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.
Current Status of 17/769,263
This Office Action is responsive to the amended claims of 26 November 2025.
Claims 1-14 and 16-17 are subject for examination. Claims 1-14 are currently amended. Claims 16-17 are new.
Priority
The effective filing date is 12 October 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 November 2025, was filed after the mailing date of the Non Final Office Action on 26 August 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of and has reviewed Applicants’ claim amendments and Reply of 26 November 2025.
The claim objections of record (see paragraphs 13-17 of the previous Office Action) are rendered moot by Applicants’ revisions.
Applicants revised claims 9 and 14 thereby rendering moot the indefiniteness rejection (made within paragraphs 18-20 of the previous Office Action).
Applicants revised claim 10 thereby rendering moot the indefiniteness rejection of paragraph 21 of the previous Office Action.
Applicants’ revisions rendered moot the indefiniteness rejection of claim 11 (see paragraph 22 of the previous Office Action).
Applicants’ revisions rendered moot the indefiniteness rejection of claim 12 (see paragraph 23 of the previous Office Action).
Applicants’ revisions removing “prefer” render moot the indefiniteness rejection of paragraph 24 made in the previous Office Action.
Applicants’ revisions render moot the rejections under 35 USC 112(d) (see paragraphs 25-29 of the previous Office Action).
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to as it begins with “The” but should begin with -- A -- as the claim 14 appears to be an independent claim. Proper claims drafting procedure requires independent claims to begin with “A” or “An” and dependent claims to begin with “The”.
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 12, 14, and 16-17 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 12 recites the limitation "the organic or inorganic base". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As drafted, "the organic or inorganic base" renders the metes and bounds of claim 12 undefined (hence rendering claim 12 indefinite) since the artisan does not know where antecedent basis can be found for this limitation within claim 10 (drawn just to a “base”) or claim 12.
Claims 16-17 are similarly rejected as indefinite since these claims refer back to claim 12 but do not remedy the rationale underpinning the basis for rejecting claim 12.
Please delete “organic or inorganic” from claims 12 and 16-17 to render moot this rejection.
This rejection is properly made FINAL due to Applicants’ claim amendments.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "formula (Ia)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As drafted, the limitation “formula (Ia)” renders the metes and bounds of claim 14 undefined (hence rendering claim 14 indefinite) since the artisan is not certain where antecedent basis for “Formula (Ia)” can be found within claim 14: there is no compound name or illustration anywhere to be found within claim 14 labeled “formula Ia”.
Please add the compound name or illustration of formula Ia to claim 14 to render moot this rejection.
This rejection is properly made FINAL as it is due to Applicants’ claim amendments.
Conclusion
Claims 12, 14, and 16-17 are not presently allowable as written. Resolving these rejections should place this application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are presently allowable as written for the rationale stated within paragraphs 32-35 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed 26 August 2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S KENYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-6p.
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, Andrew D Kosar can be reached at (571) 272-0913. 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.
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625