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 II, directed to claims 4-5, in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/7/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 includes a typographical error in the chemical formula, “Mn(CH3COO)3·2H2O” wherein “·” has been printed as a subscript instead of the default text size.
Claim 5 is objected to via its dependency on claim 4.
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 4-5 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mixed solution " in line 7, which appears to reference the mixed solution of Mn(CH3COO)3·2H2O, an alcohol, and distilled water recited in lines 4-5. However, claim 4 later recites that the Mn(CH3COO)3·2H2O solution and benzenetricarboxylic acid solution are mixed together and therefore two separate solutions. Therefore, it is unclear whether “the mixed solution containing alcohol and distilled water” is in reference to the above solution, or lacks antecedent basis because it refers to a separate solution of an alcohol and distilled water.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the product" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 4, the term “sufficiently” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” 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. The relative terms renders indefinite what method or amount of mixing falls within the scope of the instant claim.
The term “oxidase-like” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “oxidase-like” 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. The use of the relative term renders indefinite how Mn-BTC MOF would be within the scope of the claim based on a similarity to an oxidase enzyme.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seyedpour et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20200079796A1).
In regard to claim 4, Seyedpour et al. teaches a nanostructured Mn-BTC (BTC = 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid) metal-organic framework (MOF) [0087]. Seyedpour et al. teaches that the particle size of the MOF may be between 1-100 nm, and specifically may have a minimum particle size of 1 nm ({0089], line 3) and a maximum particle size of 10 nm ([0089], line 21). The disclosed product of Seyedpour et al. and the instantly claimed product appear to be comprised of the same components and possess the same physical characteristics. In the event any differences can be shown for the product of the product-by-process claim 4 as opposed to the product taught by Seyedpour et al., such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seyedpour et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 20200079796A1) as evidenced by Zhang et al. (Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 2019, 299, 126928).
In regard to claim 5, Seyedpour et al. teaches that the disclosed MOFs may be used as catalysts [0116] but does not discuses oxidase activity at temperatures between 4-37°C. However, the Mn-BTC MOF of Seyedpour et al. would possess such catalytic qualities because it has been demonstrated in the art that Mn-BTC MOFs can catalyze oxidation reactions within said temperature range. Zhang et al. exemplifies this activity in kinetics studies using Mn-BTC MOFs as a control, wherein at 25°C (within the instantly claimed range) UV-Vis spectroscopy data and kinetics analysis showed that undoped Mn-BTC catalyzed the oxidation reaction of TMB (pp. 7, Fig. 4b & 4d). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the nanosized Mn-BTC of Seyedpour et al. is capable of catalyzing oxidation reactions like oxidase enzymes, and the structural limitations of claim 5 are met by Seyedpour et al. In the event any differences can be shown for the product of the product-by-process claim 4 as opposed to the product taught by Seyedpour et al., such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a routine modification of the product in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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 (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights