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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1, 14-17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The amendments to claims 1, 17, and 20 has overcome the rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the last Office action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) the rejections of claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the last Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV (the instant Z is C) and Ir for the instant M in the reply filed on 4 June 2026 has been acknowledged.
A complete search of the elected species did not result in any prior art that reads on the claims. Therefore, the search was expanded to another examinable species. The examinable species was the species of Species IV (the instant Z is C) and Pt for the instant metal M. Applicant’s amendments have overcome all rejections of the examinable species. A complete search of the prior art has shown that the prior art does not teach additional species where the instant Z is C and Pt is the metal M. Therefore, the search has been expanded to another examinable species The examinable species is the species of Species IV (the instant Z is C) and Ru for the instant metal M.
The examinable species reads on claims 1-2, 4-11, and 17-20.
With regard to the instant claims 3, 6-11, and 17-20 only, a search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As none of the claims were specifically drawn to the elected species in combination with the limitations of one of claims 3, 6-11, and 17-20 in independent form, none of these claims have been indicated as allowable. However, claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of claims 3, 6-11, and 17-20 as well as being limited to the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of claims 3, 6-11, and 17-20 as well as being limited to the elected species would be allowable.
Claims 3, 6-11, and 17-20 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 as well as being limited to the elected species. This objection to the claims is only with respect to the elected species.
It is noted that the potential allowability of claims 3, 6-11, and 17-20 has not been determined with respect to species beyond the elected species, i.e. potential examinable species that could be found once the search is expanded beyond the elected species.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recites several compounds. However, the structural formulas first four compounds are incomplete and cannot be properly interpreted, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the first four compounds of claim 16 are being interpreted as being the first four compounds of paragraph [0100] of the instant specification, where the second compound has been removed by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nag et al. (“Changing the Role of 2,2;-Bipyridine from Secondary Ligand to Protagonist in [Ru(bpy)2(N-N)]2+ Complexes: Low-Energy, Red Emission from a Ruthenium(II)-to-2,20-Bipyridine 3MLCT State” Inorganic Chemistry (2011) vol. 50, pp. 7-9.) (hereafter “Nag”).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5: Nag discloses the compound shown below {Scheme 1}.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poyatos et al. (“Synthesis and structural chemistry of arene-ruthenium half-sandwich complexes bearing an oxazolinyl–carbene ligand” Journal of Organometallic Chemistry (2006) vol. 691, pp. 2713-2720.) (hereafter “Poyatos”).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5: Poyatos discloses the compound shown below {Scheme 3}.
PNG
media_image2.png
398
1268
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 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: Schmid (US 2010/0320449 A1) is a representation of the closest prior art. However, the compounds comprising the ligand
PNG
media_image3.png
88
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, which would read on the current claims are only for polynuclear complexes. Polynuclear complexes are explicitly not permitted by the current claims. None of the cited prior art nor the broader prior art teaches modifying the disclosure of Schmid such that the ligand
PNG
media_image3.png
88
136
media_image3.png
Greyscale
would be used in a mononuclear complex.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN CLAY KERSHNER whose telephone number is (303)297-4257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm (Mountain).
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/DYLAN C KERSHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights