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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 08 March 2023 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to PG publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications made under the format “ col 1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: misspellings – see polyoxymethalate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim2 is objected to because of the following informalities: misspelling – see polyoxymethalate. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10 December 2025.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 recites the m variable being between 0 and 16; however, this limitation contradicts the parent claim 1 which recites “at least one water molecule”. Clarification is urged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Missina (NPL cited in the IDS).
Claims 1 and 2: Missina discloses a decavanadate compound tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane such as [Cu(OH2)5(trisH)]2[V10O28]·6H2O and [Cu(OH2)3(2–amp)]2(trisH)2[V10O28]·2H2O (abs, pg. 3-5). Further, Missina discloses the Na counterion – which is present based on the starting material (see Experimental section). Regarding the claimed head and tail proton/positive charge attraction property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claims 3-8: Missina discloses the claimed hydrocarbon, hydroxyl and amino groups (abs, pg. 3-7).
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (NPL cited in the IDS).
Claims 1 and 2: Xu discloses a compound {[Na(H 6L) 2] 2} n·nV10O28 with bis(2-hydroxyethyl) iminotris(hydroxylmethy)methane ('bis-tris': H 5L) (abs, pg. 401, 402 and 405). Regarding the claimed head and tail proton/positive charge attraction property, if a prior art reference teaches the substantially identical structure/material, it would be reasonable that the same function and/or property would be imparted or exhibited. See MPEP 2112.01. Applicant is welcomed to provide any evidence that the disclosed material is exceedingly different from the claimed material - thus the claimed properties would inevitably not be present.
Claims 3-6 and 8: Xu discloses the claimed hydrocarbon, hydroxyl and amino groups (abs, pg. 401, 402 and 405).
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortz (US-20090318723-A1).
Kortz discloses a “polyoxometalate represented by the formula:(An)m+[Ru2L2(XW11O39)2WO2]m or solvates thereof, wherein A is a cation, n is the number of the cations, m is the charge of the polyanion, L is a ligand bound to ruthenium and is independently selected from the group consisting of water, unsubstituted or substituted arenes, unsubstituted or substituted heteroarenes, unsaturated hydrocarbons, ethers, unsubstituted or substituted allyl, unsubstituted or substituted alkanes, nitriles, carboxylates, peroxides, peracids, phosphines, phosphanes, CO, OH−, peroxo, carbonate, NO3 −, NO2 −, NO−, NH3, amines, F−, Cl−, Br−, I−, SCN−, NCS−, NCO−, and mixtures thereof and X is a heteroatom selected from Si, Ge, B and mixtures thereof” (abs, claim 1) and “More preferably, A is selected from potassium, sodium, cesium, ammonium and combinations thereof.” (¶26). See also ¶3-4, 15-31 and examples. The Kortz reference discloses the claimed invention with the features of the group 1 cation and the ligand having alkyl, amines and hydroxyl elements but does not disclose the compound with the claimed elements with enough specificity to anticipate the claimed invention. Nevertheless, given that Kortz discloses the group 1 cation and the ligand having alkyl, amines and hydroxyl elements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the chemical art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the taught components since the group 1 cation and the ligand having alkyl, amines and hydroxyl elements teaches each one. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is directed to a similar field of endeavor. It is also noted that the fact that many components are disclosed would not have made any of them, such as the group 1 cation and the ligand having alkyl, amines and hydroxyl elements, less obvious. Here, Kortz discloses each of the claimed components and there is no evidence nor teaching that the selection of the claimed components would be repugnant to a skilled artisan to achieve the benefit gain enhanced and desired optical, electronic and magnetic properties. Further, obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sanchez-Lara discloses a decavanadate with cytosine and metformin ligands.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Reuthers can be reached at 571.272.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights