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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “additively fanning” should read --additively forming--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stassen et al. (“Chemical vapour deposition of zeolitic imidazolate framework thin films”, Nature Materials, 14 December 2015).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Stassen teaches a method of forming a nanoporous structure on a substrate comprising:
Additively forming a precursor structure from at least a dense metal oxide by chemical vapor deposition (Step 1 of Figure 1);
Exposing the precursor structure to organic ligand linker L as a vaporized precursor (See Step 2 of Figure 1) and reacting to form a nanoporous MOF (See Figure 1 and Methods section) Regarding Claim 14, the corresponding devices which perform the recited functions (See Figure 1 and Methods) describe the reactor vessel including the build platform and CVD additive manufacturing apparatus are considered an integrated system reading on claim 14.
Regarding Claim 3, the precursor structure is a Zn oxide-based material (precursor to ZIF-8 MOF) (See Figure 1)
Regarding Claim 6, ZIF8 comprises methylimidazole (an amidiazolate)
Regarding Claim 7, the reaction takes place at 100 C (See ZIF-8 varour-solid reaction section on Page 311)
Regarding Claim 8, all three steps are interpreted to take place in a single reactor vessel (See Methods and Figure 1)
Regarding Claim 11, Stesson teaches the formed product may be discontinuous with a predetermined pattern (See Figure 5 a-b)
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.
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen et al. (“Chemical vapour deposition of zeolitic imidazolate framework thin films”, Nature Materials, 14 December 2015)
Regarding Claim 5, Stassen teaches layers of dense metal oxide are first prepared before reacting with organic ligand vapor to form a porous MOF. The prior art is silent regarding depowdering the layered product before reaction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove loose unreacted metal powder from the additively formed object for the purpose reducing defects in the reacted product.
Regarding Claim 9, Stassen teaches a step of degassing (activation) at 373 K (100 C) under vacuum of 10-2 mbar (0.00001 bar) but does not teach the claimed temperature and pressure as claimed; however, one of ordinary skill seeking to use a workable range of degassing temperature and pressure, would be motivated to use a temperature range sufficient to desorb unwanted molecules to activate the pore structure but not so high as to degrade the MOF, and to generally use a vacuum pressure such as that claimed capable of creating vacuum conditions.
Regarding Claim 12, Stassen teaches a 3D object can be formed but does not explicitly teach different sections can be made. However, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to make a 3D object of complex shapes would be motivated to have sections with different thicknesses or shapes as different 3D shapes have different thicknesses and shapes.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stassen et al. (“Chemical vapour deposition of zeolitic imidazolate framework thin films”, Nature Materials, 14 December 2015) in view of Krishtab et al. (US20190198391A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Stassen teaches ZIF-8, a zinc-based MOF may be made (by zinc oxide clusters) but is silent regarding Zr or Ti based clusters. However, Krishtab teaches a method of forming MOFs by reaction with organic vapor on deposited metal clusters (Claim 1) where the metal clusters may be selected from Zn, Ti, or Zr (See Claim 3); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the method of Stassen to form MOFs with additive manufacturing of different compositions for the purpose of forming different MOF products for different applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Stassen et al. (“Chemical vapour deposition of zeolitic imidazolate framework thin films”, Nature Materials, 14 December 2015) which teaches a method of CVD additive manufacturing of MOF metal precursor and reacting with organic linker to form MOF. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest forming the precursor with aerosol, binder or material jetting (distinct additive manufacturing processes) as required by claims 2 and 10 and 14; additively manufacturing a second metal oxide precursor and second organic linker to form a second structure as required by claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738