DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
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 Objections
Claims 3-4, 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1, it is suggested to amend “group” to “the group” for proper Markush claim language.
Claim 4, line 1, it is suggested to amend “aminoterephthalic” to “the aminoterephthalic”.
Claim 6, line 1, it is suggested to amend “heating” to “the heating” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Claim 12, line 1, it is suggested to amend “heating” to “the heating” to ensure proper antecedent basis and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al., Sulfate-rich metal-organic framework for high efficiency and selective removal of barium from nuclear wastewater, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2017 (Kang) (provided in IDS received on 10/30/2024) in view of Tripathy et al., Hydrolytically stable citrate capped Fe3O4@UiO-66-NH2 MOF: A hetero-structure composite with enhanced activity towards Cr (VI) adsorption and photocatalytic H2 evolution, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2022 (Tripathy).
Regarding claims 1-13, Kang teaches a suitable MOF adsorbent for Ba2+ (Kang, page 2, left column, 2nd paragraph); for the preparation of the adsorbent, Zr(SO4)2·4H2O (20.0 mmol), 2-aminoterephtahlic acid (13.3 mmol) were mixed, heated at 98˚C for 16 hrs; the product was dried at 150 ˚C and then treated in 2 vol% sulfuric acid (Kang, page 2, left column, section 2.2).
Further regarding claims 1-2 and 10, Kang does not explicitly teach modifying a surface of a magnetic iron oxide nanoparticle, producing a modified magnetic iron oxide nanoparticle, and growing a metal organic framework on the modified magnetic iron oxide; or wherein the modifying the surface of the magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles comprises preparing the magnetic iron oxide nanoparticle with citric acid, thereby functionalizing the surface of the magnetic iron oxide nanoparticle with carboxylic acid.
With respect to the difference, Tripathy teaches a magnetically separable hetero-structure photocatalyst by the union of Fe3O4 and Zr-based MOF (Tripathy, Abstract). Tripathy specifically teaches Fe3O4 is modified with citric acid, and mixed with raw materials to grow MOF on the citric acid capped Fe3O4 composite (Tripathy, page 355, Scheme 1).
As Tripathy expressly teaches, Fe3O4 is an ideal choice to composite with MOF, as it has magnetic recovery tendency, which enables the hetero-structure composite to be easily recyclable making their industrial usage inexpensive (Tripathy, page 354, paragraph spanning left and right columns).
Tripathy is analogous art as Tripathy is drawn to a magnetically separable hetero-structure photocatalyst by the union of Fe3O4 and Zr-based MOF.
In light of the motivation of making a composite that has magnetic recovery tendency, as taught by Tripathy, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the MOF adsorbent of Kang into a composite with Fe3O4, by first modifying Fe3O4 with citric acid, and mixed with Zr(SO4)2·4H2O (20.0 mmol), 2-aminoterephtahlic acid (13.3 mmol) to grow the MOF on the citric acid modified Fe3O4, thereby producing the magnetic metal organic framework material, in order to allow the adsorbent to be easily recyclable making their industrial usage inexpensive, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights