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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 19-24 of J. Li et al., US 18/940,827 (Nov. 7, 2024) are pending and under examination.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner’s restriction, mailed on February 23, 2026, was based on claims 1-7 submitted on October 29, 2025. However, Applicant comments that the application was filed with eighteen claims, then a preliminary amendment containing new claims 19-24 was filed on September 05, 2025. Reply at page 4. In any case, in view of Applicant’s most recent amendments, the restriction reasoning for pending claims 19-24 no longer Applies.
The restriction requirement between inventions (I) and (II), as set forth in the Office action mailed on February 23, 2026, has been reconsidered in view Applicant’s amendments and the confusion over which claim set was in effect at the time of restriction. The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn in its entirety. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
Examination requires claim terms first be construed in terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. See, MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01. It is also appropriate to look to how the claim term is used in the prior art, which includes prior art patents, published applications, trade publications, and dictionaries. MPEP § 2111.01 (III).
Interpretation of the Claim 19 “Co (II) – based metal-organic framework material constructed with a pyrazole ligand”
The claim 19 preamble recites “Co (II) – based metal-organic framework material constructed with a pyrazole ligand”. Claim 19 specifically defines the Co metal organic framework (named Co-DPB) as follows:
Claim 19 . . . providing the metal-organic framework material which is a purple bulk crystal material prepared by a solvothermal reaction of an organic ligand H2DPB and a cobalt source, with a chemical formula of CoC12H8N4 and named Co-DPB, wherein H2DPB is 1,3-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl) benzene with a molecular formula of C12H10N4;
wherein from a perspective of a crystal structure, the Co-DPB belongs to a tetragonal crystal system, a space group is l41/amd, a unit cell parameter is V=6546.9(3)Å3, a=22.9279(5)Å, b=22.9279(5) Å, c=12.4539(3) Å, α =90°, [Symbol font/0x62]=90° and [Symbol font/0x67]=90°;
wherein in a framework of the Co-DPB, each cobalt atom is coordinated with four nitrogen atoms in a tetrahedral configuration, those coordinated nitrogen atoms are from pyrazole groups of four different ligands, each nitrogen atom on two pyrazoles of each ligand in the framework of the Co-DPB is involved in coordination, a zigzag metal chain-like secondary building unit (SBU) is formed by adjacent metal atoms through a bridged pyrazole group, and a three-dimensional framework structure is formed by an alternating connection of the ligand and the zigzag metal chain-like SBU;
wherein the Co-DPB is provided with a pore channel, a size of the pore channel changes dynamically and ranges from 4 Å to 8 Å;
Specification working Example 1 teaches preparation of the claimed Co-DPB as follows:
[0053] Example 1:
[0054] Dissolving H2DPB (0.14 mmol, 30 mg) and Co(OAc)2•4H2O (0.24 mmol, 60 mg) in 10 mL DMF, then placing in a 20 mL glass vial, and dissolving under ultrasound, to obtain a mixture.
Then, adding 0.10 mL acetic acid and 8.0 mL deionized water to the mixture. Sealing the glass vial, and then stirring for another 30 minutes under ultrasound, to obtain a suspension. Heating the suspension at 150 °C for 12 hours.
Cooling to room temperature, then filtering to obtain blue-purple crystals, and washing the blue-purple crystals with DMF and methanol to remove amorphous solids. Collecting crystals by filtration, and drying under vacuum at 80 °C for 6 hours.
Specification at page 7, [0053]-[0054]. Specification Table 1 shows the crystal data of the Co-DPB of Example 1, which corresponds to the claim 19 language. Specification at pages 8-9 (Table 1)
Claim 19 . . . wherein from a perspective of a crystal structure, the Co-DPB belongs to a tetragonal crystal system, a space group is l41/amd, a unit cell parameter is V=6546.9(3)Å3, a=22.9279(5)Å, b=22.9279(5) Å, c=12.4539(3) Å, α =90°, [Symbol font/0x62]=90° and [Symbol font/0x67]=90°;
The specification teaches that FIG. 3 is a powder diffraction pattern of a fresh synthetic sample of the CO-DPB material obtained in Example 1. Specification at page 6, [0037]. As known in the art, the set of lines, their location, and relative intensity, obtained for an X-ray powder pattern of a crystalline phase, is characteristic for that phase and represents a unique fingerprint. Solid State Characterization of Pharmaceuticals (R.A. Storey et al., eds., 2011) (see e.g., page 57, “The diffraction pattern for a given compound is a unique fingerprint and compounds that may be very similar chemically and have, for example, very similar Raman spectra, will exhibit very different powder patterns”).
The claim 19 “Co (II) – based metal-organic framework material constructed with a pyrazole ligand” (named Co-DPB) is interpreted in view of the specification as the Co-DPB prepared as per Example 1 and characterized by an X-ray powder diffraction pattern substantially as depicted in Figure 3. 1 MPEP § 2111.
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.
§ 112(d) Rejection of Claim 22
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) 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. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(III).
Claim 22 recites:
22. The method of claim 19, wherein the Co-DPB is used to adsorb SF6.
However, base claim 19, already recites that the “the Co-DPB is used to adsorb SF6” as follows.
Claim 19 . . . carrying out the SF6/N2 separation . . . desorbing the Co-DPB adsorbed with SF6 by helium purge for reuse.
Claim 22 therefore does not recite any language that further limits the method of base claim 19. In fact, claim 22 is interpreted as not reciting any limitation whatsoever; rather, claim 22 is interpreted as merely reciting the intended purpose for which the Co-DPB is employed in method claim 19. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. MPEP § 2111.04(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
§ 102(a)(1) Rejection over X. Zhang et al., 146 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 19303-19309 (Published: July 6, 2024) (“Zhang”).
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by X. Zhang et al., 146 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 19303-19309 (Published: July 6, 2024) (“Zhang”).
Prior Art Effect of Zhang
Zhang is effective prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) because it was published on July 6, 2024, less than one year before the instant presumed effective filing date of November 7, 2024.2 Applicant may remove Zhang as prior art by filing an English-language translation of priority document CN 202410901986 (Jul. 5 2024) together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate, provided that the priority document supports the claims pursuant to § 112(a). See footnote 2.
Alternatively, because Zhang names common but additional authors over the instant inventorship, Applicant may consider an exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) to remove Zhang as prior art by a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application, and is therefore not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). MPEP § 717(I)/(III).
Teachings of Zhang
Zhang teaches that the recovery of SF6 from waste gases presents an appealing alternative to mitigate environmental impacts while also yielding economic benefits. Zhang at page 19303, col. 1. Zhang teaches that BUT-53 exhibits an excellent SF6 adsorption uptake of 2.82 mmol/g at 0.1 bar and 298 K, as well as an unprecedented SF6/N2 (10:90) selectivity of 2485. Zhang at Abstract. Zhang teaches that the remarkable SF6/N2 selectivity of BUT-53 enables recovery of high purity (>99.9%) SF6 from a low concentration (10%) mixture and the excellent SF6/N2 separation efficiency was also well maintained under humid conditions (RH = 90%) over multiple cycles. Zhang at Abstract.
Zhang teaches synthesis of the metal organic framework BUT-53 using the exact same specification reagents and procedure for synthesis of instantly claimed Co-DPB. Zhang at page S2 (“MOFs synthesis”); compare with specification Example 1 and page 7, [0054]. Zhang teaches that that BUT-53 has the same x-ray diffraction pattern as taught in the specification for instantly claimed Co-DPB. Compare Zhang Fig. S1 (at page S6) with Specification Fig. 3. Zhang further teaches that BUT-53 meets the claim 19 single crystal data. Zhang at Table S1. Zhang’s metal organic framework BUT-53 therefore clearly meets each and every of the following claim 19 limitations.
Claim 19 . . . providing the metal-organic framework material which is a purple bulk crystal material prepared by a solvothermal reaction of an organic ligand H2DPB and a cobalt source, with a chemical formula of CoC12H8N4 and named Co-DPB, wherein H2DPB is 1,3-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl) benzene with a molecular formula of C12H10N4;
wherein from a perspective of a crystal structure, the Co-DPB belongs to a tetragonal crystal system, a space group is l41/amd, a unit cell parameter is V=6546.9(3)Å3, a=22.9279(5)Å, b=22.9279(5) Å, c=12.4539(3) Å, α =90°, [Symbol font/0x62]=90° and [Symbol font/0x67]=90°;
wherein in a framework of the Co-DPB, each cobalt atom is coordinated with four nitrogen atoms in a tetrahedral configuration, those coordinated nitrogen atoms are from pyrazole groups of four different ligands, each nitrogen atom on two pyrazoles of each ligand in the framework of the Co-DPB is involved in coordination, a zigzag metal chain-like secondary building unit (SBU) is formed by adjacent metal atoms through a bridged pyrazole group, and a three-dimensional framework structure is formed by an alternating connection of the ligand and the zigzag metal chain-like SBU;
wherein the Co-DPB is provided with a pore channel, a size of the pore channel changes dynamically and ranges from 4 Å to 8 Å . . .
Zhang teaches the following separation of and SF6/N2 gas mixture.
The dynamic separation performance of BUT-53 was further evaluated under conditions simulating practical applications. Breakthrough experiments were conducted using a SF6/N2 gas mixture (10:90, v/v; 10 mL/min). As shown in Figure 4a, N2 rapidly breaks through the column, indicating minimal coadsorption of N2, which is in line with its low uptake. The SF6 breakthrough times were recorded at approximately 23 min/g, indicating the selective adsorption capability of BUT-53 for SF6 over N2.
A subsequent desorption experiment, facilitated by helium purging at 100 °C, demonstrates that SF6 concentration could be elevated from ∼10% to ≥99% through a singular adsorption−desorption cycle.
Zhang at page 19305, col. 1. Zhang further teaches that the impact of humidity on the performance of BUT-53 was thoroughly assessed. As illustrated in Figure 4c, the breakthrough performance at a relative humidity (RH) of 90% is found to be nearly identical to that observed under the dry condition. Zhang at page 19305, col. 2. Zhang therefore meets each and every claim 19 physical method step limitation.
Claim 19 . . . carrying out the SF6/N2 separation under a condition of a relative humidity ranging from 0 to 90%; and desorbing the Co-DPB adsorbed with SF6 by helium purge for reuse.
Claim 19 is therefore anticipated.
Claims 20 and 21 are anticipated because Zhang teaches the following synthesis of BUT-53:
H2DPB (0.14 mmol, 30 mg) and Co(OAc)2·4H2O (0.24 mmol, 60 mg) were dissolved under ultrasound in 10 mL DMF in a 20-mL glass vial. Next, 0.10 mL acetic acid and 8.0 mL deionized water were added to the mixture. The vial was then tightly sealed and the mixture sonicated for another 30 min. The resulting suspension was heated in oven at 150 °C for 12 h. After cooling to room temperature, bluish violet crystals were filtered off and washed with DMF and methanol to remove amorphous solids. The crystals were collected by filtration and dried under vacuum at 80 °C for 6 h.
Zhang at page S2.
Zhang’s above synthesis clearly meets each and every limitation of claims 20 and 21. Note also that Zhang teaches the exact same specification reagents and procedure for synthesis of instantly claimed Co-DPB per specification Example 1. Compare with specification Example 1 and page 7, [0054]. Alternatively, claims 20 and 21 are anticipated because the claim 20 and 21 synthetic steps are merely the ‘nested’ product-by-process language with respect to the following claim 19 phrase:
19 . . . providing the metal-organic framework material which is a purple bulk crystal material prepared by a solvothermal reaction of an organic ligand H2DPB and a cobalt source, with a chemical formula of CoC12H8N4 and named Co-DPB, wherein H2DPB is 1,3-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl) benzene with a molecular formula of C12H10N4;
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP § 2113(I); Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[t]he nesting of the product-by-process limitation within a method . . . claim does not change the proper construction of the product-by-process limitation itself”); see also non-binding, non-precedential opinion in Ex parte Wohaibi, Appeal No. 2024-004112, 17/750,212 (PTAB 2025) discussing this Federal Circuit decision.
Claim 22 is anticipate because the BUT-53 is used to adsorb SF6 (see § 112(d) rejection above)
Claim 23 is anticipated for the following reasons. Claim 23 recites as follows:
23. The method of claim 22, wherein after the Co-DPB is washed by DMF and is solvent exchanged with methanol, and then is heated in vacuum at 120 °C to remove solvent molecules, the Co-DPB is used to adsorb SF6.
In the synthesis of BUT-53, Zhang teaches that “[a]fter cooling to room temperature, bluish violet crystals were filtered off and washed with DMF and methanol to remove amorphous solids. The crystals were collected by filtration and dried under vacuum at 80 °C for 6 h”. Zhang at page S2 (“MOFs synthesis”). Zhang further teaches that “the MOFs sample was activated by heating at 120 °C under high-vacuum before the SF6/N2 separation experiments. Zhang at page S2 (“Characterization and measurements”). Zhang therefore teaches each and every limitation of claim 23.
Claim 24 is anticipated because Zhang teaches that the disclosed SF6/N2 separation was carried out at specific pressures of 0.1 bar and 1 bar, each of which fall within and anticipate the claimed range. Zhang at page S20 (Table S3).
Additional Art Not Cited Against the Claims
The claims have been fully searched. If Applicant overcomes the above § 102 rejection over Zhang, then claims 19 and 22-24 are otherwise free of the art of record. The closest art of record is T. He et al., 21 Nature Materials, 689-695 (2022) (“He”).
T. He et al., 21 Nature Materials, 689-695 (2022) (“He”)
He teaches that the family of double-walled metal–dipyrazolate frameworks, BUT-53 to BUT-58, exhibit benzene uptakes at 298 K of 2.47–3.28 mmol g−1 at <10 Pa. He at Abstract. He teaches that breakthrough experiments revealed that BUT-55, a supramolecular isomer of the metal–organic framework Co(BDP) (H2BDP = 1,4-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)benzene), captures trace levels of benzene, producing an air stream with benzene content below acceptable limits. He at Abstract.
He teaches synthesis of BUT-53 as follows:
Synthesis of BUT-53 (CoDPB). H2DPB (0.14 mmol, 30 mg) and Co(OAc)2·4H2O (0.24 mmol, 60 mg) were dissolved under ultrasound in 10 ml DMF in a 20-ml glass vial. Next, 0.10 ml acetic acid and 8.0 ml deionized water were added to the mixture. The vial was then tightly sealed and the mixture sonicated for another 15 min. The resulting suspension was heated in a traditional oven at 150 °C for 12 h. After cooling naturally to room temperature, bluish violet crystals were filtered off and washed with DMF (2 × 15 ml) and acetone (9 × 15 ml) with short cycles of ultrasonic treatment to remove amorphous solids. The crystals (15 mg of activated sample, 49% yield based on the H2DPB ligand) were collected by filtration and dried under vacuum at 100 °C for 5 h.
He at page 696, col. 1. Thus, He teaches synthesis of the metal organic framework BUT-53 using the exact same specification reagents and procedure for synthesis of instantly claimed Co-DPB. Compare He’s above synthesis with specification Example 1 and page 7, [0054]. He teaches that that BUT-53 has the same x-ray diffraction pattern as taught in the specification for instantly claimed Co-DPB. Compare He Fig. S8 (at page S22) with Specification Fig. 3. He further teaches that BUT-53 meets the claim 19 single crystal data. He at page S8 (Table S1). He’s metal organic framework BUT-53 therefore clearly meets each and every of the following claim 19 limitations.
Claim 19 . . . providing the metal-organic framework material which is a purple bulk crystal material prepared by a solvothermal reaction of an organic ligand H2DPB and a cobalt source, with a chemical formula of CoC12H8N4 and named Co-DPB, wherein H2DPB is 1,3-di(1H-pyrazol-4-yl) benzene with a molecular formula of C12H10N4;
wherein from a perspective of a crystal structure, the Co-DPB belongs to a tetragonal crystal system, a space group is l41/amd, a unit cell parameter is V=6546.9(3)Å3, a=22.9279(5)Å, b=22.9279(5) Å, c=12.4539(3) Å, α =90°, [Symbol font/0x62]=90° and [Symbol font/0x67]=90°;
wherein in a framework of the Co-DPB, each cobalt atom is coordinated with four nitrogen atoms in a tetrahedral configuration, those coordinated nitrogen atoms are from pyrazole groups of four different ligands, each nitrogen atom on two pyrazoles of each ligand in the framework of the Co-DPB is involved in coordination, a zigzag metal chain-like secondary building unit (SBU) is formed by adjacent metal atoms through a bridged pyrazole group, and a three-dimensional framework structure is formed by an alternating connection of the ligand and the zigzag metal chain-like SBU;
wherein the Co-DPB is provided with a pore channel, a size of the pore channel changes dynamically and ranges from 4 Å to 8 Å . . .
Differences between He and Claim 19
He does not teach the claim 19 limitation of:
Claim 19 . . . carrying out the SF6/N2 separation under a condition of a relative humidity ranging from 0 to 90%; and desorbing the Co-DPB adsorbed with SF6 by helium purge for reuse.
In fact, He provides no indication that BUT-53 can adsorb SF6 or separate SF6 from N2.
Y. Qingyuan et al., CN 110465272 A (2019) (“Qingyuan”)
An English-language machine language translation (Google Translate) is attached as the first half of reference Qingyuan. Qingyuan thus consists of 26 total pages (including the English-language portion). Accordingly, this Office action references Qingyuan page numbers in the following format “xx of 26”.
Qingyuan teaches that due to its excellent dielectric and arc-quenching properties, as well as low toxicity and high stability, SF6 is a widely used insulating and switching medium in power transmission equipment and the semiconductor industry. Qingyuan at page 3 of 26, [0002]. Qingyuan teaches that in industrial applications, SF6 and N2 are often used in mixtures and when SF6 is mixed with N2, the fluid mixture maintains the high dielectric strength of pure SF6, even at high N2 concentrations. Qingyuan at page 3 of 26, [0002]. However, the complexity of SF6 recovery increases when these two gases are mixed, and this is more pronounced when the amount of SF6 in the mixture decreases. Qingyuan at page 3 of 26, [0002].
In working Example 1, Qingyuan teaches a metal organic framework where copper is the metal and 5-methoxyisophthalic acid is the organic ligand, where the organic ligand of the instantly claimed “Co (II) – based metal-organic framework material constructed with a pyrazole ligand . . . named Co-DPB” is shown alongside for comparison purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Qingyuan at page 4 of 26, [0010], Example 1. In working Example 2, Qingyuan teaches that the that the disclosed copper-based MOF selectively adsorbs and separates SF6 from N2. Qingyuan at page 4 of 26, [0011]-[0012].
Instant Claims 19 and 22-24 Art not Obvious in view of He
Claims 19 and 22-24 are not obvious in view of He. One of ordinary skill is not motivated to employ He’s metal organic framework BUT-53 in a method of separation of SF6 from N2 because He does not teach or suggest that BUT-53 has the relevant properties of SF6 adsorption let alone that BUT-53 has selectivity for SF6 adsorption over N2. One of ordinary skill is not motivated to combine He with Qingyuan so as to arrive at the invention of claim 19 for the same reasons. The fact that Qingyuan’s 5-methoxyisophthalic acid/copper MOF selectively adsorbs SF6 does not provide one of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success that He’s cobalt based MOF BUT-53 will perform in the same manner. MPEP § 2143.02(I).
In this regard, the selective adsorption of SF6 is relatively unpredictable. For example, Wang teaches that several porous materials, including traditional carbon-based adsorbents and zeolite, have been developed for SF6/N2 separation. S. Wang et al., 61 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 1-7 (2022) (see page 1, col. 2). However, due to their low SF6 capacity and poor SF6/N2 selectivity, traditional porous adsorbents are insufficient for SF6/N2 separation. Id. As a result, new adsorbents with high adsorption capacity, selectivity, and stability are required. Id. Note that Wang teaches three metal–organic frameworks with fine-tuning pore structures, Cu(peba)2, Ni(pba)2, and Ni(ina)2, were designed for SF6 capture. Wang at Abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 Claim 19 is claimed using product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP § 2113(I). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP § 2113(I). If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. MPEP § 2113(I) (citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
2 Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application CN 202410901986 (Jul. 5 2024) for an effective filing date because an English-language translation of said application, filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate, has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 213, 215 and 216.
Prosecution Insights