CTNF 18/587,269 CTNF 95414 DETAILED ACTION 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. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 15–18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May. 07, 2026 . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1–19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given. Status is indicated in a parenthetical expression following the claim number by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered). MPEP 714(II)(C)(A). Claim 13 is objected because the term “the orientation membranes” are not consistently used compared to claim 10. The examiner encourages the applicant to use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion. Here, the term should be “the lower and upper orientation membranes” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. Claims are rejected as follows: Claims 1–5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kamal et al., Metal-Organic Framework superstructures with long-ranged orientational order via E-field assisted liquid crystal assembly, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 610(2022)1027-1034 (hereinafter “Kamal”) 1 in view of Kangho et al., Long-Range alignment of liquid crystalline small molecules on Metal-Organic framework micropores by physical anchoring, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, hereinafter (“Kangho”) 2 . Regarding claim 1: Kamal discloses that a composite (Kamal’s MOF composites, Kamal p. 1027) comprising a liquid crystalline compound (Kamal’s liquid crystal, Kamal p. 1028) and a metal organic framework containing an anisotropic metal organic framework particle (Kamal discloses MOF such as NU-1000, Kamal p. 1028, NU-1000 is consistent with what is disclosed in the published Spec. hereinafter “Spec.” of the current invention, see Spec. [0061]), wherein the metal organic framework is reversibly switched between isotropy and anisotropy oriented in one direction (as shown in Kamal Fig. 5, p. 1031). Kamal does not disclose its liquid crystalline compound is aromatic liquid crystalline (LC) compound. In the analogous art of composite material comprising liquid crystalline compound and MOF, Kangho discloses a composite comprising MOF and liquid crystalline of nCBs, Kangho p. 378. Kangho’s liquid crystalline of nCBs are consistent with what is disclosed in the published disclosure as an aromatic liquid crystalline compound, Spec. [0054]. Kangho discloses nCBs, such as 5CB or 8 CB could be vertically aligned on a MOF surface, Kangho Abstract p. 378. Kangho discloses its design improve the advantageous properties of these functionalized nanostructure by controlling the alignment of self-assembling molecules over a large area, Kangho p. 378. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use Kangho’s aromatic liquid crystalline compound in Kamal such that both of the orientations of Kamal’s MOF and liquid crystalline compound could be controlled for practical applications. Regarding claim 2: Modified Kamal discloses that the composite according to claim 1, wherein the aromatic liquid crystalline compound contains a thermotropic liquid crystalline compound (Kangho disclose its LC comprising thermotropic LC properties, Kangho p. 380). Regarding claim 3: Modified Kamal discloses that the composite according to claim 2, wherein the metal organic framework has anisotropy at a temperature lower than the phase transition temperature of the aromatic liquid crystalline compound (note here that this limitation directed to a property of the claimed composite, and since modified Kamal’s MOF structure of NU-1000 and LC structure of 8CB are identical to what is disclosed in the published disclosure, modified Kamal’s composite would have the same property as the claimed invention, including the claimed “metal organic framework has anisotropy at a temperature lower than the phase transition temperature of the aromatic liquid crystalline compound”). Regarding claim 4: Modified Kamal discloses that the composite according to claim 1, wherein the anisotropic metal organic framework particle is in the form of a rod (as clearly shown in Kamal Fig. 5, where NU-1000 has a rod structure). Regarding claim 5: Modified Kamal discloses that the composite according to claim 4, wherein an aspect ratio of the anisotropic metal organic framework particle is 3 to 15 (Kamal discloses NU-1000 with aspect ratio range from 10 to 1.2, Kamal Abstract, 1027, Kamal therefore discloses a range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I)). Regarding claim 8: Modified Kamal discloses that the composite according to claim 3, wherein the aromatic liquid crystalline compound has a nematic phase at a temperature lower than the phase transition temperature (Kangho discloses its LC of 5CB has a nematic phase, Kangho p. 379, additionally, this limitation is directed to a material property rather than a structure of the claimed composite, and since modified Kamal discloses the same MOF of 1000-NU and LC of 5CB as the Spec. modified Kamal would necessarily exhibits the same nematic phase at a temperature lower than the phase transition temperature). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kamal in view of Kangho, and in further view of Farha et al., US 2019/0112591 A1 (“Farha”). Regarding claim 6: Modified Kamal does not disclose that the composite according to claim 5, wherein the anisotropic metal organic framework particle has an average pore size of 1 to 5 nm in a longitudinal direction thereof. In the analogous art of gas separation structure comprising NU-1000 as MOF structure, Farha discloses Nu-1000 with a diameter of 32 angstrom (which is equivalent of 3.2 nm), Farha [0147]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kamal’s MOF of NU-1000 to have the average pore size of 3.2 nm as that disclosed by Farha because NU-1000 is known to have a pore size of 3.2 nm, which falls within the claimed range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated use the pore size of NU1000 disclosed by Farha because Farha’s MOF structure is known to be suitable for gas separation and Farha discloses its design is important for targeting high enzyme loading, Farha [0006]. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kamal in view of Kangho, and in further view of Smith et al., US 2021/0130372 A1 (“Smith). Regarding claim 7: Modified Kamal does not disclose that the composite according to claim 1, wherein the anisotropic metal organic framework particle is uniformly dispersed in the aromatic liquid crystalline compound. In the analogous art of gas separation comprising MOF structure, Smith discloses a uniform distribution of MOF particles in the polymer matrix avoids forming voids spaces or undergoing phase separation, and thus limit extent to which convective transport of gases through the mixed-matrix membrane is observed, Smith [0035]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kamal’s MOF to be uniformly dispersed in the aromatic liquid crystalline compounds to avoid forming voids spaces or undergoing phase separation, and thus limit extent to which convective transport of gases through the mixed-matrix membrane is observed. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kamal in view of Kangho, and in further view of Acharya et al., US 2016/0018371 A1 (“Acharya”). Regarding claim 9: Modified Kamal does not disclose that the composite according to claim 8, wherein the aromatic liquid crystalline compound further contains a polymerizable functional group, and the anisotropic metal organic framework particle is fixedly oriented in one direction within an aromatic liquid crystalline polymer matrix formed by polymerizing the aromatic liquid crystalline compound. In the analogous art of gas separation membrane comprising liquid crystals of 5CB, Acharya discloses a filter device comprising liquid crystal such as 5CB and a mesogen comprising a reactive moiety, Acharya [0195]. Acharya discloses it liquid crystal undergoes a phase transition when exposed to an analyte in gas phase which is incued by interaction of the analyte with reactive moieties of the mesogen on the surface, Acharya [0197]. Acharya discloses its invention provides an inexpensive device to quantitively measure the concentration of these harmful compounds, Acharya [0007]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Acharya’s reactive mesogen (reads on the claimed “polymerizable functional group”) for the benefits disclosed above. With such modification, modified Kamal’s anisotropic metal organic framework particle would be fixedly oriented in one direction (as shown in Fig. 5) within an aromatic liquid crystalline polymer matrix formed by polymerizing the aromatic liquid crystalline compound (Acharya’s LC of 5CB with its reactive mesogen, reads on the claimed “aromatic liquid crystalline polymer matrix”) . Claim 10–11, 13–14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kangho in view of Kamal. Regarding claim 10: Kangho discloses a laminate (Kangho’s sandwich structure shown in Fig. 1b, Kangho Fig. 1b, p. 379) comprising: a lower substrate (Kangho shows a lower glass substrate in its Fig. 1b, Id. ); an upper substrate arranged apart opposite to the lower substrate (Kangho shows an upper glass substrate opposite to the lower substrate in its Fig. 1b, Id. ); a lower orientation membrane located on a top of the lower substrate (Kangho’s ZIF coating located on its lower glass substrate, Kangho Fig. 1a, p. 379); an upper orientation membrane located on a bottom of the upper substrate ((Kangho’s ZIF coating located on its upper glass substrate, Kangho Fig. 1a, p. 379). Kangho does not disclose a composite interposed between the lower orientation membrane and the upper orientation membrane, wherein the composite comprises an aromatic liquid crystalline compound and a metal organic framework containing an anisotropic metal organic framework particle, the metal organic framework being reversibly switched between isotropy and anisotropy oriented in one direction. Kangho merely discloses an aromatic liquid crystalline compound of 5CB, Kangho p. 379. Additionally, in the analogous art of gas separation structure comprising MOF, Kamal discloses a MOF composite comprising liquid crystal offers a novel, yet promising concept to form high oriented anisotropic MOF superstructures, Kamal p.1028. Kamal discloses that LC could transit rod-shape particles from an isotropic phase to a nematic phase with the rods show a preferred orientation, Id. Kamal disclose its design develops highly oriented MOF composites with improved functionality for MOF applications such as chemical separations, Kamal ps. 1027–1028. Additionally, Kamal discloses MOF has a high surface area that are beneficial for capturing guest materials such as gas, ions, nanoparticles, dyes and biological chemicals, Kamal p. 1027. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Kamal’s MOF material in Kangho’s LC for improved functionality for chemical separations. With such modification, modified Kangho would have a composite (Kangho’s LC and Kamal’s MOF) interposed between the lower orientation membrane and the upper orientation membrane, wherein the composite comprises an aromatic liquid crystalline compound (Kangho’s LC of 5CB) and a metal organic framework containing an anisotropic metal organic framework particle (Kamal’s MOF of NU-1000), the metal organic framework being reversibly switched between isotropy and anisotropy oriented in one direction (as shown in Fig. 5 of Kamal). Regarding claim 11: Modified Kangho discloses that the laminate according to claim 10, wherein the metal organic framework of the composite is oriented in a plane direction of the substrate or in a vertical direction of the substrate (Kamal discloses its MOF of NU-1000 could be vertically oriented and adhered to the glass wall, Kamal Fig. 5a, p. 1030). Regarding claim 13: Modified Kangho discloses that the laminate according to claim 10, wherein the orientation membranes include a plurality of grooves oriented in one direction (as shown in Kangho Fig. 1a). Regarding claim 14: Modified Kangho discloses that the laminate according to claim 10, wherein the upper orientation membrane and the lower orientation membrane include one or more selected from the group comprising a first orientation membrane that does not contain a groove; a second orientation membrane that contains a plurality of grooves oriented in one direction (see Kangho Fig. 1a, ZIF-9 comprising grooves oriented in one direction, Knagho Fig. 1a); and a third orientation membrane that contains a plurality of grooves oriented in a direction different from the second orientation membrane. Regarding claim 19: Kangho discloses that a separation membrane comprising a porous support (Kangho’s ZIF-8 coating, ZIF-8 is a MOF which is porous, Kangho Fig. 1a, p. 379) and an active layer (Kangho’s rod-shaped molecules, Id. ) located on the porous support. Kangho does not disclose that the active layer containing a composite, wherein the composite comprises an aromatic liquid crystalline compound and a metal organic framework containing an anisotropic metal organic framework particle, the metal organic framework being reversibly switched between isotropy and anisotropy oriented in one direction. Kangho merely discloses an aromatic liquid crystalline compound of 5CB, Kangho p. 379. Additionally, in the analogous art of gas separation structure comprising MOF, Kamal discloses a MOF composite comprising liquid crystal offers a novel, yet promising concept to form high oriented anisotropic MOF superstructures, Kamal p.1028. Kamal discloses that LC could transit rod-shape particles from an isotropic phase to a nematic phase with the rods show a preferred orientation, Id. Kamal disclose its design develops highly oriented MOF composites with improved functionality for MOF applications such as chemical separations, Kamal ps. 1027–1028. Additionally, Kamal discloses MOF has a high surface area that are beneficial for capturing guest materials such as gas, ions, nanoparticles, dyes and biological chemicals, Kamal p. 1027. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Kamal’s MOF material in Kangho’s LC for improved functionality for chemical separations. With such modification, modified Kangho would have a composite (Kangho’s LC and Kamal’s MOF) comprises an aromatic liquid crystalline compound (Kangho’s LC of 5CB) and a metal organic framework containing an anisotropic metal organic framework particle (Kamal’s MOF of NU-1000), the metal organic framework being reversibly switched between isotropy and anisotropy oriented in one direction (as shown in Fig. 5 of Kamal). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kangho in view of Kamal as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Lee et al., WO 2020/096353 A1 (“Lee”) 3 . Regarding claim 12: Modified Kangho does not disclose that the laminate according to claim 10, wherein a thickness of the composite is 20 to 80 ㎛ . In the analogous art of MOF composite article for gas separation, Lee discloses a MOF-polymer composite with a thickness of 1 micron to 300 microns, Lee p. 7. Lee discloses MOF composite structure with such thickness range is suitable to use a separation membrane, Lee p. 11. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for modified Kangho’s composite to have a thickness range as disclosed by Lee because such thickness range is known to be suitable for MOF composite membrane that are configured to separation gases. With such modification, modified Kangho would have a thickness range overlapping the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed thickness range is critical to the operation of the claimed invention. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, this difference fails to patentably distinguish over prior art because it produces a difference in degree rather than in kind. MPEP 2044.05 (III)(A). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 5 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 6 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 7 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 8 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 9 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 10 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 11 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 12 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 13 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/587,269 Page 14 Art Unit: 1776 1 Kamal is the 8-page NPL dated Aug. 13, 2025. 2 Kangho is the 6-page NPL dated Aug. 13, 2025. 3 A copy of Lee’s original document and machine translation are provided with the Office Action. The examiner relies on the original document for the figures and the machine translation for the text.
Prosecution Insights