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 .
The applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-10 and 18-20, with traverse in their reply dated 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-17 were withdrawn. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are considered on the merits below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/10/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged. However the applicant did not provide specific reasons for the traversal. Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 and 9 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 8 recites the limitation "the organic ligand". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the examiner interprets that the limitation reads “an organic ligand”.
Dependent claims follow the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zendehdel et al. (WO 2021/117071 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zendehdel describes a chemiresistor (abstract and figure 4) comprising
a conductive porous nanocomposite of a three-dimensional metal- organic framework and a two-dimensional metal-organic framework (figure 4 and page 7 “one or two mesoporous layers of the decorated nanocomposites materials” and page 9 “3D nanostructures with 2D top layers and immobilized molecular catalysts) nanocomposites” and page 9-10 “the decorated 3D/2D/molecular nanocomposites of anode can be made with … MOF” and page 17 “conductive electroactive nanocomposites”),
wherein the two-dimensional metal-organic framework is chemically bound to the three-dimensional metal-organic framework on a surface of the three-dimensional metal-organic framework (page 6 “3D nanostructures with 2D top layers”), and
the three-dimensional metal-organic framework and the two-dimensional metal-organic framework form a core-shell structure in the conductive porous nanocomposite (figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional metal-organic framework comprises a plurality of two-dimensional hexagonal layers stacked with each other, and each of the plurality of two-dimensional hexagonal layers is derived from a combination of an organic ligand having a hydrogen bonding functional group and a metal cluster (page 7 “The 2D part of the decorated nanocomposites consists of earth-abundant materials including iron, copper, zinc, titanium, tungsten, zirconium, silicon, carbon and molybdenum in the structures including but not limited to, 2D transition metals carbides and nitrides (MXenes), organic polymers and co-polymers, inorganic polymers, grapheme or other 2D allotropes of carbon, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) (2D-hexagonal layers stacked), 2D metal oxides and/or 2D metal sulfides.”).
Regarding claim 3, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 2, wherein the organic ligand of the two-dimensional metal-organic framework comprises a benzene ring or a fused polycyclic aromatic ring substituted with one or more hydrogen bonding functional groups selected from a hydroxy group, an amino group, a thiol group, or a combination thereof (page 7 “carbon nanotubes (CNTs), 2D metal oxides and/or 2D metal sulfides.” carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have a benzene ring or a fused polycyclic aromatic ring, and combined with 2D metal oxides and/or 2D metal sulfides as indicated would provide substitution from a hydroxy group or a thiol group).
Regarding claim 4, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 2, wherein the metal cluster of the two-dimensional metal-organic framework comprises Cu2+, Ni2+,C02+, Fe2+,Zn2+, Mg2+, or a combination thereof (page 7 “The 2D part of the decorated nanocomposites consists of earth-abundant materials including iron, copper, zinc, titanium, tungsten, zirconium,”).
Regarding claim 6, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 2, wherein the plurality of two-dimensional hexagonal layers comprises a first two- dimensional hexagonal layer and a second two-dimensional hexagonal layer that are alternatively stacked, and a coordination number of the metal cluster of the second two- dimensional hexagonal layer is the same as or different from a coordination number of the metal cluster of the first two-dimensional hexagonal layer (page 6 “2D top layers” i.e. a first layer and second layer alternatively stacked and page 7 “The 2D part of the decorated nanocomposites consists of …, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) (2D-hexagonal layers).”).
Regarding claim 7, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 6, wherein the metal cluster included in the first two-dimensional hexagonal layer and the metal cluster included in the second two-dimensional hexagonal layer are arranged side by side or zigzag along a direction perpendicular to an in-plane direction of the first and second two-dimensional hexagonal layers (page 7 “The 2D part of the decorated nanocomposites consists of … carbon nanotubes (CNTs) [and] 2D metal oxides (metal cluster)” i.e. the clusters are arranged side by side of the layers).
Regarding claim 8, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 1, wherein an organic ligand of the two-dimensional metal-organic framework is coordinated with a metal cluster of the three-dimensional metal-organic framework at the interface of the three- dimensional metal-organic framework and the two-dimensional metal-organic framework (page 7 “carbon nanotubes (CNTs), 2D metal oxides and/or 2D metal sulfides.” carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have a benzene ring or a fused polycyclic aromatic ring, and combined with 2D metal oxides and/or 2D metal sulfides as indicated would provide substitution from a hydroxy group or a thiol group – all the groups are directly or indirectly coordinated at the interface of the materials).
Regarding claim 9, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 8, wherein the coordination number of the metal cluster of the two-dimensional metal-organic framework at the interface of the three-dimensional metal-organic framework and the two- dimensional metal-organic framework is higher than the coordination number of the metal cluster of the two-dimensional metal-organic framework in a region other than the interface of the three-dimensional metal-organic framework and the two-dimensional metal-organic framework (figure 4 shows the 3D MOF “39” to 2D MOF “40” coordination is higher than that of the 2D MOF to another region coordination, immobilized molecules “41” ).
Regarding claim 18, Zendehdel describes a chemiresistive sensor comprising the chemiresistor of claim 1 (page 11 “gas sensor”).
Regarding claim 19, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistive sensor of claim 18, wherein the chemiresistive sensor is a gas sensor for detecting hydrogen sulfide (page 14 “sensors for CO2, CH4, CO, H2, 02, N2, NO2, SO2 and H2S.”).
Regarding claim 20, Zendehdel describes a device comprising the chemiresistive sensor of claim 18 (page 6 “Figure 1 represents the apparatus”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendehdel et al. (WO 2021/117071 A1) in view of Mani et al. (RSC Adv, 2015, 5, 54952, provided on the IDS on 3/10/2023).
Regarding claim 5, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 2, however is silent to wherein each of the plurality of two-dimensional hexagonal layers of the two-dimensional metal-organic framework is vertically aligned to the surface of the three-dimensional metal- organic framework.
Mani describes “vertically aligned ZnO nanorods” (page 54956) for use in sensors. Furthermore, Mani suggests that they can be produced in “a simple and cost effective way” (page 54953 “interest in growing self-standing vertically aligned nanorods in a simple and cost effective way. …The advantages of spray pyrolysis technique are large scale deposition using low cost raw materials, no need of vacuum for deposition and environmentally safe. Further, the density of nanorods were effectively controlled through number of spray cycles. The influence of density of nanorods on hydrogen sulfide sensing properties were also discussed. Moreover the growth mechanism of the ZnO nanorods has been analyzed.”), suggesting motivation to incorporate vertically aligned two-dimensional hexagonal layers as this would be able to be synthesized in a simple and cost effective way.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate vertically aligned two-dimensional hexagonal layers into the chemiresistor of Zendehdel as suggest by Mani as this would allow them to be able to be synthesized in a simple and cost effective way.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendehdel et al. (WO 2021/117071 A1) in view of Mirica et al. (US 2018/0306740 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zendehdel describes the chemiresistor of claim 1, and the two-dimensional metal-organic framework is a rod-shaped conductive material (page 7 “nanotubes”).
However, Zendehdel is silent to wherein the three-dimensional metal-organic framework is an octahedral porous material.
Mirica an octahedral porous material ([0187]) and MOF sensors (abstract). Furthermore, Mirica suggests that octahedral shapes provide advantageous electrochemical properties ([0187] “The electron donation provided by the bidentate chelation of catecholate or imino moieties to the metal center is known to increase the lability of the interaction between axial ligands and the metal center in octahedral Ni ( II ) complexes”), providing motivation to use an octahedral porous material as it suggests it would have advantageous properties.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate octahedral porous material into the chemiresistor of Zendehdel as suggest by Mirica as this would allow for advantageous electrochemical properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R BERKELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9831. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/EMILY R. BERKELEY/
Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797