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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 appears to include a typographical error “polyparaxylylene” should more appropriately be “polyparaxylene”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 and 13 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 11 requires selected from the “group consisting of” … and further modifies the list by “including but not limited to zinc oxalate”; however such a requirement appears improper as it is unclear if zinc oxalate is always required to be included or if that component is optional.
Claim 13 requires selected from the “group consisting of” … further modifies the list by “including but not limited to zinc carbonate”; however such a requirement appears improper as it is unclear if zinc carbonate is always required to be included or if that component is optional.
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) 1-7, 12, 14-17, 21, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109195700 A, hereinafter CN 700.
Claim 1: CN 700 discloses a method, comprising: converting a porous metal salt polymer composite structure to a porous metal-organic framework (MOF) composite structure (abstract stating “phase inversion hole-containing polymer comprises a precursor material by the method of this invention for forming and formed in situ of the MOF.“)
Claims 2-5: CN 700 explicitly discloses ZnO (“film preparation” stating “Preparation of the dispersion of the polyether sulfone (PES, Veradec, A-201) 10wt. % dissolved in dimethylacetamide (DMAc), then mixed with or ZnO nanoparticles”, “the nano-particle comprises a metal, a metal oxide, a metal salt and a metal silicate. For manufacturing a zinc MOF and that ZnO is a suitable starting material.”)
Claim 6-7: ZnO is a metal chalcogenide within the scope of the claims as drafted.
Claim 12: CN 700 discloses including a metal carbonate (“ Particularly suitable second nano-particles selected from the group consisting of metal carbonate and metal halide group”).
Claim 14-15: CN 700 discloses a film (“film preparation”, “particularly the composite material film”, “ the composite material is in the form of a film, typically is a self-supporting film”)
Claim 16-17: CN 700 discloses conversion including both a vapor treatment and liquid treatment process (“(c) ZIF-8 growth film sealing step: the film containing ZnO (3) 18 ml 1 solution (including 132, 7gMeOH, 57 g DMAc;, 15.6 g 2-methyl imidazole, 8.6 g sodium formate), incubating 10 min at 120 degrees centigrade, then cleaning for three times for more than 5 in MeOH.“)
Claim 21: CN 700 discloses e.g. ZIF-7, ZIF-8, etc. (“ ZIF-7, ZIF-8, ZIF-20, ZIF-21, ZIF-22, ZIF-23, ZIF-69, ZIF-90, SIM-1, MIL-47, MIL-53, MOF-5, MIL-96, MIL-89, MIL-101 and HKUST-1”).
Claim 30: CN 700 discloses forming the porous metal salt polymer composite structure (see e.g. film preparation).
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-18, 20-23, 24, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qin et al. (Deep-Permeation Nanocomposite structure of ZIF-8 inside porous Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) by flow synergistic synthesis)
Claim 1: Qin discloses a method, comprising: converting a porous metal salt polymer composite structure to a porous metal-organic framework (MOF) composite structure (abstract)
Claims 2-5: Qin explicitly discloses ZnO (Figure 1)
Claim 6-7: ZnO is a metal chalcogenide within the scope of the claims as drafted (Figure 1).
Claim 14-15: Qin discloses a what can reasonably be considered a film, a module or a tape (“Figure 1”)
Claim 16-17: Qin discloses conversion including both a vapor treatment and liquid treatment process (abstract, preparation, see e.g. washing, vapor treatment)
Claim 18, 20: Qin discloses PTFE (abstract)
Claim 21: Qin discloses ZIF-8 (abstract).
Claim 22-23: Qin, also in the art of forming ZIF-8/polymer composites, discloses porosity and pore size that meets the claim as drafted (section 2.1 Materials, average pore size of 0.6 microns, porosity of 0.7, within the claimed range).
Claim 24: Qin discloses ZnO/PTFE composite (Figure 1, abstract).
Claim 30: Qin discloses forming the porous metal salt polymer composite structure (see e.g. Figure 1.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 or Qin as applied above and further in view of WO 2008044857, hereinafter WO 857.
CN 700 or Qin discloses all that is taught above and discloses ZnO; however, fails to disclose the claimed ZnS. However, WO 857 discloses a coordination polymer for MOF and discloses ZnO or alternatives ZnS (metal oxides, such as ZnO . . . and semiconductor compounds, such as ZnS”) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified CN 700 or Qin, which disclose ZnO, with ZnS, as WO 857 discloses ZnO and ZnS are known to be alternatives when forming MOFs with coordination polymer.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 or Qin as applied above and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210187475 by Usman et al.
CN 700 or Qin discloses all that is taught above and discloses ZnO; however, fails to disclose the claimed zinc oxalate. However, Usman, also in the art of forming a ZIF MOF, including a mixed ZIF/polymer, and discloses forming the ZIF using zinc oxalate (0096) and thus using such would have been obvious as a known material for the formation of ZIF MOFs. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 or Qin as applied above and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210046445 by Li et al.
CN 700 or Qin discloses all that is taught above and discloses metal carbonates and ZnO for the formation of the ZIF-8; however, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed metal carbonates. However, Li, also in the art of forming MOFs from metal salt precursors discloses the precursor can be e.g. zinc oxide or zinc carbonate (0056 stating “The precursor of the metal organic framework particles may consist or may include cobalt chloride, cobalt acetate, cobalt hydroxide, cobalt oxide, cobalt sulfate, cobalt carbonate, cobalt nitrate hexahydrate, zinc chloride, zinc acetate, zinc hydroxide, zinc oxide, zinc sulfate, zinc carbonate, or zinc nitrate hexahydrate”, 0058 regarding ZIF-8). Therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 700 or Qin to utilize the known precursors for MOF formation, including zinc carbonate with a reasonable expectation of predictable results. Additionally, discloses ZnO and zinc carbonate are known to be alternatives when forming MOFs and using a known precursor alternative would have been obvious. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 18-20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 as applied above and further in view of WO 2014117225, hereinafter WO 225.
CN 700 generally discloses MOF polymer composites and discloses polymers include e.g. polyethersulfone; however, fails to discloses PTFE or ETFE/polylactic acid as claimed. However, WO 225, also in the art of MOF/polymer composites discloses the polymer can be e.g. polyethersulfone and can also be PTFE, ETFE, polyactic acid (“Such polymers include, but are not limited to, . . . fluoroplastics (such as PTFE, alongside with FEP, PFA, CTFE, ECTFE, ETFE), . . . polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone polyethylenechlorinates (PEC), polyimide (PI), polylactic acid (PLA), polymethylpentene (PMP), polyphenylene oxide (PPO), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyphthalamide (PPA), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polysulfone (PSU) . . “
Therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 700 to include known polymers for MOF/polymer composites, including PTFE, ETFE, or polyactic acid, as such is taught as used for such purpose and CN 700 discloses using known polymers. Additionally, WO 225 discloses that PTFE, ETFE, polyactic acid are known alternative to polyethersulfone and thus using such known alternatives would have led to predictable results.
Claim 24: The combination of CN 700 with WO 225 make obvious ZnO/PTFE composite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 as applied above and further in view of Qin et al. (Deep-Permeation Nanocomposite structure of ZIF-8 inside porous Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) by flow synergistic synthesis)
CN 700 discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the PTFE composite and the porosity as claimed. However, Qin, also in the art of forming ZIF-8/polymer composites, discloses porosity and pore size that overlap the range as claimed (section 2.1 Materials, average pore size of 0.6 microns, which overlaps the range as claimed, porosity of 0.7, within the claimed range) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified CN 700 to include the porosity and pore size as suggested by Qin as both references are concerned with ZnO into a polymer matrix and Qin discloses the pore size and porosity as claimed can be utilized to achieve the desired composite. Additionally, and at the very least, the porosity and pore size the composite ZnO/polymer material will have a direct effect on the porosity/pore size of the final composite material and therefore determination of the optimum and suitable pore size/porosity would have been obvious through routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718