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 .
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/024169 filed on 03/25/2021, and claims priority to provisional application PRO 62/994,778 filed on 03/25/2020.
Status of the Claims
Per Applicant’s amendment to the claims, submitted on 09/26/2022, claims 8-10, 20-22, and 24 are amended, and claims 11, 16-17, and 19 are canceled. Currently, claims 1-10, 12-15, 18, 20-24 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. A correction to IDS NPL entry No. 31 (Lu, B.) has been made by the Examiner to add a missing publication year of 2019.
Election/Restrictions
In reply to the Restriction Requirement, Applicant has elected the following invention:
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 drawn to compositions comprising a [2]-catenane
In accordance with the elected invention, claims 1-10 and 12-15 are pending examination in the instant application, while claims 18 and 20-24 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
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 8-10 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 8 is indefinite for reciting the phrase “wherein the composition has an Ered1 greater than +0.50 V versus Ag/AgCl” because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to understand the metes and bounds of the claim. The instant claim is reciting a property of the composition of matter without providing a material limitation with regards to its material constituency. A person of ordinary skill in the art, from the recitation, would not reasonably be able to determine how such a property would be imparted to the composition of claim 1, or how the limitation would be applied. Accordingly, the instant claim is considered as not further limiting of its parent claim.
Claim 9 is indefinite for reciting the phrase “wherein the composition has an Ered2 greater than +0.25 V versus Ag/AgCl” because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to understand the metes and bounds of the claim. The instant claim is reciting a property of the composition of matter without providing a material limitation with regards to its material constituency. A person of ordinary skill in the art, from the recitation, would not reasonably be able to determine how such a property would be imparted to the composition of claim 1, or how the limitation would be applied. Accordingly, the instant claim is considered as not further limiting of its parent claim.
Claim 10 is indefinite for reciting the phrase “wherein the composition has a near infrared absorption band longer than 1200 nm” because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be able to understand the metes and bounds of the claim. The instant claim is reciting a property of the composition of matter without providing a material limitation with regards to its material constituency. A person of ordinary skill in the art, from the recitation, would not reasonably be able to determine how such a property would be imparted to the composition of claim 1, or how the limitation would be applied. Accordingly, the instant claim is considered as not further limiting of its parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not appear to teach or suggest the compositions of the instant claims. the closest prior art found are Fahrenbach (US 9120799 B2) and Liu (US 20190016737 A1).
Fahrenbach teaches crystalline BIPY radical complexes and uses thereof. In particular, Fahrenbach provides the following diagram detailing the formation of a [2]-catenane complex (Fig. 14):
PNG
media_image1.png
555
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The final formed complex in the bottom right of the diagram provides a [2]-catenane comprising two interlocked macrocyclic structures, wherein each ring further comprises alternating units of BIPY and phenylene. Where the structure of Fahrenbach differs from the [2]-catenane described in claim 1, is the configuration of the phenylene units. The phenylene subunits of both macrocycles in Fig. 14 are in the para configuration, while claim 1 provides a limitation wherein one of the macrocycles comprises a phenylene in the meta configuration. Furthermore, a crystalline composition comprising such a [2]-catenane is not taught.
Liu teaches mechanically interlocked air-stable persistent organic radicals and compositions thereof. In particular, Liu teaches the following [2]-catenane structures (Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image2.png
276
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The leftmost structure is a [2]-catenane comprising two macrocycles, wherein the macrocycles further comprise alternating units of BIPY and para-phenylene. The [2]-catenane of middle structure comprises two macrocycles comprising diazepyrene, BIPY, and paraphenylene units. The rightmost structure provides a [2]-catenane wherein one macrocycle comprises diazepyrene, BIPY, and para-phenylene groups, while the other macrocycle comprises alternating BIPY and para-phenylene units. While the leftmost structure shares closest structure to a [2]-catenane as described in claim 1, the structure does not provide a phenylene unit in the meta configuration. Furthermore, a crystalline composition comprising such a [2]-catenane is not taught.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 and 12-15 are in condition for allowance.
Claims 8-10 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7854. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jeffrey S Lundgren can be reached at (571) 272-5541. 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.
/ERIC TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights