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 I in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 38, objected to because of the following informalities: “quinolone” in line 6 should be changed to “quinoline”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39, objected to because of the following informalities: “quinolone” in line 6 should be changed to “quinoline”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43, objected to because of the following informalities: “quinolone” in line 5 should be changed to “quinoline”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 46 objected to because of the following informalities: “44” in line 2 should be changed to “43”. The examiner interprets this claim as limiting the third independent claim like the preceding claims 45 and 44 to the respective independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 47, objected to because of the following informalities: “quinolone” in line 3 should be changed to “quinoline”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 48, objected to because of the following informalities: “quinolone” in line 3 should be changed to “quinoline”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 49, objected to because of the following informalities: “quinolone” in line 3 should be changed to “quinoline”. “44” in line 2 should be changed to “43”. The examiner interprets this claim as limiting the third independent claim like preceding claims 48 and 47 to the respective independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 38-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (“Boosting Ethane/Ethylene Separation within Isoreticular Ultramicroporous Metal-Organic Frameworks as applied”), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 9825308 B1).
Regarding claim 38, Lin et al. discloses targeting the isoreticular ultramicroporous MOF Cu(Qc)2 where HQc = quinoline-5-carboxylic acid (Introduction, paragraph 4). The MOF is synthesized with a mixture of Cu(BF)4*6H2O, HQc, N,N’-diemthylformamide (DMF), and EtOH (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). The solvent of the mixture is DMF which is an organic solvent. The solution is non-aqueous. The solution comprises 0.58 mmol HQc, 6 mL DMF, and 6 mL EtOH (Experimental Section, paragraph 4) giving a concentration of 0.048 mol/L. Calculations are shown below.
0.58 mmol = 0.00058 mol HQc
6 mL DMF + 6 mL EtOH = 12 mL solution = 0.012 L solution
Concentration = 0.00058 mol/0.12 L = 0.048 mol/L
The mixture is heated to 105 °C for 38 hours and then cooled to room temperature (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). Dark purple block crystals are produced concluding the synthesis Cu(Qc)2 MOF.
Lin et al. does not disclose using an acetate metal salt. Lin discloses a yield of 61% (Experimental Section, paragraph 4), however, this is not the same as a volumetric yield of metal-organic frameworks per liter of synthesis solution.
Regarding the acetate metal salt, Liu et al. discloses preparing a transition metal-based metal organic framework and replacing some transition metal sites with platinum to create a catalyst (col 2, lines 7-18). The transition metal-based MOF is derived from a mixture containing stoichiometric amount of transition metal salt and multidentate organic ligand (col 4, lines 37-41). Liu et al. discloses the transition-metal salt Cu(OAC)2 for the solvothermal reaction of a MOF (col 4, lines 48-53) which is the same method of synthesis in the present invention. Liu et al. also discloses a multidentate organic ligand in the reaction mixture (col 4, lines 39-41) which is what Lin et al. utilizes in the reaction mixture: quinoline-5-carboxylic acid a bidentate ligand.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute copper tetrafluoroborate with copper acetate salt in the synthesis solution of Lin et al. As seen in Liu et al., copper acetate salts in the solvothermal synthesis of MOF are well-known and conventional in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use copper acetate salt in Lin et al.’s solvothermal synthesis of Cu(Qc)2 MOF.
Regarding the volumetric yield, Lin et al. and Liu et al. are silent on volumetric yield. Substitution of copper tetrafluoroborate with copper acetate would result in the same method of making a metal-organic framework as the present invention. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the volumetric yield of modified Lin et al. would inherently satisfy the condition of at least 50 percent by volume of metal organic frameworks per liter of synthesis solution. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 39, Lin et al. discloses targeting the isoreticular ultramicroporous MOF Cu(Qc)2 where HQc = quinoline-5-carboxylic acid (Introduction, paragraph 4). The MOF is synthesized with a mixture of Cu(BF)4*6H2O, HQc, N,N’-diemthylformamide (DMF), and EtOH (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). The solvent of the mixture is DMF which is an organic solvent. The solution comprises 0.58 mmol HQc, 6 mL DMF, and 6 mL EtOH (Experimental Section, paragraph 4) giving a concentration of 0.048 mol/L. Calculations are shown below.
0.58 mmol = 0.00058 mol HQc
6 mL DMF + 6 mL EtOH = 12 mL solution = 0.012 L solution
Concentration = 0.00058 mol/0.12 L = 0.048 mol/L
The mixture is heated to 105 °C for 38 hours and then cooled to room temperature (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). Dark purple block crystals are produced concluding the synthesis Cu(Qc)2 MOF.
Lin et al. does not disclose using an acetate metal salt. Lin discloses a yield of 61% (Experimental Section, paragraph 4), however, this is not the same as a 75 molar percent metal-organic framework.
Regarding the acetate metal salt, Liu et al. discloses preparing a transition metal-based metal organic framework and replacing some transition metal sites with platinum to create a catalyst (col 2, lines 7-18). The transition metal-based MOF is derived from a mixture containing stoichiometric amount of transition metal salt and multidentate organic ligand (col 4, lines 37-41). Liu et al. discloses the transition-metal salt Cu(OAC)2 for the solvothermal reaction of a MOF (col 4, lines 48-53) which is the same method of synthesis in the present invention. Liu et al. also discloses a multidentate organic ligand in the reaction mixture (col 4, lines 39-41) which is what Lin et al. utilizes in the reaction mixture: quinoline-5-carboxylic acid a bidentate ligand.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute copper tetrafluoroborate with copper acetate salt in the synthesis solution of Lin et al. As seen in Liu et al., copper acetate salts in the solvothermal synthesis of MOF are well-known and conventional in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use copper acetate salt in Lin et al.’s solvothermal synthesis of Cu(Qc)2 MOF.
Regarding the molar percent metal-organic frameworks, Lin et al. and Liu et al. are silent on molar percent metal-organic frameworks. Substitution of copper tetrafluoroborate with copper acetate would result in the same method of making a metal-organic framework as the present invention. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the volumetric yield of modified Lin et al. would inherently satisfy the condition of the metal organic framework comprising about 75 molar percent metal-organic frameworks. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 40, Lin et al. does not disclose water as a solvent or any part of the synthesis solution (Experimental Section, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 41, Lin et al. discloses a solvent of dimethylformamide (Experimental Section, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 42, Liu et al. discloses for the solvothermal reaction, a metal solution includes the transition metal salt copper acetate and the concentration of the metal solution is 0.1 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L (col 4, lines 50-55); entirely encompassing the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 43, Lin et al. discloses targeting the isoreticular ultramicroporous MOF Cu(Qc)2 where HQc = quinoline-5-carboxylic acid (Introduction, paragraph 4). The MOF is synthesized with a mixture of Cu(BF)4*6H2O, HQc, N,N’-diemthylformamide (DMF), and EtOH (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). The solution is non-aqueous. The solution comprises 0.58 mmol HQc, 6 mL DMF, and 6 mL EtOH (Experimental Section, paragraph 4) giving a concentration of 0.048 mol/L. Calculations are shown below.
0.58 mmol = 0.00058 mol HQc
6 mL DMF + 6 mL EtOH = 12 mL solution = 0.012 L solution
Concentration = 0.00058 mol/0.12 L = 0.048 mol/L
The mixture is heated to 105 °C for 38 hours and then cooled to room temperature (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). Dark purple block crystals are produced concluding the synthesis Cu(Qc)2 MOF.
Lin et al. does not disclose using an acetate metal salt. Lin discloses a yield of 61% (Experimental Section, paragraph 4), however, this is not the same as a 75 molar percent metal-organic frameworks per liter of synthesis solution.
Regarding the acetate metal salt, Liu et al. discloses preparing a transition metal-based metal organic framework and replacing some transition metal sites with platinum to create a catalyst (col 2, lines 7-18). The transition metal-based MOF is derived from a mixture containing stoichiometric amount of transition metal salt and multidentate organic ligand (col 4, lines 37-41). Liu et al. discloses the transition-metal salt Cu(OAC)2 for the solvothermal reaction of a MOF (col 4, lines 48-53) which is the same method of synthesis in the present invention. Liu et al. also discloses a multidentate organic ligand in the reaction mixture (col 4, lines 39-41) which is what Lin et al. utilizes in the reaction mixture: quinoline-5-carboxylic acid a bidentate ligand.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute copper tetrafluoroborate with copper acetate salt in the synthesis solution of Lin et al. As seen in Liu et al., copper acetate salts in the solvothermal synthesis of MOF are well-known and conventional in the art. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success to use copper acetate salt in Lin et al.’s solvothermal synthesis of Cu(Qc)2 MOF.
Regarding the molar percent metal-organic frameworks per liter of synthesis solution, Lin et al. and Liu et al. are silent on molar percent metal-organic frameworks. Substitution of copper tetrafluoroborate with copper acetate would result in the same method of making a metal-organic framework as the present invention. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the volumetric yield of modified Lin et al. would inherently satisfy the condition of the metal organic framework comprising about 75 molar percent metal-organic frameworks. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205USPQ 594.
Regarding claims 44-46, Lin et al. discloses the solution is heated for 48 hours, and then cooled to room temperature at a rate of 6 °C/hr.
Regarding claims 47-49, Lin et al. discloses the metal-organic framework synthesized is Cu(Qc)2 (Experimental Section, paragraph 4). HQc is quinoline-5-carboxylic acid (Introduction, paragraph 4), so Qc is quionoline-5-carboxylate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maik Schlesinger et al.
Evaluation of synthetic methods for microporous metal-organic frameworks exemplified by the competitive formation of [Cu2(btc)3(H2O)3] and [Cu2(btc)(OH)(H2O)]
Abney Carter et al.
WO 2021216174 A1
Zhou, Xin et al.
CN 110075805 A
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
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights