DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply, filed 6 February 2026 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 29 December 2025, has been fully considered. As per Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 8-19, are pending under examination and claims 1-7 and 20 are withdrawn (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-19 in the reply filed on 6 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 10-16 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.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of ‘a plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801 having a diameter’ is indefinite as it is not clear if the ‘plurality of’ that ‘has’ the property is referring to crystals, crystallites, particles, powders, granules, pellets, agglomerates, etc.
Regarding claim 11, firstly, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the plurality of polycrystalline” MOF-801 in the instant claim, or in claim 8 from which it depends. It is not clear if the claim intended to depend from claim 10 which does recite a plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801. Secondly, the recitation of “a surface area” is indefinite as the type of surface area measurement is not clear (i.e. BET, Langmuir, etc.). Thirdly, the recitation of ‘the plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801 having a surface area’ is indefinite as it is not clear if the ‘plurality of’ that ‘has’ the property is referring to crystals, crystallites, particles, powders, granules, pellets, agglomerates, etc.
Regarding claim 12, firstly, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the plurality of polycrystalline” MOF-801 in the instant claim, or in claim 8 from which it depends. It is not clear if the claim intended to depend from claim 10 which does recite a plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801. Secondly, the recitation of ‘the plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801 having an average pore size’ is indefinite as it is not clear if the ‘plurality of’ that ‘has’ the property is referring to crystals, crystallites, particles, powders, granules, pellets, agglomerates, etc.
Regarding claim 13, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the plurality of polycrystalline” MOF-801 in the instant claim, or in claim 8 from which it depends. It is not clear if the claim intended to depend from claim 10 which does recite a plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801.
Regarding claim 14, firstly, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the plurality of polycrystalline” MOF-801 in the instant claim, or in claim 8 from which it depends. It is not clear if the claim intended to depend from claim 10 which does recite a plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801. Secondly, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “CaCl-2 hydrate formed” as neither the instant claim, nor claim 8 from which it depends, establishes basis for CaCl2 hydrate formation as currently written.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation that the ratio between the mass of MOF-801 and the volume of the CaCl2 being “configured” as claimed is indefinite as the metes and bounds of what that ratio entails is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining such, and one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably appraised of the scope.
Regarding claim 16, firstly, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “the plurality of polycrystalline” MOF-801 in the instant claim, or in claim 8 from which it depends. It is not clear if the claim intended to depend from claim 10 which does recite a plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801. Secondly it is not clear what is meant by ‘wrap around the plurality’ in the context of the claim and ‘the plurality of polycrystalline MOF-801” appears to be an incomplete recitation (i.e. structures, molecules, grains, crystals, cage structure, etc.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Permyakova et al. (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2017, 5, 12889; published online 18 May 2017) in view of Solovyeva et al. (Energy Conversion and Management, 174, 2018, 356-363; published online 18 August 2018).
Regarding claim 8, Permyakova teaches salt-metal organic framework (MOF) composites with application to sorbents for seasonal heat storage, wherein the MOF particles serve as host matrices for the salts (abstract). Permyakova teaches the salt is CaCl2 which successfully encapsulates into the pores of the MOF and resultant composite outperforms other composite or physical sorbents known thus far with very little loss upon adsorption-desorption cycling and with high chemical stability upon aging (abstract; pg12890-12891)(noting the Å size reported pore diameters and the encapsulation therein of the salt reading over instant CaCl2 as nanoparticles (Table 1); also Fig2 of an MOF/CaCl2 particles with scale bar of 1µm).
Permyakova teaches stable MOFs include known compounds such as MIL-127(Fe), MIL-100(Fe), MIL-101(Cr), UiO-66(Zr)-NH2, MIL-125(Ti)-NH2 -and MIL-160(Al) (abstract; Fig 1; Table 1) but does not specifically teach the MOF is MOF-801 type. However, Permyakova specifically teaches that there are many stable MOF candidates available, and that paves the way for further advanced composites based on new MOF matrices (conclusions; pg12897). Solovyeva teaches MOF-801 is an MOF that is a promising material for adsorption cooling and that MOF-801 has been shown to outperform other common absorbents (conclusion; pg 362), has greater affinity for water vapor that other known MOFs, such as NH2-MIL-125, UiO-66 and CAU-10 (introduction; pg357), and has high potential (abstract; conclusion). Solovyeva and Permyakova are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely MOF based heat transfer composites. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the MOF-801 of Solovyeva as the MOF matrix of Permyakova and would have been motivated to do so as Permyakova explicitly teaches composites using new or advanced MOFs beyond those utilized, and further as Solovyeva teaches MOF-801 has greater affinity for water vapor than the MOFs NH2-MIL-125, UiO-66 also used by Permyakova, and has high potential for sorption based heat transfer cycles.
Regarding claim 9, Permyakova in view of Solovyeva renders obvious the composites as set forth in claim 8 above. Permyakova further teaches the composites undergo water adsorption-desorption cycling boundary conditions of adsorption temperatures of 30 °C and desorption temperatures of 80 °C (experimental; water sorption; pg12891). Solovyeva similarly teaches MOF-801 undergoing adsorption temperatures of 30°C and desorption temperatures of 80-85°C (abstract; see also Table 2).
Regarding claims 10-12, Permyakova in view of Solovyeva renders obvious the composites as set forth in claim 8 above. Permyakova further teaches the behavior of the individual components (inorganic salt and porous matrix) may be significantly modified in terms of water sorption properties, etc., by tuning the chemical nature, loading capacity, and particle size of the confined salt and by tuning the properties of the porous host matrix i.e. pore size, shape and volume, and hydrophilic-hydrophobic banalce (pg12890 col 1).
Solovyeva further teaches synthetically obtained MOF-801 having specific area Ssp = 900 ± 20 m2/g, total pore volume Vp = 0.49 ± 0.01 cm3/g (3.Results; pg358) and teaches pelleting, griding and sieving to obtain different values (2.3; pg 357-358; Table 1). Solovyeva further teaches a synthesis method to obtain MOF-801 (2.experimental; pg357). Solovyeva teaches similar values of specific area (BET) and teaches pore volumes in agreement with known values of MOF-801, and teaches varying particle sizes of the MOF-801. Permyakova in view of Solovyeva renders obvious the claimed composite comprising the claimed components, present in the claimed amounts, and Solovyeva teaches MOF-801 obtained by substantially similar methods and having similar properties. The instant original specification teaches that an MOF-801 made by a substantially similar method will have the claimed physical properties as claimed (original specification, pages 11-12, FIG 2A). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)). It is further noted Solovyeva teaches pore size, particle size and specific area to be adjustable i.e. result-effective variables (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 13 and 16, Permyakova in view of Solovyeva renders obvious the composites as set forth in claim 8 above. Permyakova further teaches the homogeneous distribution of salt in the composites via one of two methods, one which results in salt at the surface of the MOF particles and one which does not (synthesis and characterization; pg12892), and teaches the morphology of the MOF structures are preserved after salt loading and salt is encapsulated in the MOF pores (pg12893). Permyakova further teaches salt distribution/location is dependent on the MOF itself (pg12893). As such, the recitation of interconnection (claim 13) and wrapping and emedding into cages (claim 16) of the salt is held to be a resultant property. Permyakova, in view of Solovyeva, renders obvious the claimed composite comprising the claimed components, present in the claimed amounts, and teaches a substantially similar method of impregnation. The instant original specification teaches that a composite of CaCl2 and MOF-801 as claimed will have the structural relationship as claimed (original specification, pages 8-9). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 14-15, Permyakova in view of Solovyeva renders obvious the composites as set forth in claim 8 above. Permyakova teaches high and low salt loaded MOFs subjected to water absorption/desorption systems (pg12983-12985). Absent a demonstration to the contrary, the amounts of Permyakova are sufficient to read on or render obvious the configured ratio and thus prevent an aqueous solution forming. Permyakova further teaches hydration of the salt during uptake but does not teach solution formation as a result. Absent a demonstration to the contrary, the CaCl-2-MOF rendered obvious by Permyakova in view of Solovyeva meets the claimed inhibiting effect. As noted above, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 17-19, Permyakova in view of Solovyeva renders obvious the composites as set forth in claim 8 above. Permyakova teaches CaCl2-MOF composites have high energy storage capacity, up to 310 kW h m-3 or 485 W h kg-1, excellent water uptake and loading lifts (pg12891; Figs 3-6) and teaches such is the result of beneficial synergy between the chemical sorption of the salt and the physical sorption of the MOFs (pg12894). Solovyeva teaches MOF-801 has improved water sorption properties (3.-3.3; pg358-359), teaches the amount of water exchanged on MOF-801 under cycle conditions is 0.21 g/g which exceeds values for common adsorbents, and teaches attractive adsorption cooling cycle power (4.; pg362).
Permyakova in view of Solovyeva render obvious the claimed composite comprising the claimed components, present in the claimed amounts, and obtained by a substantially similar method. The instant specification (instant original specification, pages 3-4) teaches that a composite as claimed will have the claimed water adsorbing properties (claim 17), cooling power (claim 18), and AWAC properties (claim 19) as claimed. As noted above, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767