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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 13, “the method according to claim 1, wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise carboxylic acid functional groups” fails to further limit claim 1 as claim 1 states “wherein said volatile organic compound comprises at least one carboxylic acid and/or said volatile organic compound comprises a hydroxyl group.”
Regarding claim 14, “wherein the volatile organic compounds comprise hydroxyl functional group(s)” fails to further limit claim 1 as claim 1 states “wherein said volatile organic compound comprises at least one carboxylic acid and/or said volatile organic compound comprises a hydroxyl group.”
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
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serre et al. US 20200269211 A1 in view of Bromberg et al. US 20140311507 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Serre et al. teaches a method for selective adsorption of volatile organic compounds from a gaseous environment represented by “a process for adsorbing polar volatile organic compounds…in a gaseous environment” (Claim 11, [0031]). The process comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
Contacting at least one porous metal organic framework (MOF) material with a gaseous environment comprising volatile organic compounds represented by “comprising the step of contacting with said environment a porous Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) material” (Claim 11, [0031]).
The volatile organic compound comprising at least one carboxylic acid group and/or a hydroxyl group represented by “the polar volatile organic compounds may be selected in the group comprising acetic acid, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde or a mixture of two or three thereof” [0044]. It is well known in the art that acetic acid is a carboxylic acid.
The MOF material comprising metal octahedra and interconnected by organic polycarboxylate linkers represented by “it is meant to encompass the various possible pore geometries of the MOF material ‘e.g., tetrahedral, octahedral)” and “the MOF linker may be a C.sub.4-C.sub.16 polycarboxylate alkyl linkers” [0030,0035].
Serre et al. does not teach the MOF material comprising at least 1 mmol/g of Lewis acid site built up.
Bromberg et al. teaches the MOF Material comprising at least 1 mmol/g of Lewis acid site built up represented by “in the case of MIL-101 without PTA, we assumed that total concentration of the Bronsted and Lewis acid sites (about 2 mmol/g)” [0180]. It is well known in the art that MOFs exhibiting active sites, like Lewis acid sites, are beneficial to interact with certain species. Therefore, using the teachings of Bromberg et al. to modify the concentration of the Lewis acid site built up to be at least 1 mmol/g is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serre et al. with the teachings of Bromberg et al. to
incorporate the MOF material comprising at least 1 mmol/g of Lewis acid site built up to interact with the desired species.
Regarding claim 2, Serre et al. teaches the MOF, in terms of water adsorption isotherm at 30 °C, may adsorb more than 50% of the said MOF total adsorption capacity at p/po relative pressure of less than 0.4 represented by Figure 4, wherein “Figure 4 shows water adsorption isotherm results at 30 °C” (Fig. 4, [0068]). Figure 4 clearly shows MOFs such as UiO-66-NH2 adsorbing more than 50% of the total adsorption capacity at 0.4 p/po as the total adsorption capacity seems to be around 0.275 and at 0.4 it the adsorption being around 0.0215.
Regarding claim 3, Serre et al. teaches the MOF material comprising a metallic center selected from the group or a mixture there of represented by the MOF material having “an hydrophobic core formed by a metal oxide and/or hydroxide” wherein “the metal atom of the metal oxide and/or hydroxide may be selected from Li, Na, Rb, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Sc, Ti, Zr, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Fe, Ru, Os, Co, Ni, Pd, Pt, Cu, Au, Zn, Al, Ga, In, Si, Ge, Sn, Bi, Cd, Mn, Tb, Gd, Ce, La, or Cr. Preferably, the MOF material may be a zirconium, zinc, iron, aluminum, chromium or their hydroxide based MOF” [0023, 0050].
Regarding claim 4, Serre et al. does not teach the MOF material comprising at least 1.5 mmol/g of Lewis acid site built up.
Bromberg et al. teaches the MOF Material comprising at least 1.5 mmol/g of Lewis acid site built up represented by “in the case of MIL-101 without PTA, we assumed that total concentration of the Bronsted and Lewis acid sites (about 2 mmol/g)” [0180]. It is well known in the art that MOFs exhibiting active sites, like Lewis acid sites, are beneficial to interact specifically with certain species. Therefore, using the teachings of Bromberg et al. to modify the concentration of the Lewis acid site built up to be at least 1.5 mmol/g is simply routine optimization.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serre et al. with the teachings of Bromberg et al. to
incorporate the MOF material comprising at least 1.5 mmol/g of Lewis acid site built up to interact with the desired species.
Regarding claim 5, Serre et al. teaches the MOF material having a specific surface area of more than 50 m2/g, being evaluated with the BET model from a N2 isotherm at 77K, represented by “its BET surface area is close to 1500 m2/g” [0058].
Regarding claim 6, Serre et al. teaches the MOF material having an average pore size of more than 05 nm represented by “comprising an average pore size of 0.4 to 0.6 nm” [0023].
Regarding claim 7, Serre et al. teaches the organic polycarboxylate linkers being selected from di-, tri-, or tetra- carboxylic acids represented by “the MOF linker may be a C.sub.4-C.sub.16 polycarboxylate alkyl linkers (such as di-, tri- or tetracarboxylate or carboxylic acid linkers” [0035].
Regarding claim 8, Serre et al. teaches the organic polycarboxylate linkers being C6 to C24 aromatic polycarboxylate linkers selected from the group represented by “advantageously, the C.sub.6-C.sub.24 aromatic polycarboxylate linkers, such as benzyl or naphtyl di-, tri- or tetracarboxylate may be selected from the group comprising C.sub.6H.sub.4(CO.sub.2.sup.−).sub.2 (terephtalate), C.sub.10H.sub.6(CO.sub.2.sup.−).sub.2 (naphtalene-2,6-dicarboxylate)…” [0045].
Regarding claim 9, Serre et al. teaches the organic polycarboxylate linkers being C4 to C16 polycarboxylate alkyl linkers selected from the group re[resented by “the MOF linker may be a C.sub.4-C.sub.16 polycarboxylate alkyl linkers (such as di-, tri- or tetracarboxylate or carboxylic acid linkers, for example C.sub.2H.sub.2(CO.sub.2.sup.−).sub.2 (fumarate), C.sub.2H.sub.4(CO.sub.2.sup.−).sub.2 (succinate), C.sub.3H.sub.6(CO.sub.2.sup.−).sub.2 (glutarate)…” [0027].
Regarding claim 11, Serre et al. teaches the method being for air quality applications, art preservation, indoor air purification, outdoor air purification, or cosmetic applications represented by “the MOF solids of the present disclosure can be used for the purification of air” (Abstract, [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Serre et al. teaches the gaseous environment being air represented by “advantageously, the present disclosure provides the use of a porous Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) material, as defined …. in a gaseous environment, such as air” [0029].
Regarding claim 15, Serre et al. teaches the concentration of the volatile organic compound in the gaseous environment is of at least 40 ppb represented by “for the adsorption of polar volatile organic compounds present at a concentration in the range of 10 ppb to 100 ppm in a gaseous environment” [0029].
Regarding claim 16, Serre et al. teaches the MOF material being in the form of powder or a granule represented by “the MOF may for example be in the form of a powder or granules or embedded in the form of a composite material, embedded in or applied onto the surface of a paper sheet or a polymer or a fiber” [0059].
Regarding claim 18, Serre et al. teaches the organic polycarboxylate linkers being C6 to C24 aromatic polycarboxylate linkers or C4 to C16 polycarboxylate aliphatic linkers represented by “said linkers being selected from the group comprising: C.sub.6-C.sub.24 aromatic polycarboxylate linkers, such as benzyl or naphtyl di-, tri- or tetracarboxylate, and [0025] C.sub.6-C.sub.16 polycarboxylate aliphatic linkers” [0023, 0024].
Regarding claim 20, Serre at al. teaches the volatile organic compounds being acetic acid represented by “advantageously, the polar volatile organic compounds may be selected in the group comprising acetic acid, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde or a mixture of two or three thereof” [0044].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serre et al. US 20200269211 A1 in view of Bromberg et al. US 20140311507 A1 and in further view of Mingyan et al.; Iron Metal–Organic Frameworks MIL-88B and NH2-MIL-88B for the Loading and Delivery of the Gasotransmitter Carbon Monoxide. Chemistry A European Journal, 6785-6790 (2013).
Regarding claim 10, Serre et al. in view of Bromberg et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Serre et al. in view of Bromberg et al. does not teach the MOF material being selected from the mentioned group.
Mingyan et al. teaches the MOF material being MIL-88B(X)(Fe) represented by NH2-MIL-88B-Fe where in ” These CO-adsorption studies indicate that the MIL-88BFe and NH2-MIL-88B-Fe frameworks, with large amounts of accessible FeIII and FeII CUSs, provide a chemical-storage environment for CO molecules” (pg. 6788). The reference clearly teaches that it is beneficial to use NH2-MIL-88B-Fe to capture CO molecules.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serre et al. in view of Bromberg et al. with the teachings of Mingyan et al. to incorporate the MOF material being NH2-MIL-88B-Fe to capture CO molecules.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serre et al. US 20200269211 A1 in view of Bromberg et al. US 20140311507 A1 and in further view of Weinberger et al. US 11203009 B2.
Regarding claim 17, Serre et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Serre et al. does not teach the MOF material being comprised in a device selected from air purifiers, etc.
Weinberger et al. teaches the MOF material being comprised in a device from air purifiers represented by “a catalyst device for purifying an air supply. In some embodiments the device comprises a catalyst or a catalytic adsorbent” wherein “the catalyst composition may further comprise a sorbent such as carbon, impregnated (treated) carbon, metal organic frameworks (MOFs), zeolites, or combinations thereof” wherein “the catalyst device may be a portable air purifier or an ionic air purifier” (pgs. 14-19). The catalyst device is beneficial to “purify an air supply”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serre et al. in view of Bromberg et al. with the teachings of Weinberger et al. to incorporate the MOF being comprised in a device such as an air purifier to help purify an air supply.
Regarding claim 19, Serre et al. teaches the gaseous environment having a relative humidity from 20% to 80% represented by “ the porous Metal-Organic Framework (MOF) material, as defined above, may even be used for the adsorption of polar volatile organic compounds present at…above normal relative humidity levels (e.g. >30% RH, preferably ≥35% RH, still preferably ≥40% RH). The reference is silent as to the relative humidity being between 20 to 30% however, it is well known in the art that the adsorption of water vapor or other gases is general more favorable at lower humidity. Therefore, it would be simple routine optimization to make the lower threshold of the relative humidity to be 20% rather than 30% to promote adsorption.
Serre et al. does not teach the temperature of the gaseous environment being from 10 to 180 °C.
Weinberger et al. teaches the temperature of the gaseous environment being from 10 to 180 °C represented by “the contacting of the unpurified air stream with the catalyst composition may occur at a temperature ranging from about 10° C. to about 150° C.” The reference is silent as to the temperature being above 150 °C to 180 °C, however it is well known in the art that MOFs can exhibit both thermal stability and adsorption behavior at 180 °C. Therefore, it would be simple routine optimization to raise the temperature of the gaseous environment to 180 °C to promote adsorption.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Serre et al. in view of Bromberg et al. with the teachings of Weinberger et al. to incorporate the temperature of the gaseous environment being 10 to 180 °C to promote adsorption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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 (571) 270-7872. 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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights