Detailed Notice
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 1 and 21-25, 27-38 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Further, a call was made to Steven Burgess on 5/11/26 requiring a species election between Group I [Claim 1(a) and 21, 23-25, 27-38] and Group II [Claim 1(b)] and Group III [Claim 1(c)], wherein applicant elected species Group I without traverse.
Claims 1(a) and 21, 23-25, 27-38 are pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim discusses the “triplet photosetizer”, where it is understood applicant intended to write “triplet photosensitizer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 27 be found allowable, claim 28 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 32 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. Specifically, applicants states the fullerene may “optionally” be substituted with alkyl, aryl, alkoxy or a combination thereof. This is indefinite as it is unclear whether the applicant is requiring the additional moieties or not. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood that the fullerenes may include those chemical moieties. Attention is required.
Claim 33 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. Specifically, applicants states the light is “preferably” a natural light or light from an LED source. This is indefinite as it is unclear whether the applicant is requiring these light sources or not. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood that the light merely comprises wavelength from 380 to 1000 nm. Attention is required.
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.
Claims 1, 21, 24-25, 27-31, 33, 34, 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawls (US20160271297A1) in view of Smith (US 20120296085 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 21, 24, 27-31 33-34, Rawls teaches a method for releasing oxygen [abstract]. Rawls teaches that 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene (hereafter referred to as DMN) can be used a precursor to generate an endoperoxide that degrades to singlet oxygen with heat [0045]. Rawls teaches that the endoperoxides generate singlet oxygen when brought to a temperature of “20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50° C. or higher” [0042]. Rawls teaches that an endoperoxide is formed by photooxidation of an aromatic organic compound [0044] (e.g. DMN) under irradiation by light (specifically a red-light lamp, understood to be a light source of 620-750 nm, as per [0046]) and in the presence of a photosensitizer [0043], which is understood to be upon contact with an oxygenated atmosphere. Rawls also teaches that the an endoperoxide may be formed in solution (namely, isopropanol, as per [0052]). Shown below is Fig. 1 of Rawls.
PNG
media_image1.png
457
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in Fig. 1, Rawls teaches that DMN is exposed to oxygen in the presence of light and rose Bengal dye (a triplet photosensitizer); a stable endoperoxide is formed at a temperature T1; the endoperoxide is exposed to heat at some temperature T2 and singlet oxygen is released, which thereafter becomes triplet oxygen. Accordingly, it understood that Rawls teaches that DMN is exposed to red light at a temperature T1 (understood to be ambient temperature) in the presence of Rose Bengal (wherein, the mixture could be in a solution comprising isopropanol, as per [0032], therein comprising a first mixture) and oxygen; that an endoperoxide is formed (therein comprising a second mixture) and raised to a temperature T2 greater than T1 (as per [0042]) to release oxygen and regenerate DMN. It is understood that the oxygen released is released to ambient air or atmospheric air, therein constituting the formation of an oxygen-enriched air stream.
However, Rawls does not teach that the first mixture is exposed to ambient air.
In a similar field of endeavor Smith teaches a method for producing singlet oxygen using an anthracene derivative (understood to be a polycyclic aromatic compound) immobilized in a macrocycle [abstract]. Smith teaches that exposure of air (understood to be inclusive of ambient air) in the presence of red light and a polycyclic aromatic compound results in the formation of an endoperoxide. [0037-0038].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the oxygen provided in the method of storing and releasing oxygen using a polycyclic aromatic compound of DMN, as per Rawls, could be accomplished by the known technique of exposing a polycyclic aromatic compound to air, as per Smith, in order that one would arrive at a method of storing and releasing oxygen by using ambient air as the source of oxygen to be captured. Further, it is understood that as the process of Rawls in view of Smith occurs reversibly, that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the method of oxygen storage and released could be performed with the same mixture of photosensitizer, polycyclic aromatic compound, and oxygen multiple times with a reasonable expectation of success, as per Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 23, 36-38, Rawls teaches that the method of storing and releasing oxygen using endoperoxide formation and thermolytic degradation can be incorporated into wound dressings [0060]. Rawls teaches that a wound dressage may include a hydrogel [0061] and Rawls further teaches that the hydrogel may comprise polyacrylic acid [0016]. It is understood that a wound dressing means that the method of storing and releasing oxygen using endoperoxide formation and thermolytic degradation which is incorporated into a hydrogel comprising polyacrylic acid would be applied to a patient [see 0017].
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawls (US 20160271297 A1) in view of Smith (US 20120296085 A1), as applied to Claim 34, further in view of Posavec et. al “Functionalized derivatives of 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene as precursors for biomedical applications: synthesis, structures, spectroscopy and photochemical activation in the presence of dioxygen” Org. Biomol. Chem., 2012,10, 7062-7069 (referring to the reference submitted by applicant and in the prosecution history of the present application)..
Regarding Claim 35, Rawls in view of Smith teaches to Claim 34 as shown above.
However, Rawls does not teach the solvent in the first mixture may comprise: acetonitrile, ethanol, methanol, dichloromethane, hexanes, water, ether, dimethylformamide, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, propylene carbonate, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, tetrahydrofuran or a combination thereof.
Posavec teaches a method for intermediate storage and transport of endoperoxides and the controlled release of singlet oxygen [abstract]. Posavec teaches that derivative compounds of DMN are irradiated in the presence of red light (namely, a high-power LED light) and a methylene blue photosensitizer in a solution of ethanol [Pg. 7064, bottom of Col. 1 to bottom of Col. 2].
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the use of isopropanol as the solvent in the first mixture of the method of oxygen storage and release, as per Rawls, could be replaced by the use of ethanol, as per the method of oxygen storage and release using DMN derivatives disclosed by Posavec, as a matter of simple substitution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is 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: The prior art does not teach or suggest that the DMN may be sensitized by fluorene, fullerene, or nanoparticles comprising a triplet photosensitizer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights