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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22 and 24-25 in the reply filed on 10/27/25 is acknowledged. Applicant further made the species election of “pentacosadiynoic acids” for the “at least one substance”, and where the form of the adduct is a “salt or cocrystal”. The claims that read on said two species election are claims 1-10 and 15-22. As such, the overall elected claims are claims 1-10 and 15-22. Thus, non-elected claims 11-14 and 23-26 have thus been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Examination Notes:
Applicant’s dependent claims 17-19 set forth “process of use” limitations (e.g. types of radiation) that the claimed energy-sensitive adduct can be subjected to. For the following prior-art rejections these limitations are considered moot because the elected claims are not drawn to a process of radiation detection using an energy-sensitive adduct.
Claim(s) 1-10, 15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anyumba et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2004/0197684 A1.
Anyumba et al. discloses compositions and methods for 3-dimensional dose distribution mapping of an energy/radiation field. Anyumba et al.’s invention involves employing an image display receiver comprising a radiation activated metal salt of a crystalline, thermochromic polyacetylene having a conjugated structure uniformly distributed in a rigid or high density semi-solid matrix by a color alteration due to polymerization of the activated polyacetylene to provide a permanent, 3-dimensional image of the object in high spatial resolution.
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over Anyumba et al.’s Example 2, which teaches the production of a matrix material comprising a tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate adduct made from pentacosa-10,12-diynoic acid (PCDA) (i.e. 10,12-pentacosadiynoic acid) and tetraethyl ammonium hydroxide, especially see paragraph [0021].
Please note that pentacosa-10,12-diynoic acid (PCDA) (i.e. 10,12-pentacosadiynoic acid) is a carboxyl functionalized acetylenic compound comprising two acetylene moieties, and thus reads directly on applicant’s acetylenic compounds of claims 1-7 and 22. Also note that tetraethyl ammonium hydroxide is an organic base, and thus it reads directly on applicant’s “at least one substance” of claims 1, 8-10 and 22.
Anyumba et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0022] and [0024] of Example 2, that an adduct of a lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate is subsequently made, which reads directly on applicant’s dependent claims 20-21. Please note that Anyumba et al.’s adducts of lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate can exhibit enhanced energy-sensitivity (see the TABLE in Example 8) as compared to just pentacosa-10,12-diynoic acid (PCDA) (i.e. 10,12-pentacosadiynoic acid), thus clearly meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 15.
Anyumba et al. also teaches in paragraphs [0027] of Example 2, that the matrix material comprising an adduct of a lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate was irradiated with a beam of x-rays at room ambient temperature and effectively absorbed radiation and changed its color to dark blue. When the same matrix material comprising an adduct of a lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate was subjected to a high energy beam of x-rays the matrix material comprising an adduct of a lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate rose in temperature to 60oC (by way of the release of infrared radiation) and displayed a red color. Thus the “process of use limitations” of applicant’s dependent claims 17-19 are fully met even though said process of use limitations are a moot issue, see above Examination Note.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anyumba et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2004/0197684 A1.
Anyumba et al. has been described above and differ from applicant’s claimed invention in that there does not seem to be a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example) to where the adducts of the lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate exhibit reduced energy-sensitivity as compared to just pentacosa-10,12-diynoic acid (PCDA) (i.e. 10,12-pentacosadiynoic acid).
Please note Anyumba et al.’s disclosure of the TABLE in Example 8, wherein adducts of lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate are made comprising different molar ratios of the starting reactants, which leads to adducts having very different radiation-sensitivities (from low to very high).
As such, one having ordinary skill in the art could readily use Anyumba et al.’s said disclosure as strong motivation to actually make adducts of lithium acetate salt of tetraethyl ammonium pentacosa-10,12-diynoate which exhibit reduced energy-sensitivity as compared to just pentacosa-10,12-diynoic acid (PCDA) (i.e. 10,12-pentacosadiynoic acid), thus clearly meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 16. It is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely follow the direct suggestion of a prior-art reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764