DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application, filed on April 29, 2024, claims the priority of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0062013 filed on May 12, 2023; No. 10-2023-0077052 filed on June 15, 2023; and No. 10-2024-0052244 filed on April 18, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements, filed on 04/29/2024 and 05/13/2025, have been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are under examination on the merits.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites the claimed organometallic structure having excellent adsorption performance, wherein the term “excellent” is not defined in the claim nor the specification. The term is subject to subjective interpretation. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-9 depending on claim 1 are rejected, accordingly.
In addition, claim 7 recites “an amine group” in claim 6, which depends on claim 1. However, neither claim 1 nor claim 6 is drawn to an organometallic structure containing an amine group, therefore cannot be located inside the pore. Therefore, claim 7 lacks antecedent base and is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butova et al., Inorganica Chimica Acta, (2021), v.514, p.120025(1-7).
Applicants’ claim 1 is drawn to an organometallic structure, which is a zirconium-based organometallic structure (MOF) containing fumaric acid as an organic linker, having excellent adsorption performance and outgassing prevention performance for volatile organic compounds.
The limitation “having excellent adsorption performance and outgassing prevention performance for volatile organic compounds” is considered to be inherited properties of the claimed zirconium-based organometallic structure (MOF) containing fumaric acid as an organic linker, not a further structural limitation because a product is not separable from its properties.
Butova et al. discloses MOF-801 for water and hydrogen storage. MOF-801 is a zirconium-based organometallic structure (MOF) containing fumaric acid as an organic linker, prepared by the method disclosed under “2.1. Synthesis” at p. p.120025(2 of 7). Therefore, Butova et al. anticipates claims 1 and 9.
In terms of claim 6 wherein the organometallic structure has a crystal structure, and the size of a pore entrance formed by the crystal structure is larger than the size of the inside of a pore, Butova et al. discloses MOF-801 crystal structure is characterized by PXRD, see Table 1 at p. p.120025(2 of 7). In terms of the limitation “the size of a pore entrance formed by the crystal structure is larger than the size of the inside of a pore”, it is considered to be an inherited property of the organometallic crystal structure by Butova et al. Therefore, Vera Butova et al. anticipates claim 6.
In terms of claim 8, wherein the organometallic structure has a VOCs adsorption rate of 95% or higher, and an outgassing rate of 2.5% or lower, it is considered to be an inherited property of the organometallic crystal structure by Butova et al. Therefore, Butova et al. anticipates claim 8.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butova et al. in view of Wang et al., Nature Communications, (2018), v.9, p.4937(1-8), and Sun et al., J of Membrane Sci., (2001), v.183, p.213-221.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Butova et al. discloses MOF-801 for water and hydrogen storage. MOF-801 is a zirconium-based organometallic structure (MOF) containing fumaric acid as an organic linker, prepared by the method disclosed under “2.1. Synthesis” at p. p.120025(2 of 7).
Wang et al. (Abstract at p. 4937-1) discloses zirconium amino acid metal-organic framework MIP-202 (Zr) for proton conduction, and one of the most promising candidates to approach the commercial benchmark Nafion. Wang et al. (Fig.1 at p. 4937-3) discloses the crystal structural features of MIP-202(Zr) containing an L-aspartic acid linker. In addition, Wang et al. (left column at p. 4937-3) discloses MIP-202(Zr) is isostructural (i.e., the same structure) to Zr-Fumarate (also known as MOF-801) compound.
Sun et al. (Figs. 2-3 at p.215-216) discloses Nafion coating membrane can adsorb various vapor organic compounds including propanol, acetone, propionaldehyde, propic acid, and propyl amine.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between claim 2 and Butova et al. is that the prior art does not teach the zirconium-based organometallic structure (MOF) further comprising L-aspartic acid as an organic linker.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, Butova et al. would have rendered claim 2 obvious because the difference of lacking L-aspartic acid as an organic linker is further taught and/or suggested by Wang et al. Wang et al. (Abstract at p. 4937-1) discloses zirconium amino acid metal-organic framework MIP-202 (Zr) is one of the most promising candidates to approach the commercial benchmark Nafion. Wang et al. (Fig.1 at p. 4937-3) discloses the crystal structural features of MIP-202(Zr) containing an L-aspartic acid linker. In addition, Wang et al. (left column at p. 4937-3) discloses MIP-202(Zr) is isostructural (i.e., the same structure) to Zr-Fumarate (also known as MOF-801) compound. In terms of Nafion, Sun et al. (Figs. 2-3 at p.215-216) teaches Nafion coating membrane can adsorb various vapor organic compounds (VOC) including propanol, acetone, propionaldehyde, propic acid, and propyl amine. On ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to replace some of the fumaric acid as an organic linker with L-aspartic acid as an organic linker because Wang et al. (left column at p. 4937-3) teaches MIP-202(Zr) is isostructural (i.e., the same structure) to Zr-Fumarate (also known as MOF-801) compound, and MIP-202 (Zr) is one of the most promising candidates to approach the commercial benchmark Nafion used for adsorbing various vapor organic compounds (VOC) including propanol, acetone, propionaldehyde, propic acid, and propyl amine, as being suggested by Sun et al. (Figs. 2-3 at p.215-216). Therefore, Butova et al. in view of Wang et al. and Sun et al. would have rendered claim 2 obvious.
In terms of claims 3-5, the claims are drawn to the mixing molar ratio of the fumaric acid and the L-aspartic acid at a quite wide range. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to identify the claimed mixing molar ratio via a routine optimization with obvious-to-try.
In terms of claim 7, wherein an amine group (NH2) is located inside the pore, Wang et al. (Fig.1 at p. 4937-3) discloses the crystal structural features of MIP-202(Zr) containing an L-aspartic acid linker, wherein aspartic acid linker contains an amine group. In terms of the amine group (NH2) is located inside the pore, because the aspartic acid linker is a part of MOF crystal structural, the amine group (NH2) is located inside the pore, based on the crystal structure of Fig. 1.
Conclusions
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights