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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group 2, claims 10-13 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Although claim 9 was indicated as part of the elected Group, Group 2, in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 09/11/2025, Applicant’s representative and the Examiner, agreed in a Telephonic Interview of 02/13/2026 that claim 9 necessarily forms part of non-elected Group 1, considering that claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and indirectly dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 10, in the preamble “or other metals” is vague and ambiguous as to which metals are encompassed;
in parts a), b) and c) ambiguity is present as to which types of nanostructures and which types of metal oxide are encompassed by “other nanostructured metal oxide” and it is unclear whether “metal oxide tetrapod” is necessarily in the form of a nanostructure;
in part b), ambiguity is also present as to which types of and which types or forms of coating material are encompassed by “another 2D coating and it is unclear whether “nanoplatelet graphene” is necessarily in the form of a 2D coating or coating, per se; and,
also in part c), “with the 2D coating” lacks antecedent basis and is inconsistent with part b) of the claim which, as worded, lacks recitation of the functionalization necessarily being with a 2D coating.
In claim 11, in the clause “at least one of tetrapod ZnO or ZnO in combination with another metal oxide” it is unclear whether the recitation of the metal oxide encompasses there being both ZnO in tetrapod form and ZnO not in tetrapod form, and whether the clause narrows the metal oxide to being a combination of ZnO (whether or not including ZnO in tetrapod form) with another metal oxide.
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.
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.
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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wu et al publication “Highly Selective Separation of Rare Earth Elements by Zn-BTC Metal-Organic Framework Nanoporous Graphene via In Situ Green Synthesis in view of Mishra et al publication “ZnO tetrapod materials for functional applications (Mishra), Wallace et al Canadian patent publication 3,115,550 (Wallace) and Meyer et al Australian Patent Publication 2015309291 (Meyer).
For independent claim 10, Wu discloses a functionalized metal organic framework for use in concentrating and/or separating rare earth elements (REEs) or other metals (Abstract and Introduction, page 733, 1st column, 2nd full paragraph regarding metal-organic frameworks or MOFs including ZnO nanoparticles for selectively separating rare earth elements or REEs) , comprising:
(a) a metal oxide tetrapod or other nanostructured metal oxide (Abstract re ZnO nanoparticles );
(b) wherein the metal oxide tetrapod or other nanostructured metal oxide is functionalized and combined with nanostructured or nanoporous graphene or another 2D coating to form a composite (Abstract and Introduction, page 733, 1st column, 1st and 2nd full paragraph regarding nanoporous graphene (NG) exhibiting a large specific surface area and abundance of functional groups, forming a composite with the ZnO); and
(c) wherein the metal oxide tetrapod or other nanostructured metal in a composite forming a functionalized composite with the 2D coating is functionalized with an organic acid (Introduction, page 732, column 2, and paragraph bridging page 732, 2nd column and page 733, 1st column, re the MOFs having carboxyl groups with strong acid resistance .
Independent claim 10 differs from Wu by requiring wherein the graphene or another 2D coating is in nanoplatelet form and forms a coating on the metal oxide and is a functionalized coating.
Mishra teaches ZnO nanostructures in the form of a highly porous 3 D network of ZnO tetrapods employed for separation or removal of heavy metals from water and being functionalized with different functionalities (Introduction, page 632, 2nd column re Zn nanostructure tetrapods, and page 646, “Chemistry: photocatalysis , water purification, filters, antifouling, and other applications” section, 1st and 2nd columns, page 646, 1st column, concerning the arms of the ZnO tetrapods being “decorated”, i.e. “coated” with other metal oxide nanoparticles or nanolayers to enhance a photocatalysis response).
Wallace teaches utilization of layers of graphene in nanoplatelet form, having functional groups on each platelet to form composites for varied applications (Abstract, paragraph [0054]) and teaches that such nanoplatelets have high mechanical strength and are suited for filtration paragraph [0002]. Wallace also teaches that such functional groups may be carboxylic acids [0055].
Mishra teaches at page 634, 1st and 2nd columns, such form of metal oxides have varied aspect ratios and having effective, easily upscaled surface properties, i.e. increase the relative surface area, and useful for many applications, hence have improved adsorbing capacity, with such form of ZnO being easily upscaled.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing metal organic frameworks for concentrating and separating heavy metals from other materials, to have modified the Wu framework, by forming a structure in which graphene or another 2D coating is in nanoplatelet form and forms a coating on the ZnO metal oxide and is a functionalized coating, as cumulatively taught by Mishra and Wallace, to enhance metals removal and separation by inducing a photocatalysis response, and to increase the mechanical strength of the composite framework.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing metal organic frameworks for concentrating and separating heavy metals from other materials, to have modified the Wu materials by selected the base material of the composite framework to be a metal oxide comprising at least one of tetrapod ZnO, or ZnO in combination with another metal oxide, as taught by Mishra, inherently so as to increase the relative surface area of the composite, thus improving overall absorbing capacity, with such composite being more easily upscaled.
Independent claim 10 also differs by requiring wherein the functionalized organic acid coating is a polyfunctional organic acid, and constitutes a further functional coating on the 2D coating.
Wallace again teaches utilization of layers of graphene in nanoplatelet form, having functional groups on each platelet to form composites for varied applications (Abstract, paragraph [0054]) and teaches that such nanoplatelets have high mechanical strength and are suited for filtration paragraph [0002]. Wallace also teaches that such functional groups may be carboxylic acids [0055].
Meyer teaches a sorbent with a high binding capacity towards heavy metals (page 2, lines 8-18), with an inorganic nanostructured support material in order to ensure that binding capacity is relatively high (page 4, line 30-page 5, line 2 and page 6, lines 1-10), the sorbent comprising multi-layer compositions (page 6, lines 16-20).
Mishra further teaches a polymeric coating, having a crosslinking agent, preferably selected from a group including dicarboxylic and tricarboxylic acids, i.e. “polyfunctional”, thus forming multiple functional groups (page 9, line 28-page 10, line 7).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing metal organic frameworks for concentrating and separating heavy metals from other materials, to have modified the Wu framework, by forming a structure in which graphene or another 2D coating is in nanoplatelet form and forms a coating on the ZnO metal oxide and is a functionalized coating, as cumulatively taught by Wallace, Meyer and Mishra, so as to increase binding capacity or ensure a high binding capacity towards heavy metals, and so as to form additional functional groups, hence inherently functioning to remove a plurality of heavy metals from the water being purified.
For claim 11, Mishra further teaches wherein the metal oxide tetrapod or other nanostructured metal oxide comprises at least one of tetrapod ZnO, or ZnO in combination with another metal oxide (Introduction, page 632, 2nd column re Zn nanostructure tetrapods, and page 646, “Chemistry: photocatalysis , water purification, filters, antifouling, and other applications” section, 1st and 2nd columns, the page 646 section on page 646, 1st column, concerning the arms of ZnO tetrapods being “decorated”, i.e. “coated” with other metal oxide nanoparticles or nanolayers to enhance a photocatalysis response).
Mishra teaches at page 634, 1st and 2nd columns, such form of metal oxides have varied aspect ratios and having effective, easily upscaled surface properties, for many applications, hence improving adsorbing capacity, with such form of ZnO being easily upscaled.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing metal organic frameworks for concentrating and separating heavy metals from other materials, to have modified the Wu materials by selecting the metal oxide to beat least one of tetrapod ZnO, or ZnO in combination with another metal oxide, as taught by Mishra, inherently so as to increase the relative surface area of the composite, thus improving overall absorbing capacity, with such composite being more easily upscaled.
For claim 12, Mishra further teaches wherein the metal oxide tetrapod or other nanostructured metal oxide comprises at least one of tetrapod ZnO, or ZnO in combination with another metal oxide (Introduction, page 632, 2nd column re Zn nanostructure tetrapods, and page 646, “Chemistry: photocatalysis , water purification, filters, antifouling, and other applications” section, 1st and 2nd columns, the page 646 section on page 646, 1st column, concerning the arms of ZnO tetrapods being “decorated”, i.e. “coated” with other metal oxide nanoparticles or nanolayers to enhance a photocatalysis response).
Mishra teaches at page 634, 1st and 2nd columns, such form of metal oxides have varied aspect ratios and having effective, easily upscaled surface properties, for many applications, hence improving adsorbing capacity, with such form of ZnO being easily upscaled.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of providing metal organic frameworks for concentrating and separating heavy metals from other materials, to have modified the Wu materials by selecting the metal oxide to be at least one of tetrapod ZnO, or ZnO in combination with another metal oxide, as taught by Mishra, inherently so as to increase the relative surface area of the composite, thus improving overall absorbing capacity, with such composite being more easily upscaled.
For claim 13, Wu discloses wherein the metal oxide tetrapod or other nanostructured metal oxide is modified with one or more of graphene, reduced graphene oxide, a transition metal dichalcogenide, or black phosphorous (Abstract and Introduction, page 733, 1st column, 1st and 2nd full paragraph regarding nanoporous graphene (NG) exhibiting a large specific surface area and abundance of functional groups, forming a composite with the ZnO).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Minguez PGPUBS Document US 20190169036 concerns an absorbent composite formed of a nano-crystalline metal organic framework embedded within a mesoporous material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. Visit https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
02/18/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773