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 claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US20160089637), and further in view of Yuan et al. (“Stable Metal-Organic Frameworks with Group 4 Metals: Current Status and Trends”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. discloses an absorbent including an organic-inorganic hybrid nanoporous material used to selectively adsorb nitrogen gas (paragraph 0010). The organic-inorganic hybrid nanoporous material can be represented by MaObXcLd [Chemical Formula 5] (paragraph 0036). M is one or more metal ions consisting of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Mg, Ca, and Li. The valency of these metal ions is not disclosed, but it is the position of the examiner that they are divalent because they are most common in MOF synthesis. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the iron and chromium metal ions are divalent (paragraph 0057). L is an organic ligand (paragraph 0036). An example of the organic ligand is 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene (paragraph 0041). This ligand satisfies the structure of compound C where each R1 group is (c1) and each R2 is hydrogen. Solvents are used in preparation of the hybrid nanoporous materials. In Preparation Example 3, a solvent mixture of DMF (Dimethylformamide)-ethanol-water is used (paragraph 0070). In preparation example 5, the solvent is water (paragraph 0072). In preparation example 5, the reactants are stirred for 30 minutes, so the metals are homogenously distributed in the MOF (paragraph 0072).
Chang et al. does not disclose the titanium metal ion is tetravalent Ti(IV).
Yuan et al. discloses porous organic-inorganic hybrid MOFs (Introduction). In the early stages of MOF research, divalent metals were widely used in MOF synthesis, but are limited by their instability under harsh conditions (Introduction). Yuan et al. discloses titanium in MOFs with an oxidation state of +4 (Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, metals with a +4 oxidation state, such as Ti(IV), to the group of M that can be one or more metal ions because 4+ metal cations have stronger metal-ligand bonds resulting in high stability and wide application scope (Introduction).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chang et al. discloses preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material of Cr and Fe (paragraph 0072). In preparation example 5, Cr and Fe have the same molar ratio of 0.5 (paragraph 0072). Chang et al. does not disclose preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material with Ti(IV).
Yuan et al. discloses Ti(IV) in a bimetallic MOF with Zr(IV) (Ti-Zr Bimetallic MOFs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute one of the divalent metals with Ti(IV) to give a proportion of 50% titanium and the divalent making up the other 50%. Metals with a +4 oxidation state have stronger metal-ligand bonds resulting in a more stable MOF (Introduction).
Regarding claim 4, Chang et al. discloses the hybrid nanoporous material is a porous organic-inorganic polymer compound having a 3-dimensional structure formed by a central metal ion coordinate bonding to an organic ligand (paragraph 0035). The compound is crystalline and has a nanometer level pore structure (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 5, Chang et al. discloses the metal ions are selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Mg, Ca, and Li (paragraph 0036). The valency of these metal ions is not disclosed, but it is the position of the examiner that they are divalent because they are most common in MOF synthesis. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the iron and chromium metal ions are divalent (paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 6, Chang et al. discloses an absorbent including an organic-inorganic hybrid nanoporous material used to selectively adsorb nitrogen gas (paragraph 0010). The organic-inorganic hybrid nanoporous material can be represented by MaObXcLd [Chemical Formula 5] (paragraph 0036). M is one or more metal ions consisting of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Mg, Ca, and Li. The valency of these metal ions is not disclosed, but it is the position of the examiner that they are divalent because they are most common in MOF synthesis. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the iron and chromium metal ions are divalent (paragraph 0057). L is an organic ligand (paragraph 0036). An example of the organic ligand is 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene (paragraph 0041). This ligand satisfies the structure of compound C where each R1 group is (c1) and each R2 is hydrogen. Solvents are used in preparation of the hybrid nanoporous materials. In Preparation Example 3, a solvent mixture of DMF (Dimethylformamide)-ethanol-water is used (paragraph 0070). In preparation example 5, the solvent is water (paragraph 0072). In preparation example 5, the reactants are stirred for 30 minutes, so the metals are homogenously distributed in the MOF (paragraph 0072).
Chang et al. does not disclose the titanium metal ion is tetravalent Ti(IV).
Yuan et al. discloses porous organic-inorganic hybrid MOFs (Introduction). In the early stages of MOF research, divalent metals were widely used in MOF synthesis, but are limited by their instability under harsh conditions (Introduction). Yuan et al. discloses titanium in MOFs with an oxidation state of +4 (Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, metals with a +4 oxidation state, such as Ti(IV), to the group of M that can be one or more metal ions because 4+ metal cations have stronger metal-ligand bonds resulting in high stability and wide application scope (Introduction).
Regarding claim 7, Chang et al. discloses the organic material ligand in [Chemical Formula 5] can be 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 8, Chang et al. discloses MaObXcLd [Chemical Formula 5] (paragraph 0036). “M” is one or more metal ions consisting of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Mg, Ca, and Li. The valency of these metal ions is not disclosed, but it is the position of the examiner that they are divalent because they are most common in MOF synthesis. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the iron and chromium metal ions are divalent (paragraph 0057). The subscript “a” is 1 to 12, so a subscript of 3 for an “M” chosen from the list and 3 for the substituted Ti(IV) is a=6 and satisfies the formula (paragraph 0036). “O” represents oxygen and the subscript “b” is 0-6 (paragraph 0036). L is an organic ligand such as 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene and the subscript “d” is 1-12 (paragraph 0036). “X” is an anion ligand and the subscript “c” is 0-12 (paragraph 0036). The solvent “S” is disclosed in the examples such as water in preparation example 5 (paragraph 0072). A table below shows subscripts that satisfy the formula.
M = Ti(IV) and Fe(II)
a = 6
O
b = 3
L = 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphneyl) benzene
d = 4
X = Cl-
c = 0
Final compound = [Ti3Fe3O3L4]
Regarding claim 9, Chang et al. discloses preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material of Cr and Fe (paragraph 0072). In preparation example 5, Cr and Fe have the same molar ratio of 0.5 (paragraph 0072). Chang et al. does not disclose preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material with Ti(IV).
Yuan et al. discloses Ti(IV) in a bimetallic MOF with Zr(IV) (Ti-Zr Bimetallic MOFs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute one of the divalent metals with Ti(IV) to give a proportion of 50% titanium and the divalent making up the other 50%. Metals with a +4 oxidation state have stronger metal-ligand bonds resulting in a more stable MOF (Introduction).
Regarding claim 10, Chang et al. discloses MaObXcLd [Chemical Formula 5] (paragraph 0036). “M” is one or more metal ions consisting of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Mg, Ca, and Li. The valency of these metal ions is not disclosed, but it is the position of the examiner that they are divalent because they are most common in MOF synthesis. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the iron and chromium metal ions are divalent (paragraph 0057). The subscript “a” is 1 to 12, so a subscript of 1 for Cu chosen from the list and 1 for the substituted Ti(IV) is a=2 and satisfies the formula of the claimed invention when z=1 (paragraph 0036). “O” represents oxygen and the subscript “b” is 0-6 (paragraph 0036). “L” is an organic ligand such as 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene which satisfies the structure of compound C where each R1 group is (c1) and each R2 is hydrogen. The subscript “d” is 1-12 (paragraph 0036). “X” is an anion ligand and the subscript “c” is 0-12 (paragraph 0036). The solvent “S” is disclosed in examples such as water in preparation example 5 (paragraph 0072). A table below shows subscripts that satisfy the formula.
M = Ti(IV), Cu(II)
a = 2
O
b = 0
L = 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene
d = 2
X = Cl-
c = 0
Final compound = [Cu(II)Ti(IV)L2], when z = 1
Regarding claim 11, Chang et al. discloses preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material of Cr and Fe (paragraph 0072). In preparation example 5, Cr and Fe have the same molar ratio of 0.5 (paragraph 0072). The divalent metals in this example are chromium and iron, but one of the metals could easily be swapped with copper since it is disclosed in the list of “M” [Chemical Formula 5] (paragraph 0036). Chang et al. does not disclose preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material with Ti(IV)
Yuan et al. discloses Ti(IV) in a bimetallic MOF with Zr(IV) (Ti-Zr Bimetallic MOFs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the divalent metal that is not copper with Ti(IV) to give a proportion of 50% titanium and the divalent making up the other 50%. Metals with a +4 oxidation state have stronger metal-ligand bonds resulting in a more stable MOF (Introduction).
Regarding claim 12, Chang et al. discloses MaObXcLd [Chemical Formula 5] (paragraph 0036). “M” is one or more metal ions consisting of Ti, Zr, V, Cr, Nb, Ta, W, Mo, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, Mg, Ca, and Li. The valency of these metal ions is not disclosed, but it is the position of the examiner that they are divalent because they are most common in MOF synthesis. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the iron and chromium metal ions are divalent (paragraph 0057). The subscript “a” is 1 to 12, so a subscript of 1 for the divalent metal and 2 for the substituted Ti(IV) is a=3 and satisfies the formula of the claimed invention when w=1 (paragraph 0036). “O” represents oxygen and the subscript “b” is 0-6 (paragraph 0036). “L” is an organic ligand such as 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene which satisfies the structure of compound C when each R1 group is (c1) and each R2 is hydrogen. The subscript “d” is 1-12 (paragraph 0036). “X” is one or more anion ligands chosen from F-, Cl-, and more (paragraph 0036). The subscript “c” is 0-12 (paragraph 0036) which satisfies the formula of the claimed invention when w=1. The solvent “S” is disclosed in examples such as water in preparation example 5 (paragraph 0072). A table below shows subscript that satisfy the formula.
M = Ti(IV), Fe(II)
a = 3
O
b = 1
L = 1,3,5-tri(4-carboxyphenyl) benzene
d = 2
X = Cl-
c = 2
Final Compound = [Ti(IV)2Fe(II)O(L)2Cl-2], when w=1
Regarding claim 13, Chang et al. discloses preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material of Cr and Fe (paragraph 0072). In preparation example 5, Cr and Fe have the same molar ratio of 0.5 (paragraph 0072). Chang et al. does not disclose preparation of a homometallic nanoporous material with Ti(IV).
Yuan et al. discloses Ti(IV) in a bimetallic MOF with Zr(IV) (Ti-Zr Bimetallic MOFs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute one of the divalent metals with Ti(IV) to give a proportion of 50% titanium and the divalent making up the other 50%. Metals with a +4 oxidation state have stronger metal-ligand bonds resulting in a more stable MOF (Introduction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. 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.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights