DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter which was not described in the specification was that the two-dimensional coordination polymer has a “network structure having a repeatable structure”. The words “net”, “network”, “repeat”, and “repeatable” are not found in the specification as originally filed. The structure shown in claim 1 (Formula (I)) is disclosed, but the “---” represents a coordination bond (originally filed specification page 17), and is not disclosed to indicate repeating structure. Applicants further cite synthesis example 1 as support. Synthesis example 1 supports the structure shown:
PNG
media_image1.png
452
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. However, the “---” represents a coordination bond as defined by the specification on page 17 discussed above, and does not disclose a repeat. This structure reads on the claimed
PNG
media_image2.png
306
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and does not show a repeat or a network structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant’s argument that the amendments have support are not persuasive and are addressed in the 112(a) rejection above.
B) Applicant’s argument that the polymer of claim 1 represents the structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
386
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is not persuasive. Limitations are not read into the claims, and this limitation is also not supported by the originally filed disclosure, see the 112(a) rejection above. The claimed polymer has the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
306
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the “---” represents a coordination bond as defined by the specification on page 17. The claimed structure is rendered obvious by the prior art, as set forth in the rejection below. Applicants further argue that the outermost compound in mEML-2-LL is not fully depicted, which serves to illustrate that the structure is repeatable. However, since the structure shows the --- as the outermost bond, and the “---” is defined as a coordination bond, there is nothing in this formula that requires the polymer to repeat.
C) Applicant’s argument that the presence of small ancillary ligand (such as Cl) in the structure does not imply that the structure can accommodate a bulky ligand like Cp* is not persuasive since the claims do not exclude “bulky ligands”. Limitations are not read into the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The “---” attached to the M moieties of formula (I) can be broadly interpreted to be a bond to other moieties, which is what is disclosed in the structure of Yamamotoa et al.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamotoa, Yasuhiro, et al. "Stepwise Formation of Quasi‐Octahedral Macrocyclic Complexes of Rhodium (iii) and Iridium (iii) Bearing a Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl Group." Chemistry–A European Journal 8.2 (2002): 372-379 in view of Grandjean et al. (US 2012/0125856).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4: Yamamotoa et al. teaches a two dimensional coordination polymer having the structure of claimed formula (I) (scheme 1)
PNG
media_image4.png
278
262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where c is 0, a is 4 and R1 is methyl.
Yamamotoa et al. does not teach the metal element is selected from the claimed list. However, Grandjean et al. teaches a similar coordination polymer using cobalt as the metal (para. 217). Yamamotoa et al. and Grandjean et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely two dimensional coordination polymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use cobalt as the metal and would have been motivated to do so since Grandjean et al. teaches it is a preferable transition metal (para. 222), and Yamamotoa et al. suggests cobalt can be used in the polymers (introduction).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamotoa, Yasuhiro, et al. "Stepwise Formation of Quasi‐Octahedral Macrocyclic Complexes of Rhodium (iii) and Iridium (iii) Bearing a Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl Group." Chemistry–A European Journal 8.2 (2002): 372-379 in view of Grandjean et al. (US 2012/0125856) as applied to claim 1 set forth above and in view of Irwin, Michael J., et al. "Rigid-rod polymers and model compounds with gold (I) centers bridged by diisocyanides and diacetylides." Organometallics 15.1 (1996): 51-57.
Regarding claim 3: Yamamotoa et al. teaches the basic claimed polymer as set forth above. Not disclosed is where a and b are 2 and c is 1. However, Irwin et al. teaches a similar coordination polymer where a is 2, b is 2 and c is 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
88
230
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(page 55). Yamamotoa et al. and Irwin et al. are analogous art since they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely coordination polymers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the ligand of Irwin et al. in the coordination polymer of Yamamotoa et al. and would have been motivated to do so as a longer linkage group.
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