DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2024 and 10/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the thermoplastic resin,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luehn (US 2016/0250829) and Jiang et al. (Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012, 41, 6010-6022) incorporated by reference.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Luehn discloses a multilayer composite comprising at least one first layer and at least one further layer wherein one of the two layer comprising one adsorption material and at least one polymeric support material in admixture with the adsorption material (0012). The polymeric support material including thermoplastic resin (0012) and the adsorption comprising a covalent organic framework (COF) (0034) have organic structures in which organic molecules are joined by covalent chemical bonds (0039; see e.g., Jiang et. al. incorporated by reference).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Luehn teaches the polymeric support including elastomers such as ethylene-propylene-diene comprising dienes such as norbornene (EPDM; 0058).
Regarding claims 4-11 and 16, Luehn discloses the same resin component (0058) and COF (Jiang: Fig. 1) as disclosed in the specification consequently, the properties of water absorption rate, melting point, relative permittivity, dielectric loss tangent and linear expansion coefficient in an in-plane direction are expected of the prior art resin and film.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claim 13, Jiang teaches the covalent bond in the COF is a carbon-nitrogen double bond (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang teaches a COF wherein terminals of the plurality of linker portions each have a carbon atom and the plurality of multi-site core portions have a nitrogen atom and the covalent bond of the COF is a carbon-nitrogen double bond in which a respective carbon atom of the plurality of linker portions and a respective nitrogen atom of the plurality of multi-site core potions are bonded with each other (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, Luehn teaches the COF is a porous crystalline three-dimensional organic structure (0039) in particle form (0051).
Regarding claim 19, Jiang teaches wherein the plurality of linker and/or multi-site core potions have an alkyl group (Fig. 3 and page 6017 section 3.2.3).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luehn.
Regarding claim 15, Luehn discloses the adsorption material being admixed in a ratio of 0.001 to 80% by weight based on the total weight of the adsorption material and polymeric support material (0033). Given the breadth of the claimed and disclosed ranges, there is a reasonable expectation that the content ratio of Luehn in weight% will overlap with the claimed ratio of 10 to 70 vol% (MPEP 2144.05).
Alternatively, Luehn teaches that the adsorption material is incorporated into the support to absorb volatile compounds (0024). As there is no evidence indicating the ratio of COF is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luehn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yaghi et al. (US 2010/0143693).
Regarding claim 18, Luehn discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Luehn does not teach therein the plurality of linker and/or multi-site core portions have a phosphorus element.
Yaghi, in the analogous field of covalent organic frameworks teaches wherein the covalent bonds between the core and linker portions take place between carbon, boron, oxygen, nitrogen or phosphorus atoms (0007).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious of the COF of Luehn to have a phosphorus element as taught by Yaghi, as a phosphorus element is capable of forming a bond with a bridging oxygen atom for formation of a COF (0107).
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to using a phosphorus element as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781