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 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, 2, and 6-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horcajada-Cortes et al. (US 10,065,979).
The instant claims are drawn to a metal organic framework film (MOF film) comprising a metal-organic framework, and an organic scaffold, wherein the MOF is attached to the organic framework by hydrogen bonds.
Horcajada-Cortes et al. teach films made from MOF nanoparticles comprising at least one organic surface agent. The organic surface agent may be selected from cyclodextrins, chitosan, alginates, cellulose, or hyaluronic acid, for example. The metal comprising the MOF nanoparticle is chosen from an iron-containing compound (col. 1, lines 15-40; col. 18, line 62 to col.19, line 66; col. 30, lines 4-38).
The reference does not expressly teach an example wherein the MOF and organic scaffold are attached by hydrogen bonds, and does not expressly teach the ratio of MOF to organic scaffold recited in the instant claims.
The reference does, however, teach that the organic surface agent may be grafted or deposited on the surface of the MOF nanoparticle via covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, Van der Waals bonding, or electrostatic interaction (col. 30, lines 4-10). While the reference is silent regarding the ratio of MOF to organic scaffold, the examiner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would adjust such a ratio in order to find a MOF nanoparticle that affords goods results in terms of capacity for loading with medicaments and in biocompatibility, as per the aim of the reference. Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results afforded by the claimed ratio of MOF to organic scaffold, the claimed limitations are obvious over Horcajada-Cortes et al.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horcajada-Cortes et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, and 6-16 above, and further in view of Gursel (Explained: Metal Organic Frameworks, 2020).
The instant claims further limit the MOF film of the present invention such that the coordinated metal comprises lanthanum, the film is proton conductive, and wherein the framework comprises [Cu3(BTC)-2H2O)3]n.
Horcajada-Cortes et al. do not teach these limitations, although the iron compounds used in the MOF taught therein may be proton conductive; however, Gursel teaches the usefulness of MOFs in various industries, including for gas absorption, heterogeneous catalysis, energy storage, proton conductivity, sensors, and biomedicine. Gursel reinforces the fact (suggested by Horcajada-Cortes et al.) that MOF structures comprise positively charged metal centers and organic linkers. A well-known MOF structure is HKUST-1, widely known as Cu-BTC (copper benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxylate). The reference teaches that commonly used metals include, inter alia, zinc, copper, iron, and aluminum, and that lanthanide series metals attract attention due to their excellent coordination properties and unique chemical characteristics (pages2-4).
The instant claims are rendered obvious by the combined reference teachings, since both reference teach iron may be used in the MOF; and, Gursel teaches that Cu-BTC (copper benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxylate) is a widely known structure, and that lanthanides, which includes lanthanum, are useful in MOFs due in part to their excellent coordination properties. The MOFs taught by Gursel may therefore be substituted for the iron-containing MOFs taught by Horcajada-Cortes et al.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Processes, 2020) in view of Ramaswamy et al. (J.A.C.S., 2015).
The instant claims are drawn to a process for making a MOF film by contacting a metal with a hydrogen lattice to form a mixture; heating the mixture under pressure; cooling to produce crystals; contacting the mixture with an organic scaffold to form a crystal and organic scaffold mixture; partially disposing the crystal and organic scaffold into a cast; and drying the mixture.
Zhang et al. teach a process, wherein MOF-thin films are made by contacting a metal with an organic precursor, in the presence of a solvent, to form a mixture. The mixture is added to an autoclave or pressure vessel and heated. The heated mixture is cooled to produce crystals with the organic precursor, followed by washing and drying.
Zhang et al. do not teach contacting the metal with a hydrogen lattice, or the metal being magnesium; however, Ramaswamy et al. teach the addition of a hydrogen lattice, H6L to a metal, Mg, to form a mixture that is subsequently heated, a process for making a water stable magnesium MOF.
The instant claims are rendered obvious by the combined reference teachings. Ramaswamy et al. teach that reaction of the metal with a hydrogen lattice affords an MOF that is water stable and has high proton conductivity. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found that by first contacting the metal used in the process taught by Zhang et al. with a hydrogen lattice, the MOF film made therein would have similar water stability and high proton stability as the MOF taught by Ramaswamy et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is (571)272-0649. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-9pm IFP.
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 571-270-5241. 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.
/SIKARL A WITHERSPOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights