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
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 1-2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because in the structural formula “n” is not defined in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is indefinite because there is an antecedent basis issue with the phrase “the crystal”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., International Publication No. WO/2020/060873 (hereinafter referred to as Li).
Regarding claims 1-3, Li discloses one, two, or three-dimensional metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) comprising tetratopic ligands and methods of utilizing the MOFs to separate hydrocarbons through adsorptive processes. Li discloses the metal being Zirconium/Zr and the ligand such as those represented in line 2 of page 3, wherein L is a bond or a C1-6 alkynylene (which reads on the chemical structural formula and ligand recited in claim 1 and reads on claims 2-3) (see Abstract, and Pages 2-3/L. 17-3 and Page 14/L. 5-9 and Page 15/L. 1-11, and see Figure 2).
Li differs from claim 1 in that Li does not disclose the specific ligand of claim 1 in an example embodiment.
It is the position of the examiner that based on the disclosure of Li discussed above that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would immediately envisage the limitations of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 4-9, Li further discloses crystals were obtained for the M-MOF (M = Zr, Hf, Y) compounds after optimization of synthetic conditions. M-ptca’s are highly stable frameworks with optimal pore structure for the separation of propylene and propane. Demonstrated herein are a family of microporous metal-organic framework materials with cage-like pores, that exhibit fast and complete separation of propane/propylene mixtures through a selective molecular exclusion mechanism. The optimal pore structure of this material was achieved by a topology -guided design strategy, involving the precise tuning of pore size by judicious selection of structure topology, inorganic nodes and organic ligands and includes a pore or window size of 4 to about 20 A and a surface area of 200 to 1000 m2/g, and are arranged so that the (M3+)6 cluster is arranged such that the M3+ ions form an octahedron and are thermally stable up to 400°C and can be in the form of a powder (as recited in claims 4-9) (Pages 7-10/L. 23-20 and section labelled “column breakthrough experiments”/Page 21).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 16, see Examples 1 and 3 wherein DMF and formic acid are used and the reaction conditions are met (section entitled “general information” and “synthesis of H4dbtc”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jiang et al., Chinese Publication No. CN113461955A (hereinafter referred to as Jiang).
Regarding claim 27, Li discloses all the limitations above but does not explicitly disclose the adsorption separation method for alkane isomers, comprising: passing a mixture gas or mixture liquid containing hexane isomers as recited in claim 27.
Jiang discloses a highly stable metal organic framework material, its preparation method, and application. The metal organic framework material has an organic ligand 2-aminotercphthalic acid and a metal element of zirconium wherein the metal organic framework material can be used for the separation of hexane isomers (see Abstract and Para. [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the MOF of Li in the process of Jiang in order to form crystals with an enhanced structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL V VASISTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:30 and 7:00-10:00p.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 5712726381. 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.
/VISHAL V VASISTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights