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 Objections
Claims 1 and 7-19 objected to because of the following informalities: The abbreviation "HoMOF" is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 14-20 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.
Regarding Claims 4, Claim 4 recites “the solvent comprises at least one of water and ethanol; And/or, The solvent comprises water and N,N-dimethylformamide, wherein the dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of the water and N,N-dimethylformamide; the solvent comprises ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide wherein the N,N-dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide” The scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what the solvent comprises of . see MPEP §2173.05(q)
Regarding Claims 14-20, Claims 14-20 recites "an application of HoMOF material." which is directed to a method of applying the HoMOF material, however, the claim fails to recite the steps required to perform said application/method. The scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what steps are required. see MPEP §2173.05(q)
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 1, 3, 6-7, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Ultraweak chemiluminescence enhanced on the surface of lanthanide metal–organic framework nanosheets synthesized by ultrasonic wave’) herein known as Huang, in view of Ding et al. (CN 116328736 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Ding.
PNG
media_image1.png
271
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1. Schematic representation of catalysis of ROS generation on surfaces of ultrasonic synthesized Ln-MOFs and their application in enhancing CL of NaIO4- H2O2 system, [Huang])
Regarding Claim 1, Huang is directed to Synthesize of lanthanide metal–organic frameworks (Ln-MOFs, Ln = Ce, Gd, Ho) by ultrasonic method and applied in enhancing chemiluminescence (CL) emission of NaIO4-H2O2 system (Abstract).
Huang discloses a method for preparing HoMOF materials, characterized in that the method comprises: (1) Mixing the holmium source, organic ligand (benzenedicarboxylic acid (BDC)) and solvent for ultrasonic treatment to obtain the first mixture (Fig.1; Abstract, (“lanthanide metal–organic frameworks (Ln-MOFs, Ln = Ce, Gd, Ho) were facilely synthesized by ultrasonic method. Comparing with the NaIO4-H2O2 system without Ln-MOFs, the CL intensities of Ln-MOFs-NaIO4-H2O2 systems were enhanced 28, 32 and 67 times by Ce- MOFs, Gd-MOFs and Ho-MOFs, respectively. The large surface area of nanosheets and structural defects generated during the ultrasonic synthesis process could facilitate the exposure of catalytic active sites and ROS generation”); Section 2.1, (“Firstly, 32 mL N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) was mixed with 2 mL H2O and 2 mL ethanol in a 100 mL glass bottle (Duran Schott). Subsequently, 0.75 mmol lanthanide salt (CeCl3⋅7H2O, GdCl3⋅6H2O, HoCl3⋅6H2O) and equivalent BDC were added into the bottle. 0.8 mL triethylamine (TEA) was infused into the solution after 5 min. Then, the glass bottle was keeping ultrasonic treatment for 8 h with the power of 80 kHz under ambient conditions.)) (3) Post treating the second mixture to obtain HoMOF material. (Section 2.1, (The resulting product was collected and centrifuged. After removing the supernatant, the resultant was washed with ethanol 4 times and dried by vacuum freeze-drying. Ultrasonic power and time were optimized to obtain products with the optimum CL enhancement”)).
However, Huang is silent to (2) Placing the first mixture in the condensation reflux device for heating and stirring to obtain the second mixture.
Ding is directed to the field of materials technology, specifically to a MOF composite adsorbent loaded with imidazole-4,5-dicarboxylic acid, its preparation method, and its application [n0001].
Ding discloses (2) Placing the first mixture in the condensation reflux device for heating and stirring to obtain the second mixture ([n0023], [n0058], [n0067]; [n0022], (“The target reaction conditions include: conducting the reaction under reflux condensation conditions”); [n0079], (“ The above 0.5g of UiO-66 was dispersed in 100ml of ethanol by ultrasonication. Immerse 1.0 g of imidazole-4,5-dicarboxylic acid sample completely in the above solution, and then place it in an ultrasonic bath for ultrasonic treatment for 20 min. After removing the mixed solution from the sonicated system, the mixed solution was refluxed at 80°C for 24 hours to separate the solid and liquid products. The solid product was then washed three times with deionized water and ethanol and finally dried at 80°C for 12 hours to obtain composite adsorbent A”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang’s method for preparing HoMOF materials wherein Placing the first mixture in the condensation reflux device for heating and stirring to obtain the second mixture, as taught by Ding, in order to separate the solid and liquid products (See Ding, [n0079]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang and Ding teach the method according to claim 1.
Haung is silent that in step (1), characterized in that the holmium source comprises holmium chloride hexahydrate or holmium sulfate octahydrate; Or, the organic ligands include one or more of terephthalic acid, 1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid, phthalic acid, isophthalic acid and terephthalic acid.
Ding discloses the method according to claim 1, in step (1), characterized in that the holmium source comprises holmium chloride hexahydrate or holmium sulfate octahydrate; Or, the organic ligands include one or more of terephthalic acid, 1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid, phthalic acid, isophthalic acid and terephthalic acid. (Introduction, (“These Ln-MOFs (Ln = Ce, Gd, Ho) were facilely synthesized using benzenedicarboxylic acid (BDC) as ligand and characterized to be nanosheets”)).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in claim 1 as set forth above.
Huang discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the post-treatment comprises: vacuum drying oven.
However, Huang is silent to the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the post-treatment comprises: placing the second mixture into a filter, filtering and washing it with deionized water, and then drying it in a drying at 100~120℃ for 3~6 h.
Ding discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the post-treatment comprises: placing the second mixture into a filter, filtering and washing it with deionized water, and then drying it in a drying oven at 80~120℃ for 8 to 15 hours which overlaps the claimed temperature range of 100~120℃ and which renders the drying time 3~6 h obvious ([n0060], (one specific embodiment of this disclosure, the washing solution is deionized water and/or methanol; in a preferred embodiment of this disclosure, methanol can be used for repeated washing to further remove deionized water); the drying conditions include: a temperature of 80 to 12°C, preferably 90 to 105C; and a drying time of 8 to 15 hours); [n0059], (the method includes: performing solid-liquid separation on the reaction product obtained in step S3 to obtain a solid product; washing and drying the solid product; in one specific embodiment of this disclosure)).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 80-120 ℃ overlaps the claimed range of 100-120℃. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Ding does not explicitly teach “drying time 3~6 h” but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drying time
from 8 to 15 hours including time 3~6 h because drying time represents a result-effective variable
affecting obtaining MOF composite adsorbent ([n0079], [n0088], [n0094]), therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of optimizing said drying time.
“[W]here 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). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang in view of Ding teach a HoMOF material, characterized in that the HoMOF material is prepared using the methods claimed in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang in view of Ding teach a HoMOF material, characterized in that the HoMOF material is prepared using the methods claimed in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 12, Huang in view of Ding teach a HoMOF material, characterized in that the HoMOF material is prepared using the methods claimed in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 13, Under the principles of inherency, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer, thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable (MPEP 2112 (I)), Huang in view of Ding anticipates the HoMOF material according to claim 7, characterized in that the pore volume of the HoMOF material is 0.05~0.13 cm3/g, the specific surface area is 51~135 m2/g, and the average pore size is 2.33~12.57 nm (Claim 13) since the method for preparing HoMOF materials recited in Huang in view of Ding is identical to the method for preparing HoMOF materials recited in the instant application (See [Huang], [Fig.1; Abstract, (“lanthanide metal–organic frameworks (Ln-MOFs, Ln = Ce, Gd, Ho) were facilely synthesized by ultrasonic method. Comparing with the NaIO4-H2O2 system without Ln-MOFs, the CL intensities of Ln-MOFs-NaIO4-H2O2 systems were enhanced 28, 32 and 67 times by Ce- MOFs, Gd-MOFs and Ho-MOFs, respectively. The large surface area of nanosheets and structural defects generated during the ultrasonic synthesis process could facilitate the exposure of catalytic active sites and ROS generation”); Section 2.1, (“Firstly, 32 mL N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) was mixed with 2 mL H2O and 2 mL ethanol in a 100 mL glass bottle (Duran Schott). Subsequently, 0.75 mmol lanthanide salt (CeCl3⋅7H2O, GdCl3⋅6H2O, HoCl3⋅6H2O) and equivalent BDC were added into the bottle. 0.8 mL triethylamine (TEA) was infused into the solution after 5 min. Then, the glass bottle was keeping ultrasonic treatment for 8 h with the power of 80 kHz under ambient conditions. The resulting product was collected and centrifuged. After removing the supernatant, the resultant was washed with ethanol 4 times and dried by vacuum freeze-drying. Ultrasonic power and time were optimized to obtain products with the optimum CL enhancement”]) and (see Ding, [[n0023], [n0058], [n0067]; [n0022], (“The target reaction conditions include: conducting the reaction under reflux condensation conditions”); [n0079], (“ The above 0.5g of UiO-66 was dispersed in 100ml of ethanol by ultrasonication. Immerse 1.0 g of imidazole-4,5-dicarboxylic acid sample completely in the above solution, and then place it in an ultrasonic bath for ultrasonic treatment for 20 min. After removing the mixed solution from the sonicated system, the mixed solution was refluxed at 80°C for 24 hours to separate the solid and liquid products. The solid product was then washed three times with deionized water and ethanol and finally dried at 80°C for 12 hours to obtain composite adsorbent A”]).
Claim 2, 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Ultraweak chemiluminescence enhanced on the surface of lanthanide metal–organic framework nanosheets synthesized by ultrasonic wave’) herein known as Huang, in view of Ding et al. (CN 116328736 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Ding, as applied to the claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 103787875 A, Machine Translation), herein known as Liu.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
Ding discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the temperature of the ultrasound is 25~50℃ and the time is 8~16 minutes which overlaps the claimed ranges of the temperature of the ultrasound is 20~30℃ and the time is 15~30 minutes [n0021].
However Modified Huang is silent to the method characterized in that the mole ratio of the holmium source, organic ligand and solvent mixture is in the range of (1.5~2.5): (0.8~1.2): (1~5).
Liu is directed to method for preparing metal-organic framework compounds by
Ultrasound [0002].
Liu discloses the method characterized in that the mole ratio of the metal salt to organic ligand (0.1-10):1 which overlaps the claimed range of (1.5~2.5): (0.8~1.2) [0010].
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of (0.1-10):1 overlaps the claimed range of (1.5~2.5): (0.8~1.2) Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Liu also discloses Copper acetate provides metal ions for the synthesis of the metal-organic framework compound MOF-199 [0033]. Copper acetate monohydrate (1.72 g, 8.62 mmol) was dissolved in a mixed solvent of water (16 mL) and DMF (8 mL) under ultrasonic treatment which overlaps the claimed ratio of the mole ratio of the holmium source (metal ion) and solvent mixture is in the range of (1.5~2.5): (1~5).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range (Copper acetate monohydrate (1.72 g, 8.62 mmol) was dissolved in a mixed solvent of water (16 mL) and DMF (8 mL) ) overlaps the claimed range of (1.5~2.5): (1~5). Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
“[W]here 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). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang’s method for preparing HoMOF materials wherein the method characterized in that the mole ratio of the holmium source, organic ligand and solvent mixture is in the range of (1.5~2.5): (0.8~1.2): (1~5), in order to obtain metalorganic framework compound with high yield 99.1% (See Liu, [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the solvent comprises at least one of water and ethanol; And/or, The solvent comprises water and N,N-dimethylformamide, wherein the dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of the water and N,N-dimethylformamide;the solvent comprises ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide wherein the N,N-dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide.
Liu discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the solvent comprises at least one of water and ethanol; And/or, The solvent comprises water and N,N-dimethylformamide, wherein the dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of the water and N,N-dimethylformamide;the solvent comprises ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide wherein the N,N-dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide ([0013], (The organic solvent is one or a mixture of two of the following three solvents: N,Ndimethylformamide, N,N-diethylacetamide, and ethanol.), [0034], (Copper acetate monohydrate (1.72 g, 8.62 mmol) was dissolved in a mixed solvent of water (16 mL) and DMF (8 mL) under ultrasonic treatment. Tristyric acid (1.00 g, 4.76 mmol) was dissolved in a mixed solvent of ethanol (16 mL) and DMF (8 mL). The two solutions were mixed and stirred for 10 min.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang’s method for preparing HoMOF materials, as taught by Liu, wherein the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the solvent comprises at least one of water and ethanol; And/or, The solvent comprises water and N,N-dimethylformamide, wherein the dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of the water and N,N-dimethylformamide;the solvent comprises ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide wherein the N,N-dimethylformamide accounts for less than 80wt% of the total mass of ethanol and N,N-dimethylformamide, in order to obtain metalorganic framework compound with high yield 99.1% (See Liu, [0034]).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang in view of Ding and further in view of Liu teach a HoMOF material, characterized in that the HoMOF material is prepared using the methods claimed in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Huang in view of Ding and further in view of Liu teach a HoMOF material, characterized in that the HoMOF material is prepared using the methods claimed in claim 4.
Claims 5, 11 ,14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Ultraweak chemiluminescence enhanced on the surface of lanthanide metal–organic framework nanosheets synthesized by ultrasonic wave’) herein known as Huang, in view of Ding et al. (CN 116328736 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Ding, as applied to the claims above, and further in view She et al. (CN 107501565 A, Machine Translation), herein known as She.
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the heating and stirring temperature is 90~100℃ and the heating time is 12~36 h.
She is directed to the field of metal-organic framework materials technology, specifically to a rare earth metal-organic framework material Ho-MOF, its preparation method, and its applications.
She discloses the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the heating and stirring temperature is 100℃ and the heating time is 30 h which anticipate the claimed temperature of 90~100℃ and the heating time is 12~36 h ([0079], (The hydrothermal reaction temperature is 100 C and the reaction time is 30 hours)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang’s method for preparing HoMOF materials, as taught by She, wherein the method according to claim 1, characterized in that the heating and stirring temperature is 90~100℃ and the heating time is 12~36 h, because Under normal conditions, the growth rate of crystals increases with the increase of hydrothermal reaction temperature, but excessively high reaction rates lead to uneven crystal size Choosing a hydrothermal reaction temperature of 100-120℃ can yield high-yield, high-quality crystals (See She, [0063]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Huang in view of Ding and further in view of She teach a HoMOF material, characterized in that the HoMOF material is prepared using the methods claimed in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 7, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from wastewater.
She discloses an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 7, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from wastewater ([0040], [0042], [0070], [0100]- [0105], [0108], [0110]).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to Aa application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 9, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water.
She discloses an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 9, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water. ([0040], [0042], [0070], [0100]- [0105], [0108], [0110]).
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 11, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water.
She discloses an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 11, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water ([0040], [0042], [0070], [0100]- [0105], [0108], [0110]).
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 11, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water.
She discloses application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 11, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water. ([0040], [0042], [0070], [0100]- [0105], [0108], [0110]).
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Ultraweak chemiluminescence enhanced on the surface of lanthanide metal–organic framework nanosheets synthesized by ultrasonic wave’) herein known as Huang, in view of Ding et al. (CN 116328736 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Ding, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 103787875 A, Machine Translation), herein known as Liu, as applied to the claim 1 above, and further in view of She et al. (CN 107501565 A, Machine Translation), herein known as She.
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 8, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water.
She discloses an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 8, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water. ([0070], (The application of the above-mentioned rare earth metal-organic framework material Ho-MOF in the degradation of organic dye wastewater. This invention uses methylene blue solution to simulate organic dye wastewater and investigates the performance of rare earth metal-organic framework material Ho-MOF indegrading organic dye wastewater.); [0101], (The performance of rare earth metal-organic framework material Ho-MOF in degrading organic dye wastewater was investigated by using methylene blue solution to simulate organic dye wastewater.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang’s method for preparing HoMOF materials, as taught by She, wherein an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 8, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water, because On the one hand, MOFs have many advantages such as large adsorption capacity, high selectivity, and easy regeneration and recovery due to their various nano- and micro-scale framework-type regular pore structures, ultra-large specific surface area and porosity (up to 0.9) and low solid density. They show good treatment effect on the adsorption and separation of dye pollutants in aqueous phase. On the other hand, MOFs can also serve as band-tunable photocatalysts for degrading dye macromolecules in water by undergoing various types of ligand-metal charge transfer transitions (See She, [0007]).
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent to an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 10, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from waste water.
She discloses an application of HoMOF material as claimed in claim 10, characterized in that the application comprises adsorption removal of methylene blue from wastewater. ([0040], [0042], [0070], [0100]- [0105], [0108], [0110]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Ultraweak chemiluminescence enhanced on the surface of lanthanide metal–organic framework nanosheets synthesized by ultrasonic wave’) herein known as Huang, in view of Ding et al. (CN 116328736 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Ding and further in view She et al. (CN 107501565 A, Machine Translation), herein known as She, as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 106315741 A, Machine Translation) herein known as Li.
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Huang teaches all the limitations in the claims as set forth above.
However Modified Huang is silent the application according to claim 9, characterized in that the concentration of the methylene blue solution is 2~2000 ppmw.
Li is directed to method for removing methylene blue from dye wastewater, specifically, the method of efficiently removing methylene blue from dye wastewater by adsorption [0002].
Li discloses the application according to claim 9, characterized in that the concentration of the methylene blue solution is 1-800 mg/L which overlaps with the claimed concentration of 2~2000 ppmw [0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huang’s method for preparing HoMOF materials, as taught by Li, Wherein the application characterized in that the concentration of the methylene blue solution is 2~2000 ppmw, in order to adsorb and remove methylene blue from wastewater, achieving a 100% removal rate .(See Li, [0007]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773 /EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights