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 .
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 1-10, 12, 14, 16, 18-20, 22, 25-27 of G.K.H. Shimizu, et al., US 18/273,312 (07/20/2023) are pending. Claims 2-5,10,12,14, 22 and 25-27 are withdrawn as drawn to the nonelected Groups. Claims 1,6-9,16 and 18-20 are under examination on merits and are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Pursuant to the Restriction Requirement, Applicant elected Group (III), (claims 1,6-9,16 and 18-20), with traverse, in the Reply filed on 02/18/2026. Claims 2-5,10,12,14, 22 and 25-27 drawn to non-elected Groups (I)-(II) and (IV)-(IX) are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Applicant’s Traversal
Applicant argues the Restriction/Election Requirement on the ground that there is no serious searching burden for searching all the claims. This argument is not considered 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 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.
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 the Claim Term “guest molecule or template molecule”
The specification defines the claim term “guest molecule or template molecule” as follows:
[0072] The term "guest molecule” or "template molecule" as used herein refers to molecules filling the void spaces (pores) in porous materials.
Specification at page 10, [0072]. Therefore, the claim term “guest molecule or template molecule” is interpreted according to 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by K. J. Bladek "Molecular Design of Solid Sorbents for Gas Capture Applications." (2018)(“Bladek”).
Bladek teaches a MOF of [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O (CrTPPHBN) which comprising chromium(III) hydrogen bonded to one or more organic polyphosphonate molecules. Bladek at page chapter 3, page 62, 3,1.4-3.1.5 and 68, line 7-11.
Bladek also teaches a method of solvent activation of the MOF [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O at 200ºC as follows:
3.1.6 – Solvent Activation Procedure
For high-temperature solvent activations, 50 mg of CrTPP HBN was added to a 23 mL Teflon-lined autoclave with 5 mL of solvent. The reaction time was varied, but most syntheses were carried out for 24 h. The purple needle-like crystals turned green, although some of the solvent activations at 200°C turned black.
Bladek at page chapter 3, page 63, 3.1.6–Solvent Activation Procedure.
Bladek teaches that:
The solvent activation was carried out at 200°C to achieve complete water removal from the CrTPPHBN structure and allow some energy for reversible Cr-phosphonate binding.
Bladek at page chapter 3, page 78, line 7-8, emphasis added.
Thus, the Bladek solvent activation procedure meet each and every limitation of the instant claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is anticipated.
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 6-9,16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K. J. Bladek "Molecular Design of Solid Sorbents for Gas Capture Applications." (2018)(“Bladek”) as applied above for the rejection of claim 1.
K. J. Bladek "Molecular Design of Solid Sorbents for Gas Capture Applications." (2018)(“Bladek”)
As mentioned above that Bladek teaches a method for preparation of dehydrated [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O, which meets each and every limitation of claim 1.
Bladek also teaches that the MOF [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O prepared as follows:
3.1.5-Synthesis of Bulk [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O
A solution of Cr(NO3)2·9H2O (102 mg, 0.255 mmol) in 160 mL H2O was added to a 640 mL solution containing TPP1 (100 mg, 0.192 mmol) and NEt4OH (2.431M, 0.32 mL). The solution was left to sit overnight, then the purple, needle-like crystals were filtered and washed with MeOH (120 mg, 0.128 mmol, 50.3 %). EA: 20.55 %C, 4.65 %H. (Theoretical: 20.55 %C, 4.63%H).
Bladek at page chapter 3, page 62, 3.1.5-Synthesis of Bulk [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O, emphasis added.
The Bladek method for Synthesis of [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O comprises: adding a solution comprising TPP to a solution comprising Cr(NO3)2 and NEt4OH that is a guest molecule or template molecule.
Bladek also teaches a method of solvent activation of the MOF [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O at 200ºC as follows:
3.1.6 – Solvent Activation Procedure
For high-temperature solvent activations, 50 mg of CrTPP HBN was added to a 23 mL Teflon-lined autoclave with 5 mL of solvent. The reaction time was varied, but most syntheses were carried out for 24 h. The purple needle-like crystals turned green, although some of the solvent activations at 200°C turned black.
Bladek at page chapter 3, page 63, 3.1.6–Solvent Activation Procedure.
Bladek further concludes that:
The most promising material resulted from heating the CrTPP HBN in ethylene glycol at 200°C for 33h, Cr3(H3.5TPP)2·4MeOH·4H2O. The material had a surface area of 695m2/g and a selectivity value for CO2 over N2 of 319.5 with the BET model and 164 using the Langmuir model, which are among the highest selectivity of solid sorbents. The low regeneration energy and H2O uptake also make this MOF more appealing as a CO2/N2 flue gas separation material, especially given the properties of the current top performers.
Bladek at page 113, line 4-10, emphasis added.
Difference between Bladek and Claims 6-9,16 and 18-20
The Bladek method differs from the independent claim 6 and 20 only in that order of reagent addition is different: Bladek added a solution comprising TPP to a solution comprising Cr(NO3)2 and NEt4OH to form the reaction mixture rather than adding NEt4OH to mixture of TPP and Cr(NO3)2 to form the reaction mixture.
Obviousness Rationales of Claims 6-9,16 and 18-20
Claims 6 and 20 are obvious because one ordinary skill seeking Cr3(H3.5TPP)2·4MeOH·4H2O is motivated to modify the Bladek method by adding NEt4OH to mixture of TPP and Cr(NO3)2 to form the reaction mixture to produce [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O and then heating the [Cr(H2O)6]2[H2TPP]·5.5H2O in ethylene glycol at 200°C for 33h as taught by Bladek, thus arrive at a method meeting each and every limitation of claims 6 and 20, therefore, claims 6 and 20 are obvious. One ordinary skill has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because election of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Claims 7 and 9 are obvious because the Bladek ligand TPP is the second species at page 9 of claim 9 (line 1, second species at page 9) that is an arylpolyphosphonic acid.
Claim 8 is obvious because Bladek teaches to use Cr(NO3)2 as the metal slat.
Claim 16 is obvious because Bladek teaches to use NEt4OH as the a guest molecule or template molecule, which is am ammonium compound.
Claims 18-19 are obvious because Bladek teaches to use a solution of Cr(NO3)2 in water and a solution of TPP in water.
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 Pyrene-1,3,6,8-tetraphosphonic acid that has a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
354
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale