CTNF 18/561,646 CTNF 74787 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Status of Application 1. This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/031518, which was filed on 05/31/2022. Claims 1-20 were originally presented in this application for examination. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and under consideration. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 has been made of record and entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the IDS accompanies this office action. Specification 3. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file. Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any . The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any , should be updated in a timely manner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA 4. Claim s 4-5, 9, & 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: A. In claim 4, line 1, “any one of claims” should be deleted and replace thereof with --claim--. B. In claim 4, line 3 contains a big gap spacing in between the text that should be removed. C. In claim 5, line 1, “any one of claims” should be deleted and replace thereof with --claim--. D. In claim 5, line 2, --,-- should be inserted before “as measured”. E. In claim 9, line 1, “any one of claims” should be deleted and replace thereof with --claim--. F. In claim 14, line 2, --a group consisting of-- should be inserted after “from”. G. In claim 14, last line, ““NPT” N-methylpyrrolidone” should change to --N-methylpyrrolidone (NPT) --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Second Paragraph) 07-30-02 AIA 5. 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. 07-34-01 Claim 16 is 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. It is considered the limitation on “based on the molar limiting reagent” is unclear as to what reagent is being referred to in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 6. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. A. Claim(s) 1, 3, 14, & 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (US 2020/0010486 A1), hereinafter “Ohashi et al.” The claimed invention relates to a method of making a MOF UiO-66 comprising: reacting zirconium oxychloride with terephthalic acid or derivative thereof and acetic acid in a solvent to provide a reaction solution; diluting the reaction solution with at least about 10 vol.% of water to provide a diluted reaction solution; heating the diluted reaction solution to a reaction temperature of at least 120°C for at least 4 hours to provide a reaction mixture; and reducing the reaction temperature of the reaction mixture to provide the MOF UiO-66 (as recited in the instant claim 1). Ohashi et al. discloses a method for producing a coordinatively unsaturated metal-organic framework (MOF), comprising a metal cluster and a polycarboxylic acid ion and a monocarboxylic acid ion coordinated to the metal cluster (see page 3, [0061]). The precursor MOF can be synthesized by mixing a metal ion source, a polycarboxylic acid compound, and a monocarboxylic acid compound, dissolving these components in a solvent, and heating (see page 3, [0061]). The metal ion source may be zirconium oxychloride (see page 3, [0064]. The polycarboxylic acid preferably terephthalic acid (see page 6, [0123]) and the monocarboxylic acid preferably acetic acid (see page 7, [0126]). The solvent may be water, alcohols such as methanol, ethanol, and isopropanol, amides such as N,N-dimethylformamide (DME), N,N-diethylformamide (DEF), or combinations thereof (see page 3, [0069]-[0073] and page 4, [0084]). The heating is performed at a temperature of 100 o C or more, or 120 o C or more, and 180 o C or less or 150 o C or less, for 6 hours or more, 24 hours or more, and 100 hours or less, or 72 hours or less (see page 3, [0073]). The precursor MOF may be purified by filtration, washing, drying, as necessary, or the solution containing sequent processes. Washing can be carried out once or a plurality of times using a solvent such as DMF or acetone (see page 3, [0074]). Drying can be carried out by allowing the solution to stand at room temperature or by heating under normal pressure or reduced pressure (see page 4, [0074]). See also page 8, [0140] - [0143]. The method of the instant claim 1 differs from Ohashi et al. in that the reaction solution is diluted with at least about 10 vol.% of water to provide a diluted reaction solution before being heated at reaction temperature of at least 120°C, whereas such step is not specified in Ohashi et al . Although the claimed method has been shown to be effective through experimental procedures disclosed in the description of the instant application, the disclosure does not appear to show any unexpected effect or property in terms of an improved yield or higher end product purity related to the dilution of the reaction solution with at least about 10 vol.% of water. Thus, without such the demonstration of any unexpected effect or property due to this difference, the claimed feature is not regarded as inventive over Ohashi et al . It would have been prima facie obvious for a person skilled in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) to add more water to the mixture in order to dilute the reaction solution in Ohashi et al. as such can easily be done without inventive skill required since it involves only routine experimentation to do so. Regarding claim 3, the claimed terephthalic acid compounds are disclosed in the reference (see page 6, [0122]). Regarding claim 14, the claimed solvents are disclosed in the reference (see page 3, [0069]-[0073] and page 4, [0084]). Regarding claim 17, the claim further defines “the reaction solution is diluted with no greater than about 60 volume percent water”. Same rejection applies as in claim 1 above. Regarding claim 18, it is considered the additional claim feature on “separating the metal-organic frameworks from the reaction solution” is obvious from the method disclosed by Ohashi et al. in order to collect the solids from the mixture and to heat treating the solids to obtain the final product. Claims 1, 3, 14, & 17-18 are unpatentable as being obvious over Ohashi et al. B. Claim(s) 2 & 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (US 2020/0010486 A1), hereinafter “Ohashi et al.” in view of Schubert et al. (US 2009/0281341 A1), hereinafter “Schuber et al.” Ohashi et al. discloses a method for producing a coordinatively unsaturated metal-organic framework (MOF) as set forth in the precedent paragraph, except for the additional claim features as further defined in the following. Regarding claim 6, Ohashi et al. does not disclose the claimed zirconium compounds, “one or more of zirconium hydroxide acetate and zirconium hydroxide”. Schubert et al., is in the field of a porous metal-organic framework (MOF) production and fairly discloses “zirconium acetate” as being one of the suitable zirconium compounds (see page 5, [0079]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person skilled in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) to use the “zirconium acetate” as taught in Schubert et al. in place of the zirconium chloride in Ohashi et al. since both compounds are taught to be useful for making the same product (MOF). Regarding claims 2, 5, 7, & 12-13, Ohashi et al. is silent with respect to the surface area, pore volume, and crystal size of the disclosed MOF product. It would be expected that the surface area, pore volume, and crystal size of the MOF product of Ohashi et al. would be within the instantly claimed ranges because it is evidenced in Schubert et al. that the same MOF product is prepared by a similar method having a surface area of greater than 1000 m 2 /g and a pore diameter of up to 1000 nm (see Schubert et al., page 4, [0045] - [0048]). Even though the pore volume of the MOF product of Schubert e al. is not disclosed in the reference, however in view of the same surface area and pore diameter disclosed and claimed it would be obvious that it would also be within the claimed pore volume range as well. Regarding claims 4 & 8, Ohashi et al. discloses polycarboxylic acid and monocarboxylic acid as the terephthalic acids, but does not disclose specific terephthalic acid compounds as claimed. Schubert et al. , however discloses the claimed terephthalic acid compounds, such as 1,4-benzene dicarboxylic acid (see page 2, [0029], 1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid (page 3, [0038]), and 1,2,4,5-benzenetetracarboxylic acid (see page 3, [0039]). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to make use of such terephthalic acid compounds as taught in Schubert et al. in the method of Ohashi et al. because they are taught in Schubert et al. as suitable terephthalic acid compounds for making the same product, (MOF). Regarding claim 9, the claim further defines “diluting the reaction solution with water in an amount less than or equal to about 50 volume percent of the solvent to produce a diluted reaction solution”. Same rejection applies as in claim 1. Regarding claims 10 & 11, Ohashi et al. discloses the heating is performed at a temperature of 100 o C or more, or 120 o C or more, and 180 o C or less or 150 o C or less, for 6 hours or more, 24 hours or more, and 100 hours or less, or 72 hours or less (see page 3, [0073]), meeting the claimed limitations. Claims 2 & 4-13 are unpatentable as being obvious over Ohashi et al. and Schubert et al. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 7. Claim s 15-16 & & 19-20 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. Ohashi et al. (US 2020/0010486 A1) and Schubert et al. (US 2009/0281341 A1) are found to be the most relevant prior art that teach the claimed method of making a MOF UiO-66, however the references do not teach the additional claim features as further defined in the dependent claims listed above. -concentration of terephthalic acid is between about 0.01 mole to about 5.0 mole per liter of solvent (as defined in claim 15). - the reaction mixture yields between about 65 to about 95 molar percent of UiO-66 metal organic frameworks, as calculated based on the mass of the MOF on a dry basis (as defined in claim 16). - the ratio of acetic acid to terephthalic acid is at least about 20 moles to about 1 mole (as defined in claim 19). - the ratio of acetic acid to terephthalic acid is about 24 moles to about 1 mole (as defined in claim 20). It is considered the claimed method is distinguished from the method of the prior art and there would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention. Citations 07-96 AIA 8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited for a method of producing MOF and product thereof. See PTO-892 Form prepared . US 10,287,304 B2; US 10,450,330 B2; US 10,702,851 B2; US 11,078,219 B2; US 11,124,530 B1; US 11,185,843 B2; US 11,426,704 B2; US 11,478,774 B2; US 11,813,587 B2; US 20200010486 A1; and US 2023/0151028 A1 . Conclusion 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 9. Claim s 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-14 & 16-18 are rejected. Claims 15 & 19-20 are objected. No claims are allowed. Contacts 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov . 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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Cam N. Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /CNN/ June 11, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 2 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 3 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 4 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 5 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 6 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 7 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 8 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 9 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 10 Art Unit: 1736 Application/Control Number: 18/561,646 Page 11 Art Unit: 1736
Prosecution Insights