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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 contains the abbreviation “ZIF” in lines 1 and 4. The abbreviation should be spelled out before being used in the claims, e.g. “zeolitic imidazolate framework (ZIF)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 contains the abbreviation “ALD” in lines 2 and 3. The abbreviation should be spelled out before being used in the claims, e.g. “atomic layer deposition (ALD)”. 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 1-15 and 17-18 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 contains the limitation “referred to as ALD-ZnO + soak cycle” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if this is intended to mean that the “process for forming a vapor-deposited ZIF-8 metal organic framework” or that the “ZIF-8 metal organic framework” is referred to as ALD-ZnO + soak cycle. For the purposes of examination, “referred to as ALD-ZnO + soak cycle” will be considered to refer to either the process or framework.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, also contain this limitation.
Claim 14 contains the limitation “the ALD-deposited ZnO is Zn-rich ZnO” in line 1. The term “Zn-rich” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Zn-rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “Zn-rich ZnO” will be considered to mean ZnO with any amount of Zn.
Claim 17 contains the limitation “the ZnO is Zn-rich ZnO” in lines 1-2. The term “Zn-rich” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Zn-rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “Zn-rich ZnO” will be considered to mean ZnO with any amount of Zn.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the ALD-ZnO + soak cycle" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the ALD-ZnO + soak cycle” will be considered to mean “the laminate”.
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.
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(s) 1-9, 11-12, 14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrot et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0235074, hereafter Perrot ‘074).
Claim 1: Perrot ‘074 teaches a method for forming a metal-organic framework using vapor phase deposition (abstract, [0025], [0052]) where the metal-organic framework can be ZIF-8 ([0037]) comprising:
conducting a gas surface reaction between an ALD deposited metal oxide and a ligand ([0015], [0025], [0052]), where the metal oxide can be ZnO ([0031], [0052], [0059]) and the ligand can be 2-methylimidazole ([0031], [0059]),
wherein the gas surface reaction can be at a temperature of between 80°C and 180°C ([0024]), and
wherein the gas surface reaction can be performed using a vapor of the ligand at a pressure of between 0.1 mbar and 50 mbar (about 75 to 37,503 mTorr) without a carrier gas ([0027], [0038]).
With respect to claim 1, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the temperature is greater than 140C. However, the claimed temperature range of greater than 140C is obvious over the temperature range of between 80°C and 180°C taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 1, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the pressure is less than 1000 mTorr. However, the claimed pressure range of less than 1000 mTorr is obvious over the pressure range of about 75 to 37,503 mTorr taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2: With respect to claim 2, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the temperature is greater than 140C and less than or equal to 180C. However, the claimed temperature range of greater than 140C and less than or equal to 180C is obvious over the temperature range of between 80°C and 180°C taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 3: With respect to claim 3, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the temperature is greater than or equal to 160C and less than or equal to 180C. However, the claimed temperature range of greater than or equal to 160C and less than or equal to 180C is obvious over the temperature range of between 80°C and 180°C taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 4: With respect to claim 4, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the temperature is greater than or equal to 160C and less than or equal to 175C. However, the claimed temperature range of greater than or equal to 160C and less than or equal to 175C is obvious over the temperature range of between 80°C and 175°C taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 5: With respect to claim 2, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the temperature is 160C. However, the claimed temperature of greater than 160C is obvious over the temperature range of between 80°C and 180°C taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6: Perrot ‘074 teaches that the gas surface reaction can be conducted for 0.1 seconds to 30 minutes ([0064]).
Claim 7: With respect to claim 7, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the pressure is less than or equal to 900 mTorr. However, the claimed pressure range of less than or equal to 900 mTorr is obvious over the pressure range of about 75 to 37,503 mTorr taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 8: With respect to claim , Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the pressure is about 900 mTorr. However, the claimed pressure of about 900 mTorr is obvious over the pressure range of about 75 to 37,503 mTorr taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9: With respect to claim , Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the pressure is about 750 mTorr. However, the claimed pressure of about 750 mTorr is obvious over the pressure range of about 75 to 37,503 mTorr taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11: Perrot ‘074 teaches that the ALD deposited ZnO is a layer from which a layer is grown (Fig. 6, [0040], [0073]) and is, therefore, a seed layer.
With respect to claim 11, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the ZnO layer has a thickness of up to 5 nm.
However, the claim differs from the teachings of Perrot ‘074 only in the ZnO layer thickness, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim 12: Perrot ‘074 teaches that conducting the gas surface reaction between the ALD deposited ZnO and 2-methylimidazole can be conducted plural times to form a structure (Fig. 1, abstract, [0058], [0059]).
Claim 14: Perrot ‘074 teaches that the ALD deposited ZnO can contain Zn ([0052]).
Claim 16: Perrot ‘074 teaches a method of preparing a metal-organic framework (abstract) comprising:
performing atomic layer deposition of zinc oxide as a base ([0052]);
exposing 2-methylimidazole vapor phase ligand to chemical vapor deposition conditions ([0025], [0059]) at a temperature of between 80°C and 180°C ([0024]), and in a vacuum condition ([0019], [0027], [0038]), and
cycling the zinc oxide ALD and 2-methylimidazole exposure to deposit a film (Figs. 1, 5, and 6, abstract, [0052], [0058], [0059]).
With respect to claim 16, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the temperature is greater than 140C to less than or equal to 180C. However, the claimed temperature range of greater than 140C to less than or equal to 180C is obvious over the temperature range of between 80°C and 180°C taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 16, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the ZnO layer has a thickness between 1 nm to 10 nm.
However, the claim differs from the teachings of Perrot ‘074 only in the ZnO layer thickness, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim 17: Perrot ‘074 teaches that the ALD deposited ZnO can contain Zn ([0052]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrot et al. ‘074 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toda et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0173073, hereafter Toda ‘073).
Claim 10: Perrot ‘074 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Perrot ‘074 further teaches that the pressure can be at least 1x10-5 mbar (0.0075 mTorr) ([0064]).
With respect to claim 10, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the pressure is less than or equal to 1 mTorr. However, the claimed pressure range of less than or equal to 1 mTorr is obvious over the pressure range of at least 0.0075 mTorr taught by Perrot ‘074 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 10, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the pressure is facilitate by a turbo vacuum pump with a pumping capacity ranging from 50 L/s to 1000 L/s
Toda ‘073 teaches a method of forming a metal organic layer using vacuum processing (abstract, [0003]). Toda ‘073 teaches that the vacuum can be maintained by a vacuum pump, where the capacity of the vacuum pump affects the amount of processing pressure ([0123]). Both Toda ‘073 and Perrot ‘074 teach method of forming a metal organic layer using vacuum processing (‘074, abstract, [0064]; ‘073, abstract, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the vacuum pump taught by Toda ‘073 in the method taught by Perrot ‘074 because it allows maintaining of the vacuum, as taught by Toda ‘073.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the capacity of the vacuum pump in the method taught by the modified teachings of Perrot ‘074 because the capacity of the vacuum pump affects the amount of processing pressure, as taught by Toda ‘073. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Claim(s) 13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrot et al. ‘074 as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0013343, hereafter Koo ‘343).
Claim 13: Perrot ‘074 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 13, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the vapor-deposited ZIF-8 metal organic framework is subjected to chemical mechanical polishing after being formed.
Koo ‘343 teaches a method of forming a metal organic framework (abstract). Koo ‘343 teaches that the method can include, after forming the metal organic framework, subjecting the metal organic framework to chemical mechanical polishing ([0106]). Koo ‘343 teaches that this can remove the metal organic framework from undesired surfaces ([0106]). Both Koo ‘343 and Perrot ‘074 teach methods of forming a metal organic framework (‘074, abstract; ‘343, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of, after forming the metal organic framework, subjecting the metal organic framework to chemical mechanical polishing taught by Koo ‘343 to the method taught by Perrot ‘074 because it can remove the metal organic framework from undesired surfaces, as taught by Koo ‘343.
Claim 19: Perrot ‘074 teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. With respect to claim 19, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the method comprises performing physical vapor deposition of Ti prior to performing zinc oxide ALD, or that the PVD forms a Ti film having a thickness <1 nm.
Koo ‘343 teaches a method of forming a metal organic framework (abstract). Koo ‘343 teaches that the method can include forming a titanium layer (1105) by physical vapor deposition prior to forming the metal-organic framework (1115) (Figs. 15-18, [0099], [0104]). Both Koo ‘343 and Perrot ‘074 teach methods of forming a metal organic framework (‘074, abstract; ‘343, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of forming a titanium layer by physical vapor deposition prior to forming the metal-organic framework to the method taught by Perrot ‘074 because it would have been a combination of prior art elements that would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 19, the modified teachings of Perrot ‘074 do not explicitly teach that the Ti film has a thickness <1 nm.
However, the claim differs from the modified teachings of Perrot ‘074 only in the Ti film thickness, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim 20: Perrot ‘074 teaches the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. With respect to claim 20, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the zinc oxide is either at the bottom of features or at the bottom and sidewalls of features only.
Koo ‘343 teaches a method of forming a metal organic framework (abstract). Koo ‘343 teaches that the metal organic framework (1115) can be only at the sidewalls and bottom of a feature (Ha) (Figs. 17-18, [0104], [0106]). Both Koo ‘343 and Perrot ‘074 teach methods of forming a metal organic framework (‘074, abstract; ‘343, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal organic framework be only at the sidewalls and bottom of a feature as taught by Koo ‘343 in the method taught by Perrot ‘074 because it would have been a combination of prior art elements that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrot et al. ‘074 as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Tsapatsis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0168173, hereafter Tsapatsis ‘173).
Claim 15 and 18: Perrot ’074 teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 16, as discussed above. Perrot ‘074 further teaches that the ZIF-8 can be for a separation membrane ([0086]).
With respect to claims 15 and 18, Perrot ‘074 does not explicitly teach that the ALD-ZnO + soak cycle further comprises Al, or that the Al is present in a content of <10%.
Tsapatsis ‘173 teaches a method of forming ZIF-8 for a separation membrane (title, abstract, [0032]) comprising forming a ZnO layer by atomic layer deposition ([0032]) and exposing the ZnO layer to 2-methylimidazole ([0032]). Tsapatsis ‘173 teaches that the formed structure can contain aluminum (Fig. 3, [0005], [0032], [0057]). Tsapatsis ‘173 teaches that the ZIF including aluminum creates a separation membrane with high selectivity ([0005], [0006]). Both Tsapatsis ‘173 and Perrot ‘074 teach methods of forming ZIF-8 for a separation membrane (‘074, abstract , [0037], [0086]; ‘173, title, abstract, [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aluminum taught by Tsapatsis ‘173 in the structure formed by the method of Perrot ‘074 because the ZIF including aluminum creates a separation membrane with high selectivity, as taught by Tsapatsis ‘173.
With respect to claims 15 and 18, the modified teachings of Perrot ‘074 do not explicitly teach that the Al is present in a content of <10%.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by the modified teachings of Perrot ‘074 only in the concentration of the Al, and it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights