DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 13 February 2026 in response to the non-final Office action mailed 14 November 2025, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claims 1-6 are pending, wherein: claims 1-4 have been amended and claims 5-6 are new.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “to thereby produce a MOF sintered body” should instead be –to thereby produce the MOF sintered body--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 3-6 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indefinite as the preamble is directed to a ‘method for producing the moving body’ while the body of the claim is directed only to producing the MOF sintered body present in the moving body. Performing the method of claim 3 will not result in production of ‘a moving body’ as claimed. As such it is not clear what is intended by the claim recitation.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is indefinite as the preamble is directed to a ‘method for producing the moving body’ while the body of the claim is directed only to producing the MOF sintered body present in the moving body. Performing the method of claim 4 will not result in production of ‘a moving body’ as claimed. As such it is not clear what is intended by the claim recitation.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is indefinite as the preamble is directed to a ‘method for producing the moving body’ while the body of the claim is directed only to producing the MOF sintered body present in the moving body. Performing the method of claim 5 will not result in production of ‘a moving body’ as claimed. As such it is not clear what is intended by the claim recitation.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is indefinite as the preamble is directed to a ‘method for producing the moving body’ while the body of the claim is directed only to producing the MOF sintered body present in the moving body. Performing the method of claim 6 will not result in production of ‘a moving body’ as claimed. As such it is not clear what is intended by the claim recitation.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaab et al. (WO 2014/118074 A1) in view of Li et al. (CN 111740056 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claims 1-2, Gaab teaches MOF shaped bodies (abstract; pg1 ln 5-6) comprising an MOF combined with a binder and optional additives/solvents which is molded and finished via a drying step at temperatures below 300ºC (pg3; pg6 ln 5-8)(instant sintered; note that the instant original specification at [0007], [0015] teaches sintering is readable over 120 ºC or less). Gaab teaches the binder is selected from known binders in the art including silicon compounds, alkoxysilanes, silicas, silica sols, etc. (pg4 ln 25 to pg5 ln17; pg 7 ln 3-14), wherein Ludox® AS 40 colloidal silica is recited as a typical product (silica sols and colloidal silicas well known in the chemical arts to ‘have a hydroxy group’)(instant ‘silica’). Gaab teaches the binder is present in the shaped body from 0.1 to 90 wt% (pg7 ln 15-16). Gaab further teaches the MOF is preferably derived from 2-aminoterephthalic acid organic compounds (pg7 ln 19 to pg8 ln 24)(instant ‘terephthalic acid-based ligand’).
Gaab further teaches applications of the MOF shaped bodies include incorporation into vehicles and heating and/or cooling devices (pg9 ln 31-35; pg10 ln 17-21). Gaab does not specifically teach the MOF shaped body present in a ‘moving body’ as claimed for exchanging heat with a battery supplying electric power to a driver to move the moving body. However, Li teaches it is a known use to include MOF materials in thermal management, specifically for the thermal management of battery packs, in electric vehicles (abstract). Li teaches the MOF materials are adhered to the upper/lower sides of the batteries forming the battery pack, where the battery powers the electronic control unit (ECU) of the automobile which operates the vehicle (FIG 1-3; embodiments 1-3, pg6-7). Li teaches MOFs utilized in this way absorb 10 times more heat storage density than prior art phase change materials, have much smaller space requirements for the same thermal management requirements, and do not themselves additionally consume battery energy, thus improving the endurance ability of the battery and simplifying design (abstract; pg2 bottom). Lin and Gaab are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same filed of endeavor, namely thermal management using MOF materials. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the thermal management system of Li using the MOF materials of Gaab and would have been motivated to do so as Gaab teaches using the MOF materials in heating/cooling and in vehicles and further as Li teaches thermal management of battery packs in electronic vehicles is a known and suitable use for MOF materials as such allows for better thermal management, enhanced battery endurance and simplified design.
Regarding claims 3-6, Gaab in view of Li renders obvious the electric vehicle thermal management system as set forth above. Gaab further teaches methods of producing the MOF shaped bodies comprising the steps of (a) mixing the MOF and at least one additive, comprising a binder and optional solvents, to form a paste or a fluid (I), (b) extruding into a shaped body, which is finished by drying (II) (pg3 ln 15-39), wherein drying well below 300 °C is sufficient (pg3; pg6 ln 5-11)( note that the instant original specification at [0007], [0015] teaches sintering is readable over 120 ºC or less). The teaching of heating/drying below 300 °C by Gaab is readable over the instantly claimed ranges of 120 °C or less (claims 3-4, where there is no recited low-end point) and of 75 to 150°C (claims 5-6).
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al. (US PGPub 2003/0222023) in view of Li et al. (CN 111740056 A; using Clarivate Analytics machine translation for English language citations).
Regarding claim 1, Mueller teaches shaped bodies containing metal-organic frameworks, wherein the shaped bodies comprise the MOF and further at least one supporting material or binder (abstract; [0044]-[0047]). Mueller teaches the MOF is preferably one whose ligands are derived from terephthalic acid bidentates ([0033]) (instant ‘terephthalic acid-based ligand’). Mueller teaches the binder is selected from inorganic compounds known in the art as suitable binders including hydrated aluminas, silicon compounds, alkoxysilanes, oxides of silicon, and particularly preferable re silica and silica sols ([0062]-[0070]) (silica sols and colloidal silicas well known in the chemical arts to ‘have a hydroxy group’)(instant ‘silica’).
Mueller further teaches the shaped bodies are subjected to a finishing step, particularly a drying step ([0055]), of not greater than 300ºC ([0074]; see also example of drying [0092] at 120°C)(instant sintered; note the instant original specification at [0007], [0015] teaches sintering is readable over 120 °C or less).
Mueller teaches uses of the MOF shaped bodies include sorption type applications ([0006]; [0002]) but does not specifically teach the MOF shaped body present in a ‘moving body’ as claimed for exchanging heat with a battery supplying electric power to a driver to move the moving body. However, Li teaches it is a known use to include MOF materials in absorption thermal management systems, specifically for the thermal management of battery packs, in electric vehicles (abstract). Li teaches the MOF materials are adhered to the upper/lower sides of the batteries forming the battery pack, where the battery powers the electronic control unit (ECU) of the automobile which operates the vehicle (FIG 1-3; embodiments 1-3, pg6-7). Li teaches MOFs utilized in this way absorb 10 times more heat storage density than prior art phase change materials, have much smaller space requirements for the same thermal management requirements, and do not themselves additionally consume battery energy, thus improving the endurance ability of the battery and simplifying design (abstract; pg2 bottom). Lin and Mueller are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same filed of endeavor, namely sorption applications using MOF materials. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the thermal management system of Li using the MOF materials of Mueller and would have been motivated to do so as Mueller teaches using the MOF materials in sorption type applications and further as Li teaches absorption thermal management of battery packs in electronic vehicles is a known and suitable use for MOF materials as such allows for better thermal management, enhanced battery endurance and simplified design.
Regarding claim 2, Mueller in view of Li renders obvious the electric vehicle thermal management systems as set forth in claim 1 above. Mueller teaches the binder is present for the purpose of stabilizing the MOF to be agglomerated/molded, where the binder promotes adhesion between the MOF particles to be molded together which allows for them to be molded and allows for the molded object to be subjected to a drying step and stay intact ([0061]; [0074]).
Mueller is silent as to the binder material (see above silica sols as preferred) present from 2 to 8 wt%. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of binder material and would have been motivated to do so to obtain a shaped body with sufficiently adhered MOF particles capable of satisfactory molding and of surviving the drying step intact ([0061];[0074]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claims 4-6, Mueller in view of Li renders obvious the electric vehicle thermal management systems as set forth in claim 1 above. Mueller further teaches the production method (i) where the active MOF material is combined with a binder and/or other components and molded ([0045]). Mueller further teaches the molding step is preceded by (II) preparing a paste-like or fluid mixture (instant ‘slurry’) of the MOF and binder ([0052]-[0054]) and is followed by (III) finishing by drying ([0055]), where drying occurs at temperatures well below 300 ºC ([0074]; see also example of drying [0092] at 120°C)(note the instant original specification at [0007], [0015] teaches sintering is readable over 120 °C or less). The teaching of drying below 300 °C by Mueller is readable over the instantly claimed ranges of 120 °C or less (claims 3-4, where there is no recited low-end point) and of 75 to 150°C (claims 5-6).
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-4 as anticipated by Gaab (WO 2014/118074 A1) is withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s A1 argument (Remarks, pages 6-7): Applicant argues that Gaab does not teach “sintered body”. This is not persuasive. As was noted in the prior Office action, the instant original specification (see [0007] and [0015]-[0017]; see also [0026]) teaches that by “sintering” the instant specification means merely ‘heating’ over heat treatment temperatures of 120 °C or less, or simply heating at ‘a low temperature’. As such, the teaching by Gaab of heating/drying at temperatures not exceeding 300°C, preferably well below 300°C, meets the instant meaning of ‘sintering’ as claimed and the dried product of Gaab is thus considered a ‘sintered’ body.
Applicant’s A2 argument is addressed in the above 103 rejection, necessitated by the claim amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 as anticipated by Mueller (US PGPub 2003/0222023) and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable over Mueller are withdrawn as a result of Applicant’s filed claim amendments.
Regardig Applicant’s B1 argument (Remarks, pages 7-8): Applicant argues that Mueller teaches sintering is ‘undesirable’ and cites [0057]. This is not persuasive. Firstly, as was noted in the prior Office action, the instant original specification (see [0007] and [0015]-[0017]; see also [0026]) teaches that by “sintering” the instant specification means merely ‘heating’ over heat treatment temperatures of 120 °C or less, or simply ‘a low temperature’. As such, the teaching by Mueller of drying at temperatures not exceeding 300°C, preferably well below, meets the instant meaning of sintering as claimed. It is further noted that Mueller exemplifies a drying temperature of 120 °C ([0092]). Secondly, Applicant misrepresents the citation of Mueller at [0057]. Mueller specifically states that sintering is a suitable pathway. The teaching by Mueller that sintering is a ‘somewhat limited’ method is not a teaching that sintering is ‘undesirable’ as asserted by Applicant. Clearly Mueller sees sintering as a suitable, usable, and desirable method by virtue of stating it can be done. Mueller is merely teaching at [0057] that one of ordinary skill in the art would be limited with respect to temperatures of sintering (defined by Mueller as subjecting the material to a thermal treatment), as MOFs are known to have limited temperature stability due to the organic components, temperatures which Mueller later teaches are in the range of 300 °C or less in order to keep the framework intact ([0074]). Mueller further teaches the MOF obtained is usable for its sorption capabilities ([0086]).
Applicant’s B2 argument is addressed in the above 103 rejection, necessitated by the claim amendments.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767