DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 1-20 were subject to a restriction requirement mailed 03/23/2026
Applicants filed remarks in response to the restriction requirement on 05/13/2026
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn
Claims 1-7 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/13/2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
5. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “a – NH group” to “an -NH group” in Claim 1 - line 7.
6. In order to provide further clarity, it is suggested to amend “the linker” to “the linker unit” in Claim 3 - line 4 and Claim 5 - line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al., A hydrogen-bonded channel structure formed by a complex of uracil and melamine (Thomas).
9. Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches a hydrogen-bonded channel structure (Thomas, Abstract) that is supramolecular (i.e. a supramolecular self-assembly) (Thomas, p. 3, right column, last paragraph) that is formed by a complex of uracil and melamine with a structure of hydrogen bonded layers (Thomas, Abstract);
wherein an aperture is formed by triply hydrogen bonded melamine-uracil pairs (i.e. a plurality of complex units formed by hydrogen bonding of two or more nitrogen containing compounds) (Thomas, p. 3, right column, Figure 2(b) caption);
wherein melamine molecules enclose the aperture (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect the plurality of complex units) (Thomas, p. 3, right column, first paragraph);
wherein the apertures formed by the triply hydrogen-bonded melamine-uracil pairs (i.e. complex units formed by hydrogen bonding) are linked with melamine via hydrogen bonding (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect the plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond) (Thomas, p. 3, right column, Figure 2(b)), see annotated Figure 2(b) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
254
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2(b)
Thomas further teaches the triply hydrogen-bonded melamine-uracil pairs (i.e. complex units formed by hydrogen bonding of two nitrogen containing compounds to each other) include melamine with -NH groups and three N heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more N heteroatoms capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group) and uracil with -NH groups and two O heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more O heteroatoms group capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group) (Thomas, p. 1, right column, Scheme 1), see Annotated Scheme 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
320
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Scheme 1
Thomas further teaches the apertures formed by the triply hydrogen-bonded melamine-uracil pairs (i.e. complex units formed by hydrogen bonding) are linked with melamine via hydrogen bonding (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect a the plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond) (Annotated Figure 2(b)) includes three N heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more N heteroatoms capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group) (Annotated Scheme 1).
10. Regarding claim 2, Thomas further teaches the apertures formed by the triply hydrogen-bonded melamine-uracil pairs (i.e. complex units formed by hydrogen bonding) are linked with melamine via hydrogen bonding (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect a the plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond) with -NH groups and three N heteroatom group (i.e. one or more N heteroatoms) (Annotated Scheme 1)
wherein melamine-uracil pairs (i.e. complex units formed by hydrogen bonding) (Annotated Figure 2(b)) include uracil with two oxygen heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more O heteroatom group different from the heteroatoms included in the linker unit) (Annotated Scheme 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan et al., Hydrothermal Synthesis of Organic Channel Structures: 1:1 Hydrogen-Bonded Adducts of
Melamine with Cyanuric and Trithiocyanuric Acids (Ranganathan) in view of Kole et al., Patterns of hydrogen bonding involving thiourea in the series of thiourea, trans-1,2-bispyridyl ethylene cocrystals - A comparative study (Kole).
13. Regarding claim 1, Ranganathan teaches a hydrogen-bonded adduct with a rosette structure (i.e. a supramolecular self-assembly) with a hydrogen-bonded cyanuric acid (CA) and melamine (M) lattice (CA·M) or trithiocyanuric acid (TCA) and M (TCA·M) adduct (i.e. a plurality of complex units formed by hydrogen bonding of two nitrogen containing compounds) (Ranganathan, p. 1752, left column, first paragraph)
wherein CA includes an -NH group and three O heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more O heteroatoms capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group), M that includes an -NH group and three N heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more O heteroatoms group capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group), and TCA includes an -NH group and three S heteroatom groups (Ranganathan, p. 1752, left column, Structures), see Annotated Structures below.
PNG
media_image3.png
305
521
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Structures
However, Ranganathan does not teach a linker unit configured to connect the plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond and the linker unit includes an -NH group and one or more heteroatoms capable of hydrogen bonding with the - NH group and selected from the group consisting of N, S, and O.
With respect to the difference, Kole teaches a cocrystal of thiourea with 3,4’-bpe (i.e. a supramolecular self-assembly) (Kole, Abstract)
wherein thiourea molecules interact with each other in different ways leading to different supramolecular synthons (Kole, p. 18, right column, paragraph 2)
wherein two types of hydrogen bond exist between thiourea and bpe molecules (Kole, p. 19, left column, 3.1. Crystal structure of 3,4’-bpe·thiourea cocrystal) to adopt a corrugated chain of hydrogen bonding between thiourea and 3,4ʹ-bpe molecules (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect a plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond) (Kole, p. 20, left column, first paragraph)
wherein thiourea includes an -NH group and a S heteroatom that is capable of hydrogen bonding to an NH group (Kole, p. 19, left column, Scheme 1).
