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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 32-38 and 44 in the reply filed on July 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed steps, the process steps listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
For claims 33-35, 37, and 44, the Examiner requests Applicant amend the phrase “the composite” to --the composite material-- so that references to the composite material are consistent throughout the claims.
For claims 36 and 38, the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a process, but do not set forth any positive steps detailing how one of ordinary skill in the art can practice the claimed process. As such, claims 36 and 38 are unclear as they are directed to a process without reciting process steps.
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 32-38 and 44 are 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 32 recites the limitation "said coordination complex" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that it is unclear which of the coordination complexes the phrase “said coordination complex” references, thus the claim lacks antecedent basis for “said coordination complex.” Claims 33-38 and 44 depend directly or indirectly from claim 32, and are also indefinite.
For claims 36 and 38, the claims are directed to a process, but do not set forth any positive steps detailing how one of ordinary skill in the art can practice the claimed process. As such, claims 36 and 38 are indefinite.
Claims 36 and 38 recites the limitation "the identification and/or quantification of formaldehyde" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
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) 32-36, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy et al., (J. Mater. Chem. C. 2015, 3, 7897) in view of Suzuki et al., (US 2010/0142050).
Regarding claim 32, Nagy et al., teach a composite material comprising a coordination polymer having coordination complexes (Synthesis of SCO complexes, pages 7897-7898), iron (Synthesis of SCO complexes, pages 7897-7898), a primary amine (Synthesis of SCO complexes, pages 7897-7898), counter ions (Synthesis of SCO complexes, pages 7897-7898), and cellulose (matrix, Synthesis of SCO-cellulose composites, page 7898). The Examiner notes that Nagy et al., teach a coordination complex identical to that of the instant claims (Fe(NH2trz)3 thus one would expect the prior art coordination complex to have a geometry identical to that of the instant claims. Nagy et al., teach Br2 as a counter ion, but does not teach the counter ion being tosylate.
Suzuki et al., teach a coordination polymer for anisotropic dye layer wherein tosylate is utilized as a counter ion (paragraph 0126). The Examiner is reading this combination as substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reference to Suzuki et al., teach a coordination polymer having absorption in the visual region caused by charge moving transition between a ligand and a metal ion wherein the charge moving transition can be controlled by the counter ion (paragraph 0141). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control the rate of charge moving transition by exchanging a counter ion as taught by Suzuki et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nagy et al., wherein Br2 counter ion is substituted with tosylate as the counter ion in order to control the charge moving transition between a ligand and a metal ion as substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 33, Nagy et al., teach cellulose as the matrix (Synthesis of SCO-cellulose composites, page 7898). The instant specification states that a matrix stable at temperatures over 200°C as thermostable (Pre-grant publication paragraph 0063). Reference to Nagy et al., teach the (Fe(NH2trz)3 cellulose composite being stable up to 220°C, thus the prior art composite meets the limitation of being thermostable.
Regarding claim 34, Nagy et al., teach the ligand being (NH2trz) wherein trz is 1,2,4-triazole (Synthesis of SCO complexes, page 7897).
Regarding claim 35, Nagy et al., in view of Suzuki et al., teach the coordination polymer repeating for plural times (paragraph 0165) which encompasses an n>3, x being zero, tosylate as the counter ion (paragraph 0126) and NH2trz as the ligand (Nagy et al., Synthesis of SCO complexes, pages 7897-7898).
Regarding claim 36, the Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any process steps for identification and/or quantification of formaldehyde other than using the composite of claim 32. As detailed above, the combination of Nagy et al., in view of Suzuki et al., teach a composite identical to that of claim 32, thus the prior art is being read as meeting the limitations of claim 36.
Regarding claim 44, Nagy et al., teach a method of preparing a coordination polymer comprising providing a matrix, providing a coordination polymer, and combining the matrix and the coordination polymer (Synthesis of SCO-cellulose composites). Nagy et al., do not teach the counter ion being tosylate.
Suzuki et al., teach a coordination polymer for anisotropic dye layer wherein tosylate is utilized as a counter ion (paragraph 0126). The Examiner is reading this combination as substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Reference to Suzuki et al., teach a coordination polymer having absorption in the visual region caused by charge moving transition between a ligand and a metal ion wherein the charge moving transition can be controlled by the counter ion (paragraph 0141). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to control the rate of charge moving transition by exchanging a counter ion as taught by Suzuki et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nagy et al., wherein Br2 counter ion is substituted with tosylate as the counter ion in order to control the charge moving transition between a ligand and a metal ion as substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 37 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagy et al., (J. Mater. Chem. C. 2015, 3, 7897) in view of Suzuki et al., (US 2010/0142050) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Blair (US 2016/0109371).
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Nagy et al., in view of Suzuki et al., do not teach a handheld device comprising a case.
Blair teaches a portable spectrometer (abstract, paragraph 0035) comprising a fluorimeter (paragraph 0035, figure 2 #102) having a housing (suitable case, paragraph 0038, figure 4 #110). With respect to claim 38, the Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any process steps in which the claimed hand-held portable device is utilized, thus the portable spectrometer of Blair is being read on the claims. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the device of Blair has dimensions of 7cm length, 5.3 cm width, and 3.2 cm height, thus the device can easily be hand-held. Also, the Examiner notes that the claim does not require a user to hold the device during its operations, thus the teachings of Blair reads on the limitations of claim 38. Blair teaches that it is advantageous to utilize the taught portable spectrometer as a means of providing a low cost and easy to use device capable of identifying illicit drugs and substances of abuse (paragraph 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Nagy et al., in view of Suzuki et al., with the portable spectrometer of Blair in order to provide an easy to use and low cost device for identifying illicit drugs and substances of abuse as taught by Blair.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAN A GERIDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/DWAN A GERIDO/Examiner, Art Unit 1797