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 .
Claims 1-5 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was electronically retrieved on May 13, 2024.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,375,678, Applicants’ submitted art) in view of Barnholtz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0302566).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Nair et al. teach metal organic framework (MOF)-membrane-polymers, comprising the MOF formed on porous polymeric supports, wherein exemplary MOFs include ZIF-8, the porous polymer may be in the form of a fiber, and exemplary porous polymers include polyethylene, polyacrylonitrile, and polypropylene. See col. 5, lines 11-14, col. 8, lines 24-32, col. 11, lines 25-29 of Nair et al.
Nair et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the porous polymeric support being sodium polyacrylate, nor does this reference teach or suggest the diameter of the sodium polyacrylate, as respectively recited in Applicants’ claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Barnholtz et al. teach fibrous structures comprising filaments; exemplary filaments include polypropylene, polyethylene, sodium polyacrylate, wherein the filaments exhibit an average fiber diameter of less than 50 µm and/or less than 25 µm ("fiber has several tens of micrometers or more in a diameter"). See paragraphs [0047] and [0049] of Barnholtz et al. Note that polypropylene and polyethylene are disclosed in Nair et al. as exemplary porous polymers that can be coated with the metal organic framework (e.g., ZIF-8); see col. 5, lines 38-46 and col. 11, lines 43-51 therein.
Motivated by the teachings of Barnholtz et al. regarding the functional equivalence of sodium polyacrylate, polypropylene, and polyethylene as filaments in fibrous structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the MOF membrane on porous polymeric supports disclosed by Nair et al. by substituting either polypropylene or polyethylene with sodium polyacrylate, as suggested by Barnholtz et al. See also MPEP 2144.06(II).
Although neither Nair et al. nor Barnholtz et al. explicitly teach or suggest an “adsorbent having a core-shell structure”, it is considered that because the combined teachings of Nair et al. and Barnholtz et al. form an MOF-membrane-polymers structurally reading upon Applicants’ claimed “metal-organic framework-polymer fiber”, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the MOF-membrane-polymers obtained by the combined teachings of Nair et al. and Barnholtz et al. to suitably and effectively function as an adsorbent having a core-shell structure, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,375,678, Applicants’ submitted art) in view of Barnholtz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0302566) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qin et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0186239).
Nair et al. and Barnholtz et al. are relied upon for their combined teachings with respect to claim 1, as stated above. Neither of these references teach or suggest the limitations of claims 2 and 3 regarding the sodium polyacrylate having provided thereon either a sodium carboxylate group, as recited in claim 2, or any one of an amine group, a carboxyl group, a hydroxyl group, a sulfate group, or a phosphate group, as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Qin et al. teach that sodium polyacrylate, known as a superabsorbent material, is a hydrophilic polymer due to the presence of carboxyl groups and carboxylic acid groups. Qin et al. further teach the feasibility in improving the wettability of superabsorbent fibers by applying to the surface thereof a surfactant, wherein the surfactant has (a) at least one first functional group reactive with a second functional group of the superabsorbent material and (b) at least one non-reactive and hydrophilic functional group. Examples of the first reactive functional group include amino groups (“amine group”), carboxyl groups, sulfonate groups (“sulfate group”), and phosphate groups. See paragraphs [0011] and [0020] of Qin et al., as well as paragraphs [0016] and [0017], which teach alkali metal salts of polyacrylic acids (“sodium polyacrylate”) as exemplary superabsorbent fibers, as well as superabsorbent materials in the form of a sodium salt of a cross-linked polymer. From this latter teaching, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the presence of a sodium carboxylate group on the superabsorbent fiber, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the combined teachings of Nair et al. and Barnholtz et al. by incorporating therein either a sodium carboxylate group or any one of an amino group (“amine group”), a carboxyl group, a sulfonate group (“sulfate group”), or a phosphate group, as suggested by Qin et al. to obtain a wettable superabsorbent material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights