOF quencher . Specification at page 1, lines 5-7; Id. at Fig. 1. Referring to specification Fig. 1 specification Example 1 teaches operation of the Diazo-M-Pen. Specification at page 14, lines 11-26. Here, N-methyl-N-nitroso amine of formula 2 and base of formula 3 (KOH) are introduced into a capillary microreactor with a T-mixer using syringe pumps , thereby producing the diazomethane . Id. The aqueous waste layer and diazomethane-containing diethyl ether (DEE) layer are separated using a modified micro-separator as disclosed in V. Sthalam et al., 23 Organic Process Research Development, 1892-1899 (2019) (“Sthalam”). Id. The Diazo-M-Pen then outflows the generated diazomethane/DEE (free of aqueous) for the desired reaction. Id. Specification Example 1 employs no MOF as claimed in claim 18. Referring to specification Fig. 11 the specification teaches operation of the claim 18 automated apparatus for producing diazomethane ( Diazo-Cube ) . Specification at page 12, lines 5-22; Id. at page 22, lines 10-32 (Example 25) . Here, diazomethane is generated in the same manner as the Diazo-M-Pen as summarized above . Specification at page 12, lines 5-22 ; Id. at page 22, lines 10-32 (Example 25) . Next, t he generated diazomethane and a reactant ( a solution of acid or phenol or alkyne or alkene or anhydride or aldehyde ) are pumped into reactor R 3 ( perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) tubing ) for the reaction to occur. Specification at page 12, lines 22-27. Next the excess diazomethane in the outflowing reaction mixture was passed through the HKUST MOF filled catalyst cartridge to degrade the diazomethane . Specification at page 12 , lines 27-28. Here, the Examiner finds that the HKUST MOF filled catalyst cartridge conveniently removes /degrades the diazomethane from the reaction mixture while also permitting the reaction product to flow through as a purified ether solution for isolation. Specification at pages 22-23, Item 8 ; Figure 11 . The Closest Art of Record The closest art of record is R. Maurya et al., Angewandte Chemi, International Edition, 5952-5955 (2011) (“Maurya”) . R. Maurya et al., Angewandte Chemi, International Edition, 5952-5955 (2011) (“Maurya”) Maurya teaches that diazomethane, an extremely toxic, carcinogenic, odorless, and explosive yellow gas, is one of those most versatile reagents available to the organic chemists for the preparation of carbon–carbon and carbon–heteroatom bonds. Maurya at page 5952, col. 1. With reference to Figure 1, Maurya teaches a poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) dual-channel microchemical system as shown in Figure 1. Maurya at page 5952, column 2. \s Maurya at page 5953, Figure 1. In operation, Maurya teaches that N-methyl-N-nitroso- p-toluenesulfonamide (Diazald) quickly reacts with KOH to generate diazomethane in the bottom channel, the generated diazomethane readily diffuses through the poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) membrane into the upper channel where it reacts with main reactant. The poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) membrane, which is extremely hydrophobic, prevents the diffusion of KOH, water, and potassium p-toluenesulfonate from the bottom channel to the upper channel. Maurya at page 5952, column 2. Maurya teaches that s imilarly, the organic reactants or the products from the reaction with diazomethane in the upper channel have little tendency to diffuse into the aqueous saline phase in the lower channel. Maurya at page 5952, column 2. Maurya further teaches that additionally, since the outlet of the bottom channel is immersed in acetic acid, any diazomethane transported out along with waste is instantaneously quenched; thus, extremely toxic diazomethane can be handled with safety and efficiency in the dual-channel microreactors. Maurya at page 5954, column 1. In Table S2, Maurya teaches optimization of reaction conditions for in-situ generation, separation, and reaction of diazomethane with benzoic acid in PVSZ coated dual-channel microreactor, where dimethylformamide is the solvent. Maurya page S8 (Table S2). Here, Maurya teaches that KOH and Diazald were injected into bottom channel at a flow rate of 4 μL/min, and benzoic acid into upper channel at a flow rate of 4 μL/min. Maurya page S8 (Table S2). In Table S2 Entry 6, the Diazald concentration ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 M and the KOH concentration ranges from was 0.5 M to 2 M , which concentration s were considered optimize d because there was not clogging in the microreactor channels . Maurya page S8 (Table S2). The Claim 18 limitations that are M et by Maurya Maurya teaches that the connections of the dual channel with syringes and product collector were made by PFA capillaries. Maurya at page 5953, col. 2. This meets the claim 18 limitation of: 18 . . . a pump configured to pump a stock solution of N-methyl-N-nitroso amine in an organic solvent and an aqueous inorganic base . . . Maurya’s lower microreactor channel meets the claim 18 limitation of: 18 . . . a capillary micro reactor configured to form diazomethane from a reaction of the N-methyl-N-nitroso amine in the organic solvent with the aqueous inorganic base . . . Maurya’s poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) membrane between the upper and lower microreactor channels meets the claim 18 limitation of: 18 . . . a continuous flow micro-separator configured to separate an aqueous layer and an organic layer . . . b ecause it functions within Maurya’s microreactor to separate the continuous flow of organic and aqueous layers and also permits diffusion of the generated diazomethane from the aqueous layer into the organic layer . In this manner, Maurya’s microreactor permits continuous production of a product of a reactant and the generated diazomethane . Maurya’s microreactor meets the claim 18 limitation of “wherein the organic layer comprises 0.1-0.4 M diazomethane”, as underlined below: Claim 18 . . . a continuous flow micro-separator configured to separate an aqueous layer and an organic layer, wherein the organic layer comprises 0.1-0.4 M diazomethane ; and for the following reasons. As discussed above, in operation of Maurya’s microreactor, in Table S2 Entry 6, the Diazald concentration ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 M and the KOH concentration ranges from was 0.5 M to 2 M, which concentrations were considered optimized because there was not clogging in the microreactor channels. Maurya page S8 (Table S2). The reaction between KOH and Diazald to give diazomethane is very fast. Thus, for example, Table S2, Entry 5, reaction of Diazald (0.375M) and KOH (1.5 M) and would thus certainly give a diazomethane concentration in the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.4 M. Differences between Claim 18 and Maurya Maurya ’s microreactor differs from the claim 18 “automated apparatus for producing diazomethane of Formula 1 (CH 2 N 2 )” only in that it does not teach the claim 18 limitation of “ a solid MOF quencher configured to degrade unused diazomethane ” Rather, Maurya teaches that the outlet of the bottom channel ( the aqueous layer comprising residual diazomethane ) is immersed in acetic acid , and any diazomethane transported out is instantaneously quenched; thus, extremely toxic diazomethane can be handled with safety and efficiency in the dual-channel microreactors. Maurya at page 5954, column 1. Significantly, Maurya ’s device is conceptually different from the operating principle of the claim 18 device . Maurya ’s device degrades the waste diazomethane in the waste aqueous layer (with acetic acid) . Th us, the Maurya product layer still may contain unreacted diazomethane that is not removed and must be dealt with in subsequent workup. In contrast, as discussed above, the specification teaches the final operation step of the claim 18 device is flowing the organic product containing layer through the “solid MOF quencher” thereby conveniently remov ing/degrading any unreacted diazomethane from the reaction mixture , while also permitting the reaction product to flow through as a purified solvent solution for isolation . Specification at pages 22-23, Item 8; Figure 11. G. Tom et al., WO2019/060818 (201 9 ) (“ Tom ”) Tom teaches a method of adsorbing a highly reactive gas onto a metal-organic framework (MOF) including providing the highly reactive gas to the MOF. Tom at page 2, [0004]. Tom teaches that the gases can include: arsine (AsH 3 ), stibine (SbH 3 ), phosphine (PH 3 ), borane (BH 3 ), diborane (B 2 H 6 ), halides, germane, digermane, silane, disilane, hydrazine or nitrogen trifluoride. Tom at page 4, [0017]. Tom does not teach diazomethane. And t he purpose of Tom is not to destroy or remove the gas, but rather to increase its stability over the neat form while also stor ing for subsequent release and use in undegraded form. Tom at page 4, [0017], [0018]. Further Tom does not provide any guidance regarding MOF adsorption of gases from gaseous aqueous solutions or whether the disclosed MOFs would be effective for this purpose. Claim 18 Is not Obvious Over Maurya Claim 18 is not obvious over Maurya for the following reasons. One of ordinary skill is not motivated to replace Maurya’s acetic acid quencher with an MOF , to degrade the diazomethane in Maurya’s basic aqueous waste layer, because no art of record teaches that diazomethane (let alone diazomethane in basic aqueous solutions ) can be adsorbed/degraded by MOFs. In fact, MOFs are known to be either degraded by water or , in the case of water-stable MOFs , adsorb water themselves. N. Burtch et al., 114 Chemical Reviews, 10575-10612 (2014). As such one of ordinary skill does not have a reasonable expectation that an MOF would destroy or adsorb the diazomethane comprised in the basic, aqueous Maurya waste stream. MPEP § 2143.02(I). One of ordinary skill is therefore not motivated to combine Maurya with Tom so as to arrive at the invention of claim 18 because, as discussed above, Tom does not provide any guidance regarding MOF adsorption of diazomethane, let alone diazomethane from basic aqueous solutions , or whether the disclosed MOFs would be effective for this purpose. In any case, seeking to combine Maurya with MOF secondary art such as Tom is awkward. As discussed above, Maurya’s device is conceptually different from the claim 18 device ’s operating principle because the specification teaches removal of an organic diazomethane-containing layer, where the aqueous layer has already been removed by way of a micro-separator . The art of record does not provide any teaching or guidance respecting removing/destroying diazomethane from an organic containing layer , let alone removing the diazomethane therefrom while at the same time permitting the product to flow through for isolation. Stated differently, there is no reason to make such a MOF combination with Maurya; reagents such as, acetic acid, work fine and the aqueous layer is simply waste. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3764 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:00 AM through 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5241 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER R. PAGANO Examiner Art Unit 1692 /ALEXANDER R PAGANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692