DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election dated December 4, 2025 of claims 1-7 with traverse has been received. Upon examination, the elected invention is free of the prior art. Therefore, the restriction requirement is removed and claims 1-20 are pending in order to rejoin the withdrawn claims. The claim objections and rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are addressed below for pending claims 1-20.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the chemical structures in these claims in some cases have very small subscripts, which may cause an issue when printing. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5, 7-10, and 12-20 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.
Regarding claim 3: The term “type” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is suggested to remove each instance of the word.
Also in claim 3, the definition of the variables in [Os] are further defined. The variables L, L2 and AL2 are further defined. However, the variable “L2” is only found when in the variable “AL2” (see claim 1), meaning it is unclear when there would be an instance of “L2” being “at least one of ethylenediamine, 2,2’-bipyridine…” since if the “AL2” is chosen as the definition of [Os], then the group to select from would be “at least one of a terpyridine, a PPP-type tridentate ligand…”. The claim also has an “and” between the definitions of L2 and AL2, meaning that the claim requires the L in the [Os] to be as defined, and the L2 in the [Os] to be as defined and the AL2 in the [Os] to be as defined. Yet the definition of “L” does not overlap across all three variable definitions. It is suggested that the three groups of definitions are alternatives to each other and the word “or” should be used instead of “and” before the definition of AL2.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 states “a substituent reacts with an alkenyl group” in the third line. It is unclear where on the polymer this alkenyl group is that undergoes this reaction since if the claim was referring to the alkenyl group of R1, it should be labeled “the substituted alkenyl group or the unsubstituted alkenyl group” to clearly point out the alkenyl group already defined was being further limited. Since “an” is used, it appears a new alkenyl group is being introduced without defining where on the polymer this alkenyl group exists. The claim then states “the alkenyl group consists of 2-80 carbon atoms of a second substituted aryl group and a second unsubstituted aryl group” in lines 4 and 5. This limitation is also unclear since it appears the newly introduced alkenyl group consists of a portion of both a substituted aryl group and an unsubstituted aryl group. Is the alkenyl group the totality of both the substituted aryl group and the unsubstituted aryl group, or a portion thereof? It cannot be the case that the alkenyl group is the totality of both since an aryl group has at least six carbon atoms, and the claim requires the alkenyl group to have both a substituted aryl group and an unsubstituted aryl group, so at least 12 carbon atoms, yet the claim also uses the language “consists of” meaning closed to further elements, so a portion thereof is also indefinite. The scope of claim 5 cannot be interpreted without clarifying amendments.
Regarding claim 7: In the final two lines of claim 7 on page 34 of the claims, the definition of [Os] is partially covered by a white box. For the purpose of further examination, [Os] is taken to have the definition given in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends.
Regarding claim 8: In the reaction formula, there are rectangles after the “-100” and “-200”, presumably the boxes are supposed to be the symbols for the temperature scale used.
Regarding claim 12: In the second to last line of claim 12 the words “group” and “the” are unclearly written over top of each other.
Regarding claim 14: In claim 12, from which claim 14 depends, [Os] is defined as OsAL2. Therefore, it is unclear how in claim 14 “L” can have one set of definitions and “L2” can have another set of definitions. Are the alternatives for “L” ever a possibility and under what circumstances? Further, in line 8, the text is unclear since text is written over text.
Regarding claim 15: Line 12 of claim 15 defines the substituents of the “unsubstituted aryl group”, which by definition cannot have substituents.
Regarding claim 18: In the reaction formula, there is a rectangle after “-100-200”, which is undefined. Further, the complete reaction product and parentheses are not fully rendered on the left side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11 are allowed.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3, 5, 7-10 and 13-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: CN 106146566 is the closest prior art, which teaches a similar osmium compound. However, there is no teaching or suggestion found in the prior art to polymerize the compounds of the reference into a polymer as required.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/MEGAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights