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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 26-32 and 39-40 in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. As applicant correctly noted, claims 39-40 should have been included in Group I and have been treated as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26, 29-32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108114699 (all references herein are made to the English language translation).
Regarding claims 26 and 29-31, CN 108114699 teaches a method for preparing a porous metal organic framework material comprising preparing a zirconium-based metal organic framework material followed by etching (treating) with a monocarboxylic acid to form a material having increased thermal stability (Abstract, page 2, paragraph 6). Suitable acids for the treatment include formic acid, acetic acid and propionic acid (page 3, paragraph 8). Suitable acid concentrations included 0.8-5.6 mol/L (Abstract). Figure 2 details the XRD pattern of the treated MOF materials wherein the treated XRD pattern is substantially the same as the initial XRD pattern (Figure 2, page 3, “Description of drawings”). The CN reference does not specifically detail the degree of thermal stability as required by step (a) and (b) of the instant claim. However, since the reference details the use of the same MOF material treated in the same manner, it is the position of the examiner that the zirconium-based MOF of the reference would inherently possess these properties. Moreover, the CN reference details that it is the objective of the method to improve upon the initial thermal stability of as synthesized MOF materials – see pages 2-3 of the reference.
Regarding claim 32, with reference to Figure 2, the intensity of the peaks appears to be substantially the same as the first and second XRD pattern.
Regrading claim 40, the CN reference teaches the preparation of UiO-66 (Examples).
Claims 26-28, 32, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 2013.
Regarding claims 26-28, Zhao et al. teaches the preparation of zirconium-based metal organic framework materials comprising synthesizing MOFs including UiO-66(Hf, Zr) (page 72, 2.1) followed by treatment with 50 or 100 mg/L solutions of NaF to improve stability (page 75, 2.3). Figure 1d shows XRD patterns of UiO-66 synthesized without and without fluoride treatment are substantially the same as the as synthesized form (page 73, Figure 1d). Zhao et al. does not specifically detail the degree of thermal stability as required by step (a) and (b) of the instant claim. However, since the reference details the use of the same MOF material treated in the same manner, it is the position of the examiner that the zirconium-based MOF of the reference would inherently possess these properties. Moreover, Zhao et al. details that it is the objective of the method to improve upon the initial thermal stability of as synthesized MOF materials – see page 76 of the reference.
Regarding claim 32, with reference to Figure 1d, the intensity of the peaks appear to be substantially the same as the first and second XRD pattern.
Regarding claim 39 and 40, Zhao et al. teaches the preparation of UiO-66 containing Zr and Hf (page 72, 2.1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA ANN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6am - 2pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights