DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims Claims 1-25 are pending in the instant application. Claims 10-24 have been withdrawn based upon Restriction/Election as discussed below. Claims 1-9 and 25 are being examined on the merits in the instant application. Advisory Notice The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Restriction/Election Applicant's election without traverse of Group I drawn to compositions of matter, currently claims 1-9 and 25, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 10-24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 . The examiner acknowledges Applicant comments regarding rejoinder consistent with MPEP §821.04. Applicant is reminded that: In order to retain the right to rejoinder, applicant is advised that the claims to the nonelected invention(s) should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the elected invention. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. (MPEP §821.04) . Priority The U.S. effective filing date has been determined to be 04/05/2021 , the filing date of the U.S. Provisional Application No. 18/553,986 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s submitted on 10/05/2023 and 02/18/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claim s 1-9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al. (“Covalent organic nanosheets for bioimaging,” 2018, RSC; Chemical Science, Vol. 9, pp. 8382-8387) in view of Zhang et al. (“Polymer- Covalent Organic Framework Composites for Glucose and pH Dual- Responsive Insulin Delivery in Mice,”2020, WILEY-VCH; Advanced Science News, Vol. 9, No. 2000221, pp. 1-10) ; PUIGMARTI-LUIS (WO 2019/243602; published December, 2019) and FARHA (WO 2019/173571; published March, 2019). Applicants Claims Applicant claims a covalent organic framework (COF) nanoparticle, comprising 10-25 COF nanosheets, wherein the COF nanosheets are stacked in a staggered configuration and each COF nanosheet is a co-condensate of 2,6-diformylpiridine (DFP) and 4,4’,4’’-(1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triyl)trianiline (TTA) and the COF nanoparticle has a longest linear dimension of 75-300 nm (claim 1). Applicant further claims the molar ratio during condensation of DFP and TTA is 5:1 (DFP:TTA)(claim 2), the COF has a longest linear dimension of about 120 nm, and the COF nanoparticle has 16-20 or 18 COF nanosheets (claims 4 & 5). Applicant further claims the COF nanoparticle incorporates a plurality of protein cargos (claim 6), wherein the protein is insulin (claim 7) in an amount of 30-75 wt.%, relative to the weight of the COF nanoparticle (claim 8). Applicant further claims a kit or composition comprising the COF nanoparticle, or the components to prepare the COF nanoparticle (claim 25), and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (claim 9). Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Das et al. teaches that: “Covalent organic nanosheets (CONs) obtained by exfoliation of their counterparts, such as covalent organic frameworks (COFs), have emerged as a new class of porous, thin two-dimensional (2D) nanostructures with distinctive dimension related properties that differ from their corresponding bulk materials. Exfoliation of COFs into CONs reduces the size of the material while also imparting novel physical and chemical properties, which for example, allows for the circumvention of a few serious COF drawbacks, namely their dispersibility and bioavailability within the cells. In this regard, CONs are a promising nanomaterial for applications in biomedicine including drug delivery and bioimaging.” (p. 8382, col. 1, 1 st paragraph). Das et al. teaches that: “We describe here the synthesis of a crystalline, porous, and luminescent triazine-based COF (denoted as TTA—DFP COF) from the condensation of 2,6-diformylpyridine (DFP) with 4,40,400-(1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triyl)trianiline (TTA) under 30 min of microwave irradiation (Fig. 1). As synthesized, the bulk material is constituted of nanosheets and is weakly Fluorescent with micrometer lateral dimensions. Exfoliation of the bulk material in pure water drastically reduces the lateral dimensions to the nanometer scale and enhances the photoluminescence properties by a factor of 6.” (p. 8382, col. 2 , 1 st full paragraph)(instant clam 1, “COF nanosheets are stacked in a staggered configuration and each COF nanosheet is a co-condensate of 2,6-diformylpyridine (DFP) and 4,4’,4”-(1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triyl)trianiline (TTA )” ). Das et al. teaches that: “The morphology of the TTA—DFP COF was investigated by high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). HRTEM images showed transparent nanosheets, an indication of the thickness of TTA—DFP COFs (Fig. 3a). AFM analysis of TTA DFP COFs revealed a 2D sheet-like morphology (Fig. 3b). The topological height profile for the 2D sheets was found to be 1.5 nm. PXRD analysis indicates an interlayer stacking distance of 0.35 nm, which is consistent with the well-defined lattice fringes obtained from HRTEM analysis (0.38 nm, Fig. 3a). Based on these microscopy data, we determined that TTA—DFP COFs are comprised of about four stacked layers.” (p. 8383, col. 2, 3 rd paragraph)(instant claim 1, “comprising 10-25 COF nanosheets, wherein the nanosheets are stacked in a staggered configuration). Das et al. teaches that “The nanosheets were biocompatible and non-toxic and showed ability to stain HeLa cell nuclei without additional assistance of an external targeting agent.” (abstract, last three lines). And that: “ In this regard, CONs [(Covalent Organic Nanosheets)] are a promising nanomaterial for applications in biomedicine including drug delivery and bioimaging. ” (p. 8382, col. 1, 1 st paragraph, last three lines). Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the rejected claims and the teachings of Das et al. is that Das et al. does not expressly teach that their COF nanoparticles have a longest linear dimension of 75-300 nm. Zhang et al. teaches polymer-covalent organic frameworks composites for glucose and pH dual-responsive insulin delivery in mice (title, see whole document). Zhang et al. teaches problems associated with diabetes treatment, and that: “ To circumvent these problems and improve patient satisfaction and compliance, the development of an effective and intelligent insulin delivery system capable of sensing changes in glucose concentration and correspondingly releasing the appropriate amount of insulin is extremely important for the treatment of diabetes. ” (p. 1, §Introduction, 1 st paragraph). Zhang et al. teaches that: “ Covalent organic frameworks (COFs) are an emerging class of crystalline porous materials constructed by stitching organic building blocks with strong covalent bonds. Owing to their periodical structures, pre-designable skeletons, large surface areas, and biocompatible nature, COFs have shown enormous potential as drug delivery cargos. As the first porotype COF, the boroxine-linked COF has garnered significant attention since 2005. The boron atom in the boronate ester linkage is an electron-deficient group that can coordinate with the amine and imidazole groups in the protein or insulin by nitrogen–boron complexation. Apart from the beneficial effect on insulin binding, the boronate ester moiety, which is chemically vulnerable toward acids, provides an opportunity for pH-responsible drug release and circumvent the barriers in insulin delivery in vivo. ” (p. 2, col. 1, 1 st paragraph). And that: “ COFs provided a confined microenvironment for insulin and GOx, and sustained biological activity. Importantly, boroxine-linked COFs have excellent chemical stability under mild conditions, but undergo rapid decomposition in acidic solutions and release the entrapped insulin and glucose oxidase (GOx) efficiently. Specifically, under hyperglycemic conditions, internalized glucose is converted to gluconic acid catalyzed by GOx, followed by the acid degradation of COFs to release insulin (Figure 1c). Through the dual response of hyperglycemia and pH, the polymer–COFs composites can effectively cope with hyperglycemia and shift to a resting state of normal BGLs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first intravenous nano-platform that utilizes the COFs to achieve glucose and pH dual-responsive insulin delivery. The rationally designed COFs (COF-1 and COF-5) carriers will shed new light on the development of an efficient platform for the delivery of native insulin with high generality. ” (paragraph bridging pp. 2-3) (instant claims 6-7, insulin protein delivery) . Zhang et al. teaches that: “Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) tests showed that the hydrodynamic radius of the pristine COF-1 and COF-5 were 143 nm and 211 nm (DMSO as solvent) (Figure S3 , Supporting Information).” (p. 3, col. 2, lines 6- 9)(instant claim 1, “the COF nanoparticle has a longest dimension of 75-300 nm.”). It would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the TTA-DFP COF of Das et al. for drug delivery, as suggested by Das et al., having a size for the same as suggested by Zhang et al. in a range of 75-300 nm or about 120 nm (Figure S3) , the drug being insulin as suggested by Zhang et al . Regarding the molar ratio of the DFP:TTA being 5:1 during condensation, this is being regarded as a product-by-process limitation, however, it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the molar ratio to produce the best COF material for drug delivery as taught by Das et al., and particularly insulin as taught by Zhang et al. Regarding instant claims 4-5, Das et al. clearly teaches a layered structure including several alternating layers of DFP and TTA, and it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the molar ratio to produce the best COF material for drug delivery as taught by Das et al., and particularly insulin as taught by Zhang et al. PUIGMARTI-LUIS teaches nanocarriers including porous crystalline materials (PCMs) , more particularly to metal organic frameworks (MOFs) and covalent organic frameworks (COFs) (title, abstract, see whole document). PUIGMARTI-LUIS teaches micellar dispersions, particularly colloidal dispersions having a size in the range of 15-200 nm (p. 7, 1 st paragraph)(instant claims 1 and 3, longest dimension). PUIGMARTI-LUIS teaches that: “ In one embodiment, the dispersions described herein are used as a vehicle/ nano-carrier, particularly for drug delivery. ” (p. 18, lines 1-3). And “ In principle any active ingredient may be used, preferred are Biomolecules (such as proteins and sugars) and small molecules (AP I s, such as ibuprofen). ” (p. 18, lines 17-19)(instant claim 6, “cargo proteins”). PUIGMARTI-LUIS teaches their dispersions include additives such as surfactants, pH modifiers (claims 1-2). FARHA teaches insulin-loaded metal organic frameworks (title, see whole document) including “ embodiments of the insulin-loaded MOFs having an insulin loading of at least 30 w t.% and further includes embodiments of the insulin-loaded MOFs having an insulin loading of at least 40 wt.%. ” (p. 7, [0035])(instant claim 8). FARHA teaches that: “ Then they can be formulated into a liquid or solid oral dosage form, such as a tablet containing the insulin-loaded MOFs with or w ithout suitable diluents that is designed to disintegrate in a physiological environment. ” (p. 8, [0037])(instant claims 9 & 25). Finding of prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a COF composed of TTA and DFP for drug delivery , as suggested by das et al. , and the drug being protein drug, as suggested by PUIGMARTI-LUIS , and particularly insulin as suggested by, Zhang et al. and FARHA, for the treatment of diabetes in a patient in need thereof. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention because it would have required no more than an ordinary level of skill to produce the DFP:TTA COF nanoparticles according to Das et al. for drug delivery and incorporating insulin, as suggested by Zhang et al. and FARHA . Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krishnaraj et al. (“Triggering White-Light Emission in a 2D Imine Covalent Organic Framework Through Lanthanide Augmentation,” 2019, ACS; ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, Vol. 11, pp. 27343-27352, supporting information, pp. S-1 to S-28) is cited with reference to the disclosed method of making (see, e.g., p. 27344, col. 2, §Synthesis of TTA-DFP-COF; Scheme S2, Table S3). Claims 1-9 and 25 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Claims 1-9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 . No claims allowed at this time. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT IVAN A GREENE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5868 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8-5 PM PST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Blanchard can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0827 . 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. /IVAN A GREENE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619 /TIGABU KASSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619