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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 depends upon Claim 15 and lists identical limitations, namely “the third solution is heated for at least 24 hours”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Synthesis of heterogeneous metal organic Framework-Graphene oxide nanocomposite membranes for water treatment” Jafarian et al. in view of CN 111939878 A Ren et al. Claim 1 requires “A method for removing metal ions from water”. Jafarian et al. discloses removing an organic dye from water (see Figure 7). Jafarian et al. is silent towards removing metal ions from water however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the wastewater treatment material of Jafarian et al. to removing metal ions because similar materials are known as effective for removing metal ions. Specifically Jafarian et al. discloses a graphene oxide-zeolitic imidazole framework (GO-ZIF) “In this study, zeolite imidazolate framework (ZIF-7) was chosen as the MOF component of the nanocomposite membrane, because of the great biocidal activities of zinc. Therefore, a hydrophilic GO-ZIF-7 nanocomposite with a high surface charge was incorporated into the chitosan-coated polyethersulfone (PES) membrane for the first time.” [Page 3, Col. 1, Paragraph 2]. Ren et al. similarly discloses a GO-ZIF composite material “The invention discloses a ternary composite aerogel. KGM and GO are used as base materials and ZIF-67 is loaded to prepare a KGM/GO/ZIF-67 composite aerogel. The KGM/GO/ZIF-67 ternary composite aerogel is prepared. Aerogel adsorption material has a porous structure with high specific surface area, low density, and adsorption of anionic dyes, cationic dyes and heavy metal ions.” [29]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of Jafarian et al. with the method of Ren et al. because they both similarly relate to treating wastewater streams with a GO-ZIF composite material. The motivation to have used the material of Jafarian et al. (which is known to be effective at removing dyes) to have further removed metal ions, as suggested by Ren et al., would have been to further purify a waste stream to satisfy environmental restrictions on industrial discharge water.
Claim 1 further requires “comprising: mixing an amount of a graphene oxide–zeolitic imidazolate framework (GO-ZIF) nanocomposite with an aqueous composition comprising one or more metal ions to form a treatment solution”. Although Jafarian et al. is silent towards metal ions, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand this is a necessary step for removing metal ions with an adsorbent GO-ZIF composite material. Furthermore Jafarian et al. discloses mixing a GO-ZIF with an aqueous solution comprising dyes “The main objective of this study was to optimize the concentrations of the nanocomposite components to achieve high rejection of DIRECT RED 16 (DR16) dyes and humic acid from synthetic wastewater” [Page 3, Col. 1, Paragraph 2].
Claim 1 further requires “adsorbing the one or more metal ions onto the GO-ZIF nanocomposite”. As above this would be a necessary step for removing metal ions with an adsorbent GO-ZIF composite material.
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the GO-ZIF nanocomposite comprises: graphene oxide, and a zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF)”. Jafarian et al. discloses “To synthesize GO − ZIF-7 nanocomposites, GO (0.1 g) was initially dispersed in 40 ml of deionized (DI) water …” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2].
Claim 1 further requires “wherein the zeolitic imidazolate framework has a phase III structure”. Jafarian et al. is silent towards the phase of the obtained ZIF, however they do disclose an XRD spectrum of the obtained nanocomposite (see Figure 2d). Furthermore the instant application specification discloses “The diffraction peaks of ZIF-7 shown in FIG. 2 indicate the formation of ZIF-7 phase III.” [Page 16, Lines 20-21]. Therefore it is understood that a ZIF-7 material having the same XRD spectrum as is disclosed in Figure 2 would be phase III. A comparison of Figure 2d from Jafarian et al. and Figure 2 of the instant application specification (left: stacked, right: overlayed) is presented below:
PNG
media_image1.png
425
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any slight differences between the two spectra presented are understood to be from using a different machine to characterize them, and not from differences in the phase of the ZIF-7.
Claim 1 further requires “the zeolitic imidazolate framework … at least partially encases the graphene oxide.”. Jafarian et al. discloses TEM and SEM images of the GO-ZIF material in Figure 2b and 2c (respectively), reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
258
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These images clearly show that the GO is partially encased by ZIF-7.
Claim 2 requires “the GO-ZIF nanocomposite comprises ZIF-7.”. Jafarian et al. discloses ZIF-7 “In this study, zeolite imidazolate framework (ZIF-7) was chosen as the MOF component of the nanocomposite membrane” [Page 3, Col. 1, Paragraph 2].
Claim 6 requires “the GO-ZIF nanocomposite has an average particle size of less than 500 nm.”. In Figure 2b (above) Jafarian et al. discloses a particle size of about 100 nm.
Claim 7 requires “the graphene oxide has carboxylate functional groups”. Jafarian et al. discloses “Graphene oxide (GO) nanosheets are monolayers of carbon atoms organized in a tight honeycomb lattice with functional groups that are abundant in carboxyl, hydroxyl, and epoxy” [Page 2, Col. 1, Paragraph 2-Col. 2, Paragraph 1]. It is understood that the only difference between carboxylate and carboxyl functional groups is whether the H+ ion is attached or not, and is entirely dependent on the pH of the water that is contacting the GO.
Claim 10 requires “The method of claim 1, further comprising: forming the GO-ZIF nanocomposite by:” and then lists process steps. It is noted that Claim 1 is a method of using and not a method of making, therefore Claim 10 is also a method of using the GO-ZIF material and not a method of making the GO-ZIF material. Therefore the process steps required by Claim 10 (and further claims which are dependent upon Claim 10) are given product-by-process treatment (see MPEP 2113). In other words only the structure which is suggested by the process steps of Claim 10 is considered to further limit the GO-ZIF material of Claim 1 which is used to perform the method.
Claim 10 further requires “dissolving an amount of a hydrated zinc nitrate salt in methanol to produce a first solution; adding a graphene oxide powder to the first solution to produce a second solution; adding benzimidazole dissolved in methanol to the second solution to produce a third solution; and heating the third solution at a temperature greater than 100 °C to form the GO-ZIF nanocomposite.”. Jafarian et al. discloses “To synthesize GO − ZIF-7 nanocomposites, GO (0.1 g) was initially dispersed in 40 ml of deionized (DI) water using sonication for 20 min at room temperature, followed by 24 h of vigorous stirring. Then, zinc nitrate hexahydrate (0.446 g) was dissolved in 30 ml of DI water and added to the GO solution. The obtained mixture was continuously stirred for 6 h. Next, 0.354 g benzimidazole was dissolved in 30 ml of ethanol and mixed with the previous solution. The final mixture was stirred for 2 h, followed by 2 h of settlement.” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2].
These methods of synthesis differ by solvent, temperature, and order of reagent addition, however none of these suggest structure in the final product obtained. Structure is suggested by the type of reagent which will be incorporated into the final product and Jafarian et al. discloses identical reagents. MPEP 2113.
Claim 13 requires “drying the GO-ZIF nanocomposite at 50 °C.”. Jafarian et al. discloses “Finally, GO-ZIF-7 nanocrystals were placed in an oven at 60 °C for 6 h to eliminate the residual solvents.” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2]. No structure is suggested by a 10° difference in drying temperature.
Claim 14 requires “the third solution is heated to a temperature of 130 °C.”. Jafarian et al. is silent towards the synthesis temperature. This is interpreted as having a reaction temperature of about room temperature. Synthesis temperature does not suggest structure, especially as the same phase (phase III) is obtained at both temperatures (see Claim 1).
Claim 15 requires “the third solution is heated for at least 24 hours.”. Jafarian et al. does not disclose heating. Furthermore they disclose a 4 hour reaction time “The final mixture was stirred for 2 h, followed by 2 h of settlement. After that, the rich solution was decanted and rinsed with 100 ml of ethanol to remove the unreacted substances.” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2]. No structure is suggested by reaction time.
Claim 16 requires “the aqueous composition comprises lead.”. Jafarian et al. does not disclose removing lead from solution. However, since lead is a known heavy metal and Ren et al. teaches that similar GO-ZIF composites are effective at treating heavy metals (see Claim 1) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included lead among the heavy metals to be removed.
Claim 17 requires “the third solution is heated for at least 24 hours.”. Jafarian et al. does not disclose heating. Furthermore they disclose a 4 hour reaction time “The final mixture was stirred for 2 h, followed by 2 h of settlement. After that, the rich solution was decanted and rinsed with 100 ml of ethanol to remove the unreacted substances.” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2]. No structure is suggested by reaction time.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-9, and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art is given by Jafarian et al. in view of Ren et al. by virtue of teaching Claim 1 (see above).
Claim 3 requires “the graphene oxide is fully encased by the zeolitic imidazolate framework.”. Jafarian et al. clearly shows the GO is partially encased by ZIF (see Claim 1) in Figure 2b and 2c (above). Jafarian et al. does not suggest or motivate fully encasing the GO.
Claim 4 and 5 similarly limit Claim 1 by limiting the wt. % of GO in the final GO-ZIF composite, with Claim 4 requiring less than 5% and Claim 5 requiring 1.6%. Jafarian et al. does not explicitly disclose the GO wt. % however they do disclose “To synthesize GO − ZIF-7 nanocomposites, GO (0.1 g) was initially dispersed in 40 ml of deionized (DI) water using sonication for 20 min at room temperature, followed by 24 h of vigorous stirring. Then, zinc nitrate hexahydrate (0.446 g) was dissolved in 30 ml of DI water and added to the GO solution. The obtained mixture was continuously stirred for 6 h. Next, 0.354 g benzimidazole was dissolved in 30 ml of ethanol and mixed with the previous solution.” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2]. Assuming a 100% conversion of Zn2+ and benzimidazole the total mass would have been 0.552 g (0.1 g GO + 0.098 g Zn2+ + 0.354 g benzimidazole = 0.55 g total). This means that the GO would have been 18.1 wt. % (0.1 g GO/0.552 g total * 100% = 18.1%). Which is outside of the range claimed. Furthermore if the ZIF forming reaction had had a conversion less than 100% it would have only raised the wt. % of GO, further placing it outside of the claimed range. Jafarian et al. does not suggest or motivate the wt. % of GO required by Claim 4 or Claim 5.
Claim 8 requires “the GO-ZIF nanocomposite has a Pb2+ ion uptake capacity ranging from 900 mg/L to 5,000 mg/L, where the Pb2+ ion uptake capacity is calculated according to: qe = (Ci - Cf)*V/m where Ci and Cf are, respectively, an initial and a final lead concentrations, V is the sample volume, and m is the amount of graphene oxide-zeolitic imidazolate framework nanocomposite.”. Although not explicitly defined it is understood that qe is the uptake capacity. Jafarian et al. is silent towards a lead uptake capacity, furthermore due to structural differences between the GO-ZIF material of Jafarian et al. and the GO-ZIF material of the instant invention (see at least Claims 3-5) it cannot be concluded that the material of Jafarian et al. would have inherently had the same lead uptake capacity if measured.
Claim 9 requires “the GO-ZIF nanocomposite is in the form of a core-shell particle with a zeolitic imidazolate framework shell and a graphene oxide core.”. It is understood that a core-shell particle requires that the shell fully, or substantially fully encases the core. Jafarian et al. disclose only a partial coverage (see Claim 1, 3, and Figure 2b and 2c). Jafarian et al. does not suggest or motivate further encasing the GO with ZIF.
Claim 11 requires “the amount of graphene oxide added to the first solution is less than 5 wt% relative to a combined mass of the amount of hydrated zinc nitrate and the amount of benzimidazole.”. Claim 11 is given the same product-by-process treatment as Claim 10 (see above). The process step of Claim 11 suggests structure, namely the final GO wt. % of the GO-ZIF material. Jafarian et al. discloses “To synthesize GO − ZIF-7 nanocomposites, GO (0.1 g) was initially dispersed in 40 ml of deionized (DI) water using sonication for 20 min at room temperature, followed by 24 h of vigorous stirring. Then, zinc nitrate hexahydrate (0.446 g) was dissolved in 30 ml of DI water and added to the GO solution. The obtained mixture was continuously stirred for 6 h. Next, 0.354 g benzimidazole was dissolved in 30 ml of ethanol and mixed with the previous solution.” [Page 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2]. This is a wt. % of 12.5% (0.1 g GO/(0.446 g Zn(NO3)2•6H2O + 0.354 g benzimidazole)*100% = 12.5%) of GO added to the mixture relative to a combined mass of the amount of hydrated zinc nitrate and the amount of benzimidazole. Jafarian et al. does not suggest or motivate adding less than 12.5% GO to the mixture.
Claim 12 has the same limitations as Claim 11 other than requiring 1.6 wt. % of GO added to the mixture. Jafarian et al. discloses 12.5 wt. % GO added to the mixture. Jafarian et al. does not suggest or motivate adding less than 12.5% GO to the mixture.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER whose telephone number is (703)756-5471. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/JOSHUA MAXWELL SPEER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736