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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification provides to provide a recitation of the following claim limitations: centrifugation at 10,000 rpm; conducting the generating step for 24 hours; conducting the washing three times; the thickness of the morphology varying from 1.5 to 5 nm; and providing a CO2 gas cylinder in the apparatus.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, “rmp” should be “rpm”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transition metal precursors" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the solution" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “good mix” in claim 1, lines 4-5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good mix” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the precipitate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "activating them" in line 7. It is unclear which prior claim limitation is being referred back to by “them”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the materials" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second ions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the second ions”, and the claim also recites “like zinc ions or tin ions” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the morphology" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “ultrathin” in claim 3, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultrathin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the apparatus" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al (“Ultrathin 2D Metal-Organic Framework Nanosheets”, including Supporting Information, hereafter referred to as Zhao I) in view of Zhao et al (“Two-dimensional metal-organic framework nanosheets: synthesis and applications”, hereafter referred to as Zhao II) and Yan et al (“Metalloporphyrin Encapsulation for Enhanced Conversion of CO2 to C2H4”).
Zhao I teaches (see fig. 1, pg. 7372 right hand column first full paragraph through end of first full paragraph on pg. 7373, and “Synthesis of Cu-TCPP nanosheets” section on page S2 of the Supporting Information) a method of preparing a copper metal-organic framework (MOF) existing as “ultrathin nanosheets”. The method involves the step of reacting a transition metal ion comprising copper with a porphyrinic structured organic linker (tetrakis(4-carboxy-phenyl)porphyrin, or TCPP). A metal precursor solution was prepared by dissolving copper nitrate trihydrate and adding a surfactant (polyvinylpyrrolidone) followed by generating the organic ligand solution and the metal precursor solution at 80°C. The formed precipitate was washed with ethanol and subjected to centrifuging at 8000 rpm for 10 minutes. Lastly, the washed precipitate was dispersed in ethanol.
Zhao I fail to teach (1) the generation step occurring for a duration of 24 hours, (2) the centrifuging being at 10000 rpm, (3) the centrifuging being in DMF, (4) the activation being in acetone, or (5) a step of vacuum drying at 80°C.
Regarding (1), Zhao I teaches in the other examples of forming TCPP nanosheets (see Supporting Information on pages S1 and S2) conducting the generation step for a duration of 24 hours. Thus, Zhao I demonstrate that longer reaction times were known in the prior art for allowing more complete reaction of the metal precursor with the organic poryphyrin molecule. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed routine experimentation to determine a suitable or optimal duration of the generation step.
Regarding (2), absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been well within the ordinary level of skill to conduct routine experimentation to determine a suitable or optimal speed of the centrifuge during the centrifugation step.
Regarding (3), Yan et al teach (see “Synthesis of M-TCPP@Cu-MOFs” section on pg. 25938) that washing of the TCPP MOFs could be done with DMF.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed a simple substitution of DMF in place of ethanol in the washing step of Zhao I because Yan et al show that DMF was a known alternative for washing TCPP-MOF precipitates. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding (4), Zhao II teach (see paragraph spanning pages 6271-6272) that ethanol and acetone were known agents for stabilizing (i.e. preventing agglomeration) MOF nanosheets.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed a simple substitution of acetone in place of ethanol in the activation step of Zhao I because Zhao II show that acetone and ethanol were known functional equivalents for ensuring stabilization of MOF nanosheets. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding (5), Yan et al teach (see “Synthesis of M-TCPP@Cu-MOFs” section on pg. 25938) that after washing of the MOFs, the MOFs were subjected to vacuum drying.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the conventional vacuum drying step as taught by Yan et al to the method of Zhao I for the purpose of removing any residual solvents from the MOF before subsequent uses.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao I teach using the same procedural steps for making zinc MOFs by using a zinc precursor solution instead of a copper precursor solution. Yan et al show forming MOFs having more than one type of metal present linked to porphyrin organic moieties and that the catalytic activity of the two-metal MOFs was improved as compared to a single-metal MOF. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided additional metal ions to the solution of Zhao I to form a two-metal MOF having improved catalytic activity as suggested by Yan et al.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao I show (see fig. 2) that the morphology of the nanosheets were ultrathin (~1.64nm).
Regarding claim 4, Yan et al teach (see “Electrochemical Measurements and Synthesis of M-TCPP@Cu” section on pages 25938-25939) using the MOF in an electrochemical H-cell having an Ag/AgCl reference electrode, platinum counter electrode, Nafion® membrane, and a carbon working electrode coated with the MOF. The solution utilized in the electrochemical H-cell included CO2 saturated in 0.5 M potassium hydrogen carbonate and CO-2 was reduced to various products included ethylene (C2H4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a carbon dioxide cylinder to provide a continuous source of CO2 for the reduction in the electrochemical cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794