DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendment received on 03/27/2026:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 6-10 and 14-16 are withdrawn for being directed to a non-elected invention(s) (see Examiner’s Note below). The objections to claims 4 and 12 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The objection to claim 5 is maintained (see claim objections below). The rejections of claims 1-4, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
• All previous prior art grounds of rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 5 should be amended to read: “…wherein the solvent is selected from the group consisting of…”
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 and 19 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.
In claims 3 and 19, the amended phrase “evaporated film form” is confusing. Claims 3 and 19 depend on claims 2 and 18, respectively, which necessitate the formulation to contain 50 to 80 wt% of a solvent. The claimed formulation cannot both contain a solvent and simultaneously be in “evaporated” film form. Consequently, the “evaporated film” limitations appear to contradict the necessitating of the solvent component in claims 2 and 18. To correct, the Examiner suggests deleting the phrase from the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an organic chromophore of formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
146
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R1, R2, and R3 = C1-C18 alkyl or C1-C18 alkoxy hydrocarbon; X = -NH or -COO or -CO or -SO2NH; n = 1 or 2 or 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
146
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to independent claim 17, the prior art fails to teach or suggest an organic chromophore of formula I:
wherein, R1, R2, and R3 = C1-C18 alkyl or C1-C18 alkoxy hydrocarbon; X = -CONH or -NH or -COO or -CO or -SO2NH; n = 2 or 3.
The closest prior art includes Cherumukkil et al. (Cherumukkil, Sandeep, et al. “An unprecedented amplification of near-infrared emission in a bodipy derived π-system by stress or gelation.” Chemical Science, vol. 8, no. 8, 2017, pp. 5644–5649, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7sc01696d) and Owen (US-20130105743-A1).
While Cherumukkil and Owen teach most of the limitations of independent claims 1, 2, and 17 (see Non-Final Rejection dated 12/29/2025 at pg. 6 and 8-11), both fail to specifically teach the organic chromophore of claim 1 and claim 17. The chromophore taught by Cherumukkil has a -CONH moiety as “X,” while the chromophore of claim 1 lacks such a moiety. Additionally, Cherumukkil has an n-value of 1, which the chromophore of claim 17 lacks. Consequently, the organic chromophore of Cherumukkil no longer reads on the claimed chromophores. Furthermore, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed chromophore of claim 1 and claim 17. Accordingly, claims 1 and 17 are allowed.
With respect to remaining claims 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 18, and 20, they are allowed for the same reasons given above and in further consideration of their additional limitations.
Next, claims 3 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the relevant rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the relevant objections set forth in this Office action (see above).
Lastly, claim 5 would be allowable if re-written to overcome the objection (see above).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that even following resolving of the above issues, the withdrawn claims 6-10 and 14-16 still contain numerous 112(b) issues and objections as they are currently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been considered. The Examiner agrees with Applicants that the amended claims overcome the previous prior art grounds of rejection (see Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 10-11). However, the 112(b) rejection over claims 3 and 19 and the claim objection over claim 5 have not been resolved, see above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/J.E.B./
Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights