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 1-6) in the reply filed on 8/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Group II (claims 7-10) and III (claims 11-20) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/11/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited “the LS comprises the PEG” should be --the CC comprises the PEG--. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stoddart (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 11094-11125, 2017).
Regarding claims 1-3, Stoddart teaches formation of a rotaxane in Figure 29, comprising CBPQT4+ rings and polymer chains terminated at both ends with artificial molecular pumps [P11105 Figure 29]. The polymer chain treads through the ring(s) and thus reads on the claimed threading component TC.
The polymer chain comprises oligomethylene chain [P11103 last para.] which collects CBPQT4+ rings, and therefore acts as a collecting chain CC.
The TC is terminated, in order, a first CB (Coulombic Barrier) of 3,5-dimethylpyridinium (PY+) unit (green) [P11104 left column], a first RS (Recognition Site) of bipyridinium (BIPY2+) unit (blue) [P11103 last para.], a first SB (Steric Barrier) of isopropylphenyl (IPP) unit (green) [P11103 Figure 22], the CC of oligomethylene chain (straight line) [P11103 last para.], a second SB, a second RS, and a second CB.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 11094-11125, 2017).
Regarding claim 4, Stoddart teaches the threading component in claim 1. Stoddart’s CC in Figure 29 is oligomethylene chain (straight line) [P11103 last para.]. However, in a separate embodiment, Stoddart teaches polyethylene glycol (PEG) as the CC terminated with artificial molecular pumps [P11103 Figure 22].
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Stoddart recognized oligomethylene and PEG are equivalent as CC units for the same purpose in a rotaxane, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute oligomethylene with PEG in Stoddart’s rotaxane.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddart as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Qiu et al (“A Molecular Dual Pump”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2019, 141, 17472−17476).
Regarding claim 5, Stoddart teaches the threading component in claim 4. Stoddart teaches 3,5-dimethylpyridinium instead of the claimed 2,6-dimethylpyridinium as the CB unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Qiu teaches artificial molecular pumps used in rotaxanes [abstract], including 2,6-dimethylpyridinium (PY+) Coulombic barrier [P17437 left column].
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Stoddart and Qiu recognized 3,5-dimethylpyridinium and 2,6-dimethylpyridinium to be equivalents as the CB unit for the same purpose in a rotaxane, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute 3,5-dimethylpyridinium with 2,6-dimethylpyridinium in Stoddart’s rotaxane.
Therefore, a threading component comprising the following is prima facie obvious from Stoddart in view of Qiu:
the CB comprising 2,6-dimethylpyridinium (PY),
the RS comprising bipyridinium (BIPY),
the SB comprising isopropylphenylene (IPP), and
the CC comprising the PEG.
Regarding claim 6, Stoddart in view of Qiu teaches the threading component of claim 5 as stated above. The threading component stated above does not contain an oxymethyltriazol unit in between the SB (IPP) and the CC.
In a separate embodiment, Stoddart teaches a threading component comprising an oxymethyltriazol unit in between the SB (IPP) and the CC [P11105 Figure 27].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add an oxymethyltriazol bridge in between the SB (IPP) and the CC in the threading component of Stoddart in view of Qiu, as it is expressly disclosed as being useful in this capacity. It has been established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, the threading component of Stoddart in view of Qiu comprises
the CB comprising 2,6-dimethylpyridinium (PY),
the RS comprising bipyridinium (BIPY),
the SB comprising isopropylphenylene (IPP),
the oxymethyltriazole,
the CC comprising the PEG. The PEG in Stoddart Figure 22 has two repeating units (n=2).
the oxymethyltriazole,
the SB comprising isopropylphenylene (IPP),
the RS comprising bipyridinium (BIPY),
the CB comprising 2,6-dimethylpyridinium (PY),
in this order, reading on the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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.
/JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762