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
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/1/2026, have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be fully persuasive. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objects are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 1-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the form.” The term is not previously recited in the claim and there is therefore insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by STN-Registry: 1045854-31-6/rn (9/22/2008) (IDS filed 9/4/2024) teaches the following compound:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Which reads on applicant’s formula I where A is a substituted heterocyclyl comprising a sulfur and nitrogen atom, L is a non-substituted conjugate carbon chain comprising four double bonds, X is O, R3 and R3 are methyl (a hydrocarbyl group), n is 0, R1, R1’ and R2 are atoms and groups with electron withdrawing ability. AS the above compound is structurally identical the present compound in claim 1, it would be fully capable of being used in the intended uses enumerated in claims 14-15.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments of unexpected results, applicant’s arguments are persuasive because the results, which are directed to only one or a very few examples, are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, which includes a myriad of compounds owing to the great breath of the claims, wherein the selections of A and the other variables in formula (I) include a myriad of compounds, and a further larger myriad of compounds as a result of the claim also including “isomers” of the structures. The few examples provided are not representative of the vast genus of compounds being claimed, nor would the artisan accept based on the limited number examples accept that the results would necessarily hold over the scope of the much broader invention claimed.
Notes and Comments
No prior art against the elected species was found. No prior art was found against claims 2-8 and 16.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this office action. This office action is therefore made final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W DICKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM to 7:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL W DICKINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights