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 .
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 6,7,8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silvo Pinto et al(2013/0274087) taken together with Chinese reference(CN203355508U).
da Silvo Pinto et al teaches an adsorption element(para 0081 stating "the material selectively absorbs the at least one gas or liquid") comprising a base material layer(para 0080 stating "modified cellulose fibers") in which a fiber structure in which fibers are integrated and a metal organic framework including a metal ion and an organic ligand are mixed(para 0080 stating "the MOF-modified fibers are made by exposing modified cellulose fibers to a mixture comprising 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid, copper (II) acetate, and triethylamine"), wherein the metal organic framework is sandwiched between the fibers and held by the fiber structure(para 0085 noting a "chemically-modified cellulose; also noting para 0075 stating "any MOF can be formed such that it is covalently attached to the fiber"; also noting para 0103 stating "XRD patterns revealed the presence of MOF 199 onto anionic-modified fiber."). da Silva Pinto et al is silent as to an air permeable layer stacked on the base material layer, wherein the content of the metal organic framework per unit area as viewed in the stacking direction of the air permeable layer is smaller than that of the base material layer, or the air-permeable layer does not have the metal organic framework.
Chinese reference in figure 3 teaches an adsorption element, the adsorption element including an adsorption layer(molecular sieve layer 5), and an air permeable layer(fiber net 4) stacked on the adsorption layer, wherein the air permeable layer does not have a metal organic framework. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an air permeable layer stacked on to the base material layer of da Silva Pinto et al in order to provide a mechanism for gas filtration adjacent to the cellulose fibers with metal organic framework sandwiched between the fibers of da Silva Pinto et al.
With regards to claim 7, da Silva Pinto et al taken together with Chinese reference further teaches wherein the air permeable layer includes a first air permeable layer(4 in Chinese reference) and a second air permeable layer(also 4 in Chinese reference), and the base layer is located between the first air permeable layer and the second air permeable layer.
With regards to claims 8 and 20, da Silva Pinto et al taken together with Chinese reference is silent as to wherein a thickness of the base material layer is larger than a thickness of the air permeable layer. Examiner respectfully submits someone of ordinary skill in the art, requiring a thickness the base material layer of Chinese reference is larger than a thickness of the air permeable layer, would have been motivated through routine experimentation to adjust the thickness of the air permeable layer to be smaller than a thickness of the base material layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,2, 5,9-13,16, 19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites “An adsorption element comprising
a base material layer in which a fiber structure in which fibers are integrated; and
a metal organic framework including a metal ion and an organic ligand are mixed,
wherein the metal organic framework is sandwiched between the fibers and held by the fiber structure,
wherein the base material layer includes a binder, and wherein the binder is larger than an opening diameter of the metal organic framework.”.
da Silva Pinto et al(2013/0274087) teaches an adsorption element(para 0081 stating "the material selectively absorbs the at least one gas or liquid") comprising a base material layer(para 0080 stating "modified cellulose fibers") in which a fiber structure in which fibers are integrated and a metal organic framework including a metal ion and an organic ligand are mixed(para 0080 stating "the MOF-modified fibers are made by exposing modified cellulose fibers to a mixture comprising 1,3,5-benzenetricarboxylic acid, copper (II) acetate, and triethylamine"), wherein the metal organic framework is sandwiched between the fibers and held by the fiber structure(para 0085 noting a "chemically-modified cellulose; also noting para 0075 stating "any MOF can be formed such that it is covalently attached to the fiber"; also noting para 0103 stating "XRD patterns revealed the presence of MOF 199 onto anionic-modified fiber."). Examiner notes that while Da Silva Pinto et al(2013/0274087) states in para 0050 that an example of a material having surface functional groups for MOF binding includes polyacrylamide, a statement of polyacrylamide as including surface functional groups is not equivalent to polyacrylamide as a separate binder included as part of a base material layer. Examiner further notes example 2 of Da Silva Pinto et al provides detail to chemical attachment of an MOF to an anionic modified cellulose, however the example does not specifically teach a base material layer includes a binder, and wherein the binder is larger than an opening diameter of the metal organic framework. Claims 2, 5,9-13,16, 19 depend on claim 1 and hence are also allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-23-2026 with respect to newly amended independent claim 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 6, Applicant argues in da Silva Pinto, the metal organic framework (MOF) is covalently bonded to the fibers (see paragraph [0045]). Similarly, in Sidheswaran, the MOF is synthesized in the presence of fibers and, as a result, the MOF and the fibers are integrated through chemical bonding (see paragraph [0056]). In contrast, in claim 6, the MOF and the fibers are separate and independent from each other. Consequently, there is a possibility that the MOF may become detached from the fibers, unlike in da Silva Pinto and the other cited references. In claim 6, the invention includes an air- permeable layer laminated to the substrate layer. Accordingly, even if the MOF becomes detached from the substrate layer, the air-permeable layer is capable of capturing the detached MOF (see, e.g., first fully paragraph in page 3 of the specification).
Examiner notes claim 6 states “a base material layer in which a fiber structure in which fibers are integrated; a metal organic framework including a metal ion and an organic ligand are mixed; wherein the metal organic framework is sandwiched between the fibers and held by the fiber structure.”. Examiner respectfully submits claim 6 does not specifically recite that the MOF and the fibers are separate and independent from each other, and the specification does not support an adsorption element structure in which the MOF and the fibers are separate and independent from each other. Examiner respectfully submits that including a structure wherein a metal organic framework is held by the fiber structure provides for a chemical attachment, wherein a chemical attachment teaches against an embodiment wherein a metal organic framework and fibers are separate and independent from each other.
Applicant further argues that there is a possibility that the MOF may become detached from the fibers, unlike in da Silva Pinto and the other cited references.
Examiner notes page 2 of the current specification which states “In this adsorption element, the metal organic framework is easily entangled with the fiber, and the effect of suppressing falling of the metal organic framework from the base material layer is excellent.”. Examiner respectfully submits that any statement that the metal organic framework is easily entangled with the fiber teaches against applicant’s argument that there is a possibility that the MOF may become detached from the fibers, therefore examiner respectfully submits da Silvo Pinto clearly teaches the metal organic framework is sandwiched between the fibers and held by the fiber structure, as claimed. Examiner also notes page 6 of the specification stating “The method of sandwiching the metal organic framework between fibers is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include a method in which both the fiber and the metal organic structure are dispersed in water, an organic solvent, or the like, and the dispersion is paper-made to obtain a sheet-shaped product”. Examiner respectfully submits that an embodiment in which the fiber and the metal organic structure are dispersed in water or an organic solvent provides for a structure that teaches against a metal organic framework and fibers separate and independent from each other, wherein the metal organic framework may become detached from the fibers, as argued by applicant.
Applicant argues the invention includes an air- permeable layer laminated to the substrate layer. Accordingly, even if the MOF becomes detached from the substrate layer, the air-permeable layer is capable of capturing the detached MOF.
Examiner respectfully submits claim 6 recites “an air permeable layer stacked on the base material layer”, therefore examiner respectfully submits claim 6 does not recite an air- permeable layer laminated to the substrate layer, as argued by applicant. Examiner respectfully submits Chinese reference in figure 3 specifically teaches an air permeable layer(4) stacked on a base material layer(5), wherein the air permeable layer does not have the metal organic framework, therefore the combination of da Silvo Pinto taken together with Chinese reference teaches the limitations of amended independent claim 6. Examiner also notes applicant did not specifically discuss the combination of da Silvo Pinto taken together with Chinese reference , with only a focus on the da Silvo Pinto with regards to claim 6.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights