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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 7/24/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims, the cancellation of claims 21 and 41. Claims 1, 11, 13-20, 30 and 42, 44-52 are pending in the instant application. Claims 42 and 44-52 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention as outlined in office action dated 4/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/24/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. In view of the amendment to claims, the examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The remaining arguments are deemed unpersuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements.
Applicant’s arguments that the claim requirement “durably enmeshed within a polymer membrane” implicitly require the metal salt to be in its solid form are not persuasive as the claims do not require such and therefore this is not persuasive. The claims make no reference to the state of matter of the metal salt and therefore the claims are read in light of the specification. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., solid) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, all that is required by durably enmeshed is non-covalent immobilized and since the prior art discloses the metal salt within the polymer matrix as immobilized therein and no covalent bond disclosure, the prior art would meet this broadly drafted requirement.
Regardless, CN 700 discloses “the precursor material (14) comprises a polymer matrix (2) and the nano-particle (51), the nano-particles are embedded in the polymer matrix (2) of channel-shaped structure (4), and the nano-particles are selected from metal oxide, metal, metal salt and a metal silicate” and therefore discloses the metal salt nanoparticle (solid) embedded in a polymer, which meets the requirement of “durably enmeshed within a polymer membrane” as argued by the applicant.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are not persuasive as either not supported by factual evidence and thus deemed are mere attorney speculation or they are not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims.
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 1, 11, 13-20, and 30 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 1 includes “the porous metal salt composite structure”; however, the claims previously recite “a porous metal salt polymer composite structure” and therefore it is unclear if “the porous metal salt composite structure” refers to the same or different composite structure. For purposes of applying prior art “the porous metal salt composite structure” refers to the previously cited porous metal salt polymer composite structure.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected.
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) 1, 11, 14-17, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109195700 A, hereinafter CN 700 in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210187475 by Usman et al.
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.“)
CN 700 discloses “the precursor material (14) comprises a polymer matrix (2) and the nano-particle (51), the nano-particles are embedded in the polymer matrix (2) of channel-shaped structure (4), and the nano-particles are selected from metal oxide, metal, metal salt and a metal silicate” and therefore discloses the metal salt nanoparticle (solid) embedded in a polymer, which meets the requirement of “durably enmeshed within a polymer membrane”
CN 700 discloses all that is taught above and discloses using nanoparticles that can form MOFs with the appropriate ligand by converting a porous metal salt precursor polymer composite to a MOF composite structure, such as using metal salts and metal oxides and discloses ZnO for the formation of the zinc MOF composite. However, CN 700 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 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 30: CN 700 discloses forming the porous metal salt polymer composite structure (see e.g. film preparation).
Claim(s) 1, 13-17, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 with Usman and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210046445 by Li et al.
Claim 1 and 13: CN 700 discloses all that is taught above and discloses using nanoparticles that can form MOFs with the appropriate ligand, such as metal salts and ZnO and discloses 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 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 30: CN 700 discloses forming the porous metal salt polymer composite structure (see e.g. film preparation).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 14-18, 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (Deep-Permeation Nanocomposite structure of ZIF-8 inside porous Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) by flow synergistic synthesis) in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210187475 by Usman et al.
Claim 1, 11: Qin discloses a method, comprising: converting a porous metal salt polymer composite structure to a porous metal-organic framework (MOF) composite structure (abstract). Qin explicitly discloses ZnO (Figure 1)
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 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). 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(s) 1, 13, 14-18, 20, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin as applied above and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20210046445 by Li et al.
Claims 1, 13: 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.
While the examiner notes Qin fails to disclose the converted MOF comprises metal carbonate, the claims as drafted are a result of the conversion process and therefore by converting the metal salt polymer composite that includes a metal carbonate/metal oxalate, the prior art must necessarily have the same result, that is the porous MOF composite structure comprises a metal oxalate or a metal carbonate, unless the applicant is using additional process steps, components or process conditions that are neither claimed nor disclosed as being required to achieve the results of the conversion, i.e. the porous MOF composite structure comprises a metal oxalate or a metal carbonate
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). 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(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 700 with Usman or Li as applied above and further in view of WO 2014117225, hereinafter WO 225.
CN 700 with Usman or Li 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 with Usman or Li 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.
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
Prosecution Insights