CTNF 18/599,411 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 Election/Restrictions 08-05 AIA Claim s 12–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May. 11, 2026 . Also noted here that Claim 2 is inadvertently omitted in the restriction requirement, claim 2 depends on claim 1, and therefore, claim 2 is included in the examination . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1–20 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informalities: The current status of all of the claims in the application, including any previously canceled or withdrawn claims, must be given.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by one of the following status identifiers: (original), (currently amended), (previously presented), (canceled), (withdrawn), (new), or (not entered).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) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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 10 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. Claim 10 recites a limitation of wherein the UiO-66-X MOF is in the form of octahedral shape particles with no agglomeration. And a review of the published disclosure (hereinafter “Spec.”) refers to Fig. 7 to show the claimed Octahedral shape particles and the feature of “no agglomeration”, Spec. Fig. 7, [0089]. However, it is hard to tell from the figure provided by the applicant that the particles are in the form of octahedral shape particles with no agglomerations. Specially, Applicant’s Fig. 7 shows agglomerates. Clarification is needed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1) 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. The claims are rejected as follows: 07-15 AIA Claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a )(1) as being a nticipated b y P ei et al., CO2-Switchable Hierarchically Porous Zirconium-Based MOF-Stabilized Pickering Emulsions for Recyclable Efficient Interfacial Catalysis, Materials 2023, 16, 1675 (“Pei”). R egarding claim 1: Pei discloses that a metal-organic framework (MOF) material (Pei’s amine-functionalized hierarchically porous UiO-66-(OH) 2 , Pei p. 2, last para.) for selective direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) (intended use, and Pei discloses its amine-functionalized hierarchically porous UiO-66-(OH) 2 could convert between demulsification and re-emulsification with alternate CO2 addition, Pei Fig. 1, p. 2, Pei’s amine-functionalized hierarchically porous UiO-66-(OH) 2 is therefore capable of adsorbing CO2), comprising: a UiO-66-X MOF (Pei’s amine-functionalized hierarchically porous UiO-66-(OH) 2 ); wherein X is an aminosilane with one or more primary or secondary amine groups (Pei discloses an example of H-UiO-66-(OAPTMS) 2 , which comprising one or more primary amine groups of —NH2, Pei, p. 2); and wherein a molar ratio of UiO-66 to X present in the UiO-66-X MOF is in a range of 1:1 to 1:8 (Pei discloses a molar ratio of 1:2 in H-UiO-66-(OAPTMS) 2 , Pei p. 2). Regarding claim 2: Pei discloses that The MOF material of claim 1, wherein X is of formula (I): PNG media_image1.png 144 261 media_image1.png Greyscale ; Formula [I] wherein R 1 , R 2 , and R 3 are each independently selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen atom, an optionally substituted alkyl, an optionally substituted cycloalkyl, and an optionally substituted alkoxy (Pei discloses its X being (3-aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, which is APTMS, which has a chemical formular of PNG media_image2.png 182 282 media_image2.png Greyscale , and therefore Pei discloses R 1 , R 2 , and R 3 all being CH3, which are substituted alkyl, Pei p. 2); wherein R 4 is selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen atom, an optionally substituted alkyl, an optionally substituted aryl, and a poly(alkylene amino) ((Wherein, Pei’s R4 is hydrogen atom, Pei, p. 2); and n is an integer from 1 to 20 (Pei’s integer n is 3, Pei, p. 3). Regarding claim 9: While Pei does not explicitly disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, wherein the CO 2 uptake of the MOF material is 1 to 2 times higher than that of a UiO-66-(OH) 2 material in the absence of X. However, CO2 uptake of MOF material is a property of the claim MOF material rather than a physical structure of the claimed MOF material. Since Pei discloses a MOF material with the claimed structure, Pei’s MOF material would necessarily possess the same CO2 uptake compared to UiO-66-(OH) 2 . Regarding claim 11: Pei discloses that the MOF material of claim 1, wherein the UiO-66 present in the UiO-66-X MOF is connected to the X via a silicate bond (-O-Si-) (Pei’s H-UiO-66-(OAPTMS)2 comprises the claimed silicate bond, Pei p. 2) . 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. The claims are rejected as follows: Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Tiwari et al., US 2024/0199478 A1 (“Tiwari”). Regarding claim 3: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, wherein X is (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES). In the analogous art of MOF for catalytic enhancement, Tiwari discloses a UiO-66-OH MOF, Tiwari [0111]. Tiwari discloses use APTES to provide amine groups with the linker group of MOF could attach, Tiwari [0135]. Tiwari discloses MOF with APTES produce uniform and controlled MOF film, Tiwari [0211]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use APTES as the X in Pei’s amine-functionalized hierarchically porous UiO-66-(OH) 2 because APTES is known in the art to react with MOF to form a MOF and Tiwari discloses MOF with APTES produce uniform and controlled MOF film. And a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a uniform and controllable MOF because Pei discloses its MOF material is used as a catalyst, and a uniform and controllable MOF would benefit catalyst interaction with reactants. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Tsubo et al., JP 2022–50208 A (“Tsubo”) 1 . Regarding claim 4: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, having a BET surface area in a range of 330 to 430 square meter per gram (m 2 /g). In the analogous art of aminosilane coupled MOFs, Tsubo discloses aminosilane coupled UIO-66 could have a BET surface area of 400 m 2 /g or more, Tsubo ps. 3, 6 and 11. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Pei’s MOF material with a BET surface area as disclosed by Tsubo because such surface area is known in the area as being preferred by aminosilane coupled MOFs, Tsubo p. 3. And a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a high BET surface area because Pei discloses its MOF material is used as a catalyst, and a high surface area would benefit catalyst interaction with reactants. Additionally, surface area is an inherent property of a known structure, since Pei discloses a structure read on the claimed MOF material, and Pei would necessarily have a BET surface area falls within the claimed range. Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed BET surface area 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). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Shimizu et al., US 2016/0016148 A1 (“Shimizu”). Regarding Claim 5: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, having a Langmuir surface area in a range of 425 to 525 m 2 /g. In the analogous art of MOFs adsorbs carbon dioxide, Shimizu discloses a MOF in the form of a powder with a Langmuire surface area of at least 450 m 2 /g, Shimizu [0022]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Pei’s MOF material to have a Langmuire surface area of at least 450 m 2 /g because such Langmuire surface area is known in the art as being suitable for MOF suitable for carbon dioxide adsorption. A person of ordinary skill in the art would adopt such surface area because Shimizu discloses its MOF represents a 30% improvement of CO2 binding capacity, Shimizu [0070]. Additionally, surface area is an inherent property of a known structure, since Pei discloses a structure read on the claimed MOF material, and Pei would necessarily have a BET surface area falls within the claimed range. Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed Langmuire surface area 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). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Sivaniah et al., US 2019/0321787 A1 (“Sivaniah”). Regarding Claim 6: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, having an average pore size in a range of 9 to 12 nanometers (nm). In the analogous art of UiO-66 MOF structure, Sivaniah discloses that all of Zr-MOF particles has a mesoporosity with pore size being 2-50 nm, Sivaniah [0072]. It would therefore have been obvious for Pei’s MOF to have an average pore size as disclosed by Sivaniah because Sivaniah discloses all Zr-MOF has such mesoporous pore size attriabed to interstitial voids, Sivaniah [0072]. Such range overlaps with the claimed range and therefore support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed average pore size 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). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Usman et al., US 2021/0138433 A1 (“Usman”). Regarding Claim 7: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, having an average pore volume in a range of 0.05 to 0.2 cubic centimeters per gram (cm 3 /g). In the analogous art of Zr-MOF materials, Usman discloses a ZR-MOF may have a pore volume of 0.1 to 0.25 cm 3 /g, Usman [0070]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Pei’s MOF material to have a similar pore volume range as disclosed by Usman because such pore volume range is known to be suitable for Zr-MOR and UiO-66 MOF is a Zr-MOF. Usman’s pore volume range overlaps with the claimed range and support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05(I). Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed average pore volume 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). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Glover et al., US 2021/0178339 A1 (“Glover”). Regarding claim 8: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, having a CO 2 uptake of 60 to 70 cm 3 /g at 270-300 K and 1 bar. In the analogous art of MOF comprising UIO-66, Glover discloses a CO2 uptake of UIO-66 at 0 °C (equivalent to 273.15 K) and 100 Kpa (equivalent to 1 bar) is about 2.8 mmol/g (equivalent to 62.76 cm 3 /g), Glover Fig. 8, [0087]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Pei’s CO2 uptake be 62.76 cm 3 /g as disclosed by Glover because such CO2 uptake is known to be achievable for UIO-66 MOF materials. With such modification, modified Pei would have a CO 2 uptake falls within the claimed range. Furthermore, the instant disclosure does not teach the claimed CO 2 uptake 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). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pei in view of Zhuang et al., CN 113318792 A (“Zhuang”) 2 and Wan et al., Synthesis of highly stable UiO-66-NH2 membranes with high ions rejection for seawater desalination, MicroporousandMesoporousMaterials252(2017)207e213 (“Wan”). Regarding claim 10: Pei does not disclose that the MOF material of claim 1, wherein the UiO-66-X MOF is in the form of octahedral shape particles with no agglomeration. In the analogous art of UIO-66 MOF structures, Zhuang discloses that UiO-66-NH2 is octahedral morphology with no obvious agglomeration phenomenon, Zhuang Fig. 3, p. 7, last para. Additionally, Wan discloses that UiO-66-NH2 has a same topological structure with UiO-66, or UiO-66-OH2, Wan p. 207. Additionally, Pei discloses that all the functionalized H-MOFs reserved the basic crystal structure of the pristine H UiO-66-(OH)2 (Figure 2c) and it can be observed that the size of the functionalized H-UiO-66-(OH)2 particles were not obviously changed after modification (about 300 nm), Pei p. 4. Since Pei discloses its functionated MOF could have the same structure of UiO-66(OH)2, which could have a same topological structure with UiO-66-NH2 as disclosed by Wan, and Zhuang discloses UiO-66-NH2 is octahedral morphology with no obvious agglomeration phenomenon. It would therefore have been obvious for Pei’s functionated MOF (UiO-66-X MOF) to be octahedral morphology with no obvious agglomeration phenomenon as disclosed by Zhuang because they would all have the same underlying crystalline shape and Zhuang discloses an octahedral morphology with no obvious agglomeration is known in the art. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would prefer a MOF structure with no agglomeration for an increased surface area. Response to Arguments Election/Restrictions The applicant argues that there is no evidence of record to show that the apparatus can be used as the Office action Alleges, which is for water harvesting or catalysis. Applicant Rem. dated May. 11, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 2. The examiner does not agree. Pei, which is cited here as a 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) reference, clearly teaches that MOF material as claimed could be used for catalysis reactions, Pei, p. 1. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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: 18/599,411 Page 2 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 3 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 4 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 5 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 6 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 7 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 8 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 9 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 10 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 11 Art Unit: 1776 Application/Control Number: 18/599,411 Page 12 Art Unit: 1776 1 A copy of Tsubo’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. 2 A copy of Zhuang’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