Kole expressly teaches thiourea has been effectively used as template to pre-organize various bispyridyl ethylenes (Kole, p. 18, right column, paragraph 2)
wherein hydrogen bonding between thiourea and 3,4ʹ-bpe molecules follow type IV pattern (Kole, p. 20, left column, first paragraph) to generate photoinert (i.e. stable) cocrystals (i.e. supramolecular self-assembly).
Ranganathan and Kole are analogous art as they are all drawn to supramolecular self-assemblies formed with hydrogen bonding.
In light of the motivation for thiourea has also effectively been used as template for preorganization as disclosed by Kole, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a corrugated chain of hydrogen bonding between thiourea and the CA·M lattice (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect a plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond) in the hydrogen-bonded adduct with a rosette structure (i.e. a supramolecular self-assembly) of Ranganathan, in order to achieve a photoinert (i.e. stable) cocrystal (i.e. supramolecular self-assembly), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
14. Regarding claim 2, Ranganathan in view of Kole further teaches CA·M includes M with three oxygen heteroatoms (Ranganathan, p. 1752, left column, Annotated Structures) which is different from the S heteroatoms of the thiourea molecules (Kole, p. 19, left column, Scheme 1).
15. Regarding claims 3 and 5, Ranganathan further teaches CA includes an -NH group and three O heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more O heteroatoms capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group) and M that includes an -NH group and three N heteroatom groups (i.e. one or more O heteroatoms group capable of hydrogen bonding with the -NH group) (Ranganathan, p. 1752, left column, Structures).
Kole further teaches thiourea forms corrugated chain of hydrogen bonding between thiourea and 3,4ʹ-bpe molecules (i.e. a linker unit configured to connect a plurality of complex units via a hydrogen bond) (Kole, p. 20, left column, first paragraph)
wherein thiourea includes an -NH group and a S heteroatom that is capable of hydrogen bonding to an NH group (Kole, p. 19, left column, Scheme 1).
16. Regarding claim 4, Ranganathan further teaches the hydrogen-bonded CA·M lattice includes cyanuric acid (CA) (i.e. a 1,3,5-triazine framework) and melamine (M) (i.e. a 1,3,5-triazinane framework).
17. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan in view of Kole as applied to claim 1 above taken in view of evidence by Mehra et al., Hydrogen-Bond Driven Self-Assembly of Two-Dimensional Supramolecular Melamine-Cyanuric Acid Crystals and Its Self-Alignment in Polymer Composites for Enhanced Thermal Conduction (Mehra) and Orekhov et al., Insights into the Early Stages of Melamine Cyanurate Nucleation from Aqueous Solution (Orekhov).
17. Regarding claim 6, Ranganathan further teaches CA·M rosette lattice with hydrogen bonds between the CA and M molecules (i.e., melamine cyanurate self-assembly) (Ranganathan, p. 1752, left column, first paragraph);
wherein planar sheets are stacked in three dimensions (i.e. π-π stacking) (Ranganathan, p. 1753, left column, first paragraph);
wherein a melamine cyanurate self-assembly would necessarily have X-ray Diffraction patterns with unique peaks at (110), (200), (202), and (330) at 2θ values of ~11.25 (110), ~11.25 (200), ~28.75 (202), and ~33.75 (330), as evidenced by Orekhov (Orekhov, p. 1990, Figure 11), see annotated Orekhov - Figure 11 below;
wherein the (110) peak corresponds to intermolecular hydrogen bonding and the (202) peak corresponds to π-π stacking between molecular layers (Orekhov, p. 1990, left column, first paragraph).
PNG
media_image4.png
918
1036
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Orekhov - Figure 11
18. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan in view of Kole as applied to claim 1 above taken in view of evidence by Sangeetha et al., Spectral and Thermal Degradation of Melamine Cyanurate (Sangeetha) and Niu et al., Accurate design of hollow/tubular porous g-C3N4 from melamine-cyanuric acid supramolecular prepared with mechanochemical method (Niu).
19. Regarding claim 7, Ranganathan further teaches CA·M rosette lattice (i.e. a melamine cyanurate organic crystalline complex or a melamine-cyanuric acid supramolecular complex) (Ranganathan, p. 1752, left column, first paragraph) with cyanuric acid (CA) (i.e. a 1,3,5-triazine framework);
wherein a melamine cyanurate organic crystalline complex (Sangeetha, Abstract) would necessarily have an FT-IR spectrum peak at 1087 cm-1 (i.e. a peak at 1084 ± 20 cm-1 as measured by FT-IR) as evidenced by Sangeetha (Sangeetha, p. 3, left column, Figure 2b), see annotated Sangeetha - Figure 2b below;
wherein a melamine-cyanuric acid (MA-CA) supramolecular complex (Niu, Abstract) would necessarily have stretching modes of C-N bonds of a triazine ring appearing at 1000–1700 cm-1 as evidenced by Niu (Niu, p. 2, right column, last paragraph), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image5.png
274
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Sangeetha - Figure 2b
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights