DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/19/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 1, in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim is replete with issues where terms lack articles (i.e. “the” “a” “an”). These should be added to improve the readability of the claims and for grammatical correctness. For example, in line 2, the phrase “mixing of components with binder” should read “mixing of components with a binder”.
Regarding claim 1, line 16, the phrase “and dry for 12 h minimum” is likely intended to read “and dried for 12 hr minimum”.
Regarding claim 1, final line, the phrase “then blocks are activated in thermal vacuum chamber at a temperature of 120°C during 6 h minimum at a residual pressure of 0.26 kPa” is likely intended to read “then the blocks are activated in a thermal vacuum chamber at a temperature of 120°C for a minimum of 6 h
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.
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7, the phrase “adsorbent on the basis of carbon nanotubes” is unclear. The phrase is unclear because it isn’t certain whether the adsorbent is based-on or derived from carbon nanotubes, includes carbon nanotubes, or is attempting to describe that the organometallic coordination polymer and nanoporous carbon adsorbent weights are based on carbon nanotubes. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the term was interpreted to be referring to a possible selection of the nanoporous carbon adsorbent being a material that comprises carbon nanotubes. See Pg. 6-8 in the instant specification for examples that include CNT as the nanoporous carbon adsorbent.
Regarding claim 1, line 8, the term “effective inner diameter” includes the term “effective” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “effective” 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. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the term was interpreted to be referring to the measured pore diameter of porous materials, where the “effective inner diameter” appears equivalent to “pore diameter”. See at least Pg. 2-3 in the instant specification.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the phrase "like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For example, it is unclear how much “like” polyvinyl alcohol a chemical could be and still read on the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, line 12, the term “the pressure” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner notes the preceding step of “molding” does not inherently require pressure be applied such that the term “the pressure” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, line 14, the term “normal conditions” includes the term “normal” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” 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. In the interest of compact prosecution and in view of the instant specification, the term was interpreted to be referring to placing the molded blocks into a drying chamber. See at least Pg. 6-7, Example 1-2, in the instant specification.
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 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovtsova et al. (Prec. Met. and Phys. Chem. Surf. 2019, 55, 6, 1080-1084; cited in IDS dated 12/19/2023) in view of Kapelewski et al. (WO2021107993A1).
Regarding claim 1, Solovtsova teaches a method of preparing a MOF-based block adsorbent material that includes mixing components with a binder, molding the binded components, and drying the shaped material (Abstract; Pg. 1081, left and right col.). Solovtsova teaches the block composite comprises Cu-BTC110 powder, a 5% aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol as a binder, and a mass percent fraction from 30 to 70 wt.% of a carbon component (Pg. 1081, 2. Materials and Methods). Solovtsova teaches the resulting mixture was held under a pressure of 160 MPa and held under pressure for 1 minute prior to drying in a ventilated drying oven at 110-120 °C for 12 h (Pg. 1081, right col.).
Solovtsova teaches Cu-BTC110 is a copper-based metal organic framework comprising ligands bonded to metals (Pg. 1080, Introduction). CuBTC is one of the ”organometallic coordination polymers” described in the instant specification (see at least Pg. 8, Example 3) and accordingly the teaching of CuBTC in Solovtsova satisfies the claim limitation. The “110” in CuBTC simple denotes the drying temperature. Solovtsova teaches the carbon components include various active carbons synthesized on the basis of peat (AC-- l T and AC--6T), as well as that prepared from the plant (AC-RSh) and polymer raw materials (AC-P) and that the carbon components include nanopores (Pg. 1081, left col; Table 1).
Solovtsova further teaches the effective radius of the micropores of the CuBTC110 are 0.31 nm and the micropores of the carbon components range from 0.35 to 0.71 nm (Table 1). Since the block composite mixture components is comprised of the coordination polymer and the carbon adsorbent, the difference between these two components micropores is interpreted to meet the limitation of the “effective inner diameters of micropores of the mixed components differ from one another by 0.4 nm minimum and 0.8 nm maximum.” Solovtsova teaches a maximum difference of 0.4 nm, meeting the limitation required by the claim. Solovtsova further teaches the composite can be pressurized to at least 30 MPa with retention of adsorption properties, consistent with retaining pore volume (Pg. 1083, left col.; Fig. 2 and 3). 30 MPa is equivalent to 30,000 kPa.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Solovtsova (5 wt.% polyvinyl alcohol; 30 to 70 wt.% carbon; micropore difference between mixture components of 0.4 nm; withstand pressure of at least 30,000 kPa; pressing time 1 minute, drying temperature 110-120 °C for 12 h) overlaps with the claimed ranges (2-15% water solution of compounds like polyvinyl alcohol; 30/70 to 95/5% organometallic coordination polymer to carbon component ratio; differ from one another by 0.4 nm minimum to 0.8 nm maximum; pressing time 1 minute, temperature 110-120 °C for 12 h minimum, withstand pressure of at least 0.26 kPa). Therefore, the ranges in Solovtsova render obvious the claimed ranges.
The claim further requires “a temperature heating rate of “60 deg/h maximum,” to which Solovtsova does not explicitly teach the heating rate. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Accordingly, because Solovtsova teaches an overlapping target temperature and duration, a skilled artisan could readily adjust the heating rate to arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
The claim further requires “with loading force from 25 to 75 kN,” and “then block are activated in thermal vacuum chamber at a temperature of 120 °C during 6 h minimum at a residual pressure of 0.26 kPa,” to which Solovtsova teaches 160 MPa over 38 diameter area and is silent regarding activation.
Kapelewski teaches the preparation of a metal-organic framework extrudate that includes mixing a metal-organic framework material with an extrusion aid to form a mixture that is then pressed to provide an extrudate (Abstract). Kapelewski teaches the pressing is performed under a pressure of about 0.1 MPa to about 10 MPa where the extrudates have a diameter from about 1 to about 10 mm ([0080], [0082]). Converting the pressure and area values taught by Kapelewski provides a kN range of 0.0000785 kN to 78.5 kN (see calculations below). Kapelewski further teaches the MOF extrudate can be activated at a temperature from about 50 to about 500 °C for 1 h to about 6 h and can take place in vacuum, such as below atmospheric pressure (i.e. less than 101.325 kPa) ([0084]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In the instant case, the ranges taught by Kapelewski (pressing pressure of 0.0000785 kN to 78.5 kN; activation at about 50 to about 500 °C for 1 h to about 6 h at less than 101.325 kPa) overlaps with the claimed ranges (25 to 75 kN pressing loading force; activation at 120°C for 6 h minimum at pressure of 0.26 kPa). Therefore, the ranges in Kapelewski render obvious the claimed ranges.
Advantageously, producing an extruded MOF material under the conditions taught by Kapelewski provides MOF extrudates with substantially improved physical qualities, such as surface area and mechanical strength improvements ([0055]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to press the blocks and activate the blocks within the conditions taught by Kapelewski in the method of Solovtsova in order to provide an extruded MOF material with substantially improved physical properties, including surface area and mechanical strength, as taught by Kapelewski.
Calculations:
0.1 MPa to 10 MPa; extrudate diameter 1 to 10 mm = 0.001 to 0.01 m;
Converting diameter to area = 0.0000007854 to 0.00785 m^2
Force (kN)=Pressure (MPa)×Area (m2)×1000
Low end: 0.1 MPa * 0.0000007854 m2 * 1000 = 0.0000785 kN0.1 * 0.00785 * 1000 = 0.785 kNHigh end: 10 * 0.0000007854 * 1000 = 0.007854 kN10 * 0.00785 * 1000 = 78.5 kN
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Holbrook et al. (WO20180006078A1); Hollbrook teaches a compressed porous gas sorbent monolith comprising carbon and metal organic frameworks ([0021]-[0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan Wayne Taylor whose telephone number is (571)272-9895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5 PM EST; Second Fridays Off.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571)272-6297. 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.
/JORDAN W TAYLOR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights