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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 currently under examination. Claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-11 are amended.
Previous Grounds of Rejection
In the light of the amendments, the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding claims 1-7, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranenburg et al. (Eur. J. Inorg. Cem., 1998, 155-157) stands.
Previous Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kranenburg et al. (Eur. J. Inorg. Cem., 1998, 155-157).
Regarding claim 1, Kranenburg et al. teach Pd complex or alternative Pt complex comprising thixantphos (3) which reacts with bromobenzene. As such, the bromide is bonded to Pd or alternative Pt as a ligand as shown in Figure 1 and Scheme 1 below (pages 155-156):
PNG
media_image1.png
98
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
128
70
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As we see above, the thixantphos ligand corresponds to the instant claimed the ligand formula (I), wherein R1=R4=Me, R2=R3=H, R5-8=Ph.
Regarding claims 2-5, as discussed above, the Pt complex taught by Kranenburg et al. comprise R5-8 as being phenyl groups, R1=R4=Me, R2=R3=H atoms.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the Pt complex taught by Kranenburg et al. corresponds to the compound as the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the Pd-complex or alternative the Pt complex taught by Kranenburg et al. comprise a bromide ligand as shown in the Scheme 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the previous Grounds of Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/31/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive. The examiner would like to take this opportunity to address the Applicant's arguments.
Applicant argued the breadth of the rejected claims may be the issue, specifically the bromine ligand present. Not directly mentioned in the Office is the scope of the ligand having formula I or formula 1. The structure and the presence of Pt would presumably be expected to be involved in the catalytic activity relied on (Remarks, page 4).
The Office respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous non-final office action dated on 09/23/2025, Kranenburg et al. teach Pd complex or alternative Pt complex comprising thixantphos (3) which reacts with bromobenzene. As such, the bromide is bonded to Pd or alternative Pt as a ligand as shown in Figure 1 and Scheme 1 below (pages 155-156):
PNG
media_image1.png
98
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
128
70
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As we see above, the thixantphos ligand corresponds to the instant claimed the ligand formula (I), wherein R1=R4=Me, R2=R3=H, R5-8=Ph. The thixantphos-Pt-Br(Ph) complex as shown in the above contains thixantphos ligand and bromine ligand as the instant claim.
As such, the rejection of claim 1 as set forth in the office action mailed on 10/31/2025 is proper and stands.
The rejection for the remaining claims, 2 through 7, were either directly or indirectly dependent thereon stands.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
YUN . QIAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1732
/YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738