DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This Office action is based on the 18/561,633 application filed 16 November 2023, which is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24-25, 27-29, 36-38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research (2019, vol 58, pp 6394-6401).
With respect to claims 22, 27-28, and 36-38, Song et al discloses “[a] zeolitic imidazole-based MOF with broad applicability for sorption of Pb(II) is examined. In this work, a novel adsorbent employing ZIF-8/calcium alginate microparticles was prepared using sodium alginate and ZIF-8…[s]olution C was prepared by dissolving 1 g of SA [sodium alginate—Examiner’s insertion—see 2nd paragraph under the heading “Introduction,” which states: “[s]odium alginate (SA) is a polysaccharide which is derived from brown algae and exhibits good gelation properties…”] in 100 mL of DI water and adding 0.5 g of ZIF-8 while stirring. The resulting mixture was stirred for an additional 60 min. Solution D was made by dissolving 1 g of CaCl2 in 50 mL of DI water [i.e., 2 wt % CaCl2—Examiner’s insertion]. Solution C was added dropwise to solution D via syringe, and the mixture was allowed to solidify for 60 min. The product was rinsed six times with DI water to obtain the ZIF-8@CA microparticles” [see abstract & paragraph under the heading “2.3. Preparation of the ZIF-8@CA Microparticles”]. The formation of solution C corresponds to the mixing and first adding step of instant claim 22. The formation of solution D corresponds to the dissolving step of the same, and the addition of solution C to solution D via syringe corresponds to the second adding step. While the reference does not appear to explicitly disclose that the microparticles are spherical, since the method of preparation of said microparticles is the same as or similar to the method of preparing the metal-organic framework sphere of the instant application, it is expected, absent evidence to the contrary, that said microparticles are spherical. Note that the application discloses “a metal-organic framework can be ZIFs (or Zeolitic Imidazolate Frameworks)…In certain embodiments, the MOF is selected from: HKUST-1, MOF-74, MIL-100, ZIF-7, ZIF-8, ZIF-90, UiO-66, UiO-67, MOF-808 or MOF-274. In an aspect, the metal-organic framework is selected from the group of HKUST-1, UiO-66, ZIF-8, ZIF-7, MIL-100, MOF-74…” [paragraph 0040 of the published application]. Therefore, if the MOF of the microparticle of the reference is the same as the MOF of the MOF sphere and the method of preparation of the microparticle and the sphere are the same, it is expected that the microparticle is spherical. For the same reasons, it is expected that solution C is a slurry as required in instant claim 25 and that the microparticles have the required crush strength and surface area recited in instant claim 29 and is capable of absorbing CO2 in a temperature swing adsorption process as required in instant claim 40. Further, note that Song et al discloses “ZIF-8 has a surface area of up to 1600 m2/g” [1st paragraph on right hand side of page 6394]. Additionally, it is well known that ZIF-8 is a metal-organic framework material composed of zinc ions and 2-methylimidazole linkers
With respect to claim 24, it appears that the solution C is prepared at room temperature or such would be obvious from the teaching of the reference.
Claim(s) 22, 24-25, 27-28, and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al in Separation and Purification Technology (2020, vol 235, pp 1-12).
With respect to claims 22, 25, 27, 28, and 38-39, Lee et al discloses “[t]he standard procedure for production of spherical beads is as follows. The MOF powder (UiO-66) was added to pre-measured amount of distilled water. The solution was stirred for some minutes before sodium alginate powder was subsequently added. MOF/alginate slurry was stirred at room temperature for at least 60 min in order to make the solution as homogeneous as possible. The stirred solution was then added to the gelation bath drop by drop using a pipette. The standard gelation bath was prepared by dissolving 2.0% (w/v) of CaCl2·6H2O (91.3 mM) in distilled water if not otherwise noted. The curing is done using an at least 10-fold excess of calcium chloride. Standard gelling time was 30 min. Beads were subsequently washed with distilled water three times for 10 min to remove the excess amount of calcium and chloride ions in the beads. For washing, a 10-fold volume of water were used. Washed beads were dried at 60 °C in an air oven overnight. To perform a comparable dehydration procedure removing water from the shaping and most of the adsorbed water, beads were activated before characterization and the compression test” [see last paragraph on left hand side of page 2 and 1st paragraph on right hand side of the same]. While the order of steps varies slightly from that recited in instant claim 22, namely, mixing MOF with distilled water instead of mixing MOF with an aqueous sodium alginate mixture, applicant is reminded that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330.
With respect to claim 24, it appears that the MOF/alginate slurry is prepared at room temperature or such would be obvious from the teaching of the reference.
With respect to claim 26, see Table 2, such as DWL-5 therein, in which 2.0 g UiO-66 is mixed into 10 g water (assuming a density of water of 1 g mL-1).
With respect to claims 36 and 37, it is well known in the art that “UiO-66 is an archetypal metal–organic framework (MOF) with a very high surface area as well as high thermal stability. It is found that the stability can be attributed to the metal oxide node being cuboctahedral allowing for 12 extension points for 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (BDC) coordination” and “UiO-66 is a crystal containing metal nodes composed of a zirconium oxide complex bridged by terepthalic acid ligands. Terepthalic acid is 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (abbreviated as BDC).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 31-35 allowed.
Claims 23, 26, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 21, the prior art does not appear to anticipate or render obvious the weight concentration of MOF. Song et al, for example, discloses “1 g of SA… adding 0.5 g of ZIF-8” suggesting that the weight concentration of the ZIF-8 in the microparticle may be about 33 wt %. Nothing in the reference appears to suggest between about 60 wt % and 70 wt % MOF. With respect to Lee et al, the weight concentrations may be found in Table 2. None of the beads listed therein have the required weight percent of MOF. Additionally, Lee et al fails to teach the recited bulk crush strength; indeed, the mean crush strength of the beads of Lee et al appear to be less than the recited force of at least 10 lbf (44.5 N) [see, again, Table 2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winarta et al in Crystal Growth and Design (2020, vol 20, pp 1347-1362), discloses “UiO-66 is an archetypal metal–organic framework (MOF) with a very high surface area as well as high thermal stability. It is found that the stability can be attributed to the metal oxide node being cuboctahedral allowing for 12 extension points for 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (BDC) coordination” [abstract] and “UiO-66 is a crystal containing metal nodes composed of a zirconium oxide complex bridged by terepthalic acid ligands. Terepthalic acid is 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (abbreviated as BDC)” [1st paragraph under the heading “2. UIO-66 STRUCTURE” on page 1349].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A MCCAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5548. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 to 4:30 Mountain Time.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/BRIAN A MCCAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
29 May 2026
Prosecution Insights