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 claims 12-18 in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/09/2026.
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.
Claims 12-18 are 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 12:
the limitation “the device comprising: - a bulk kinetic process media having a plurality of components; - a plurality of molecular cage elements; and - a structure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claiming is reciting that the plurality of molecular cage elements and the structure are the plurality of components of the bulk kinetic process media or are separate elements in addition to the bulk kinetic process media;
the limitation “a structure” is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers to “void structure” or “molecular structure”, or some other structure;
the limitation “an intentional method” is indefinite because it is unclear what is intended by “intentional” and what is considered to be “not intentional”;
the limitation “an intentional method” on page 3 – line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this intentional method is same or different from intentional method of line 3;
there is insufficient antecedent basis for limitation “the filtrate” (refer page 3 - line 5) in the claim;
there is insufficient antecedent basis for limitation “the bulk elements or components” (refer page 3 - line 6) in the claim;
the limitation “a host matrix” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is “a host matrix”. Is it a combination of bulk process media comprising molecular cage elements and structure or something other than the bulk process media.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “other type of framework” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is open ended and encompasses a potentially unlimited range of frameworks, thereby failing to provide reasonably ascertainable metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the function of the bulk process media" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bulk-matrix structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, it unclear what is intended by the limitation “selectable void structure, size, density, distribution, and other characteristics” (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “said characteristics” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to “other characteristics” only or also referring to “void structure, size, density, distribution”. The limitation “other characteristics” also renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is open ended and encompasses a potentially unlimited range of characteristics, thereby failing to provide reasonably ascertainable metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “other structural means” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is open ended and encompasses a potentially unlimited range of structural means, thereby failing to provide reasonably ascertainable metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the interaction" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “may contain” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the device contains or does not contain multiple distinguishable regions of bulk process media.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “various process characteristics” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is open ended and encompasses a potentially unlimited range of process characteristics, thereby failing to provide reasonably ascertainable metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 16 recites “mechanical means”, “molecular cage decoration means”, and “other structural means”, and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towaza et al. (NATURE MATERIALS - VOL 8 - DECEMBER 2009), in view of Yang, X., Sun, JK., Kitta, M. et al. Encapsulating highly catalytically active metal nanoclusters inside porous organic cages. Nat Catal 1, 214–220 (2018).
Regarding claim 12, Towaza teaches a bulk kinetic media having a plurality of components, a plurality of molecular cage elements, and a structure providing alignment and support of media (refer abstract disclosing three dimensional porous organic cages, fig. 1, 2, and 3 discloses different structures of the molecular cages where cage elements are connected and aligned). Towaza teaches the cages perform separation of gas molecules from a mixture of gas molecules (Refer page 373 – paragraph starting with “The primary synthetic challenge is…”). Towaza does not explicitly disclose a device comprising the media. However, the media is inherently contained in a container/housing while performing separation of gas molecules.
Towaza does not disclose that bulk elements or components are retained within voids in a host matrix.
Liang teaches encapsulation of porous organic cage into pores of a metal organic framework to enhance CO2 separation (refer abstract, Scheme 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Towaza to provide bulk elements or components are retained within voids in a host matrix to improve gas separation performance as taught by Liang.
Regarding claim 13, modified Towaza teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. The molecular cage structure of Towaza is indicative of bulk kinetic process media being assembled in a selective manner within the structure.
Regarding claim 14, modified Towaza teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Towaza discloses that the structure is formed of covalent organic framework (Refer abstract).
Regarding claim 15, modified Towaza teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Towaza discloses that the molecular cages provide selective separation of gas molecules (Refer page 373 – paragraph starting with “The primary synthetic challenge is…”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Towaza teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. The molecular cage structure of Towaza is indicative of the elements or components of the bulk kinetic process media being affixed within or interact with the structure.
Regarding claim 17, modified Towaza teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. The claimed property is a result of the structure of the media of claim 1. Since modified Towaza teaches limitations of claim 1, the properties of the material are inherent. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “may contain” does not require “multiple distinguishable regions of bulk process media demonstrating various process characteristics” to be present in the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0297009A1 teaches porous materials (such as organic polyamine cage compounds) useful as adsorbents.
US 2016/0361702A1 teaches polymerized metal organic framework compositions useful for a wide range of applications, for example ion exchange, catalysis, gas sorption, and drug delivery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights