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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-7, 9-13 and 14-20, a comma should be provided after the preamble, e.g. “the metallopolymer of claim 1 wherein” should read “The metallopolymer of claim 1, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites the limitation of “the redox electrode selectively binds to a target anion in the mixture”. This limitation is previously introduced in line 9 of claim 14. Therefore, claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karagollu et al. (“Phosphate ion sensors based on triazole connected ferrocene moieties”, Sens. Actuators B, 2014).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 6, Karagollu discloses a metallopolymer comprising formula I, as P(FcTS), wherein M is Fe, R1 is H, X is H (see e.g. Scheme 2, Fc-functionalized chain of polymer P3 as shown below); n is about 22 (see e.g. Table 1 and Scheme 2, based on the increase of Mn from 13100 to 17700 from P2 to P3, with each added ethynylferrocene accounting for ~210.057 g/mol); and wherein the metallopolymer is redox active (see e.g. Page 793, Col. 2, paragraph starting “The cyclic”, lines 1-8, redox reactions of the ferrocene in P3).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karagollu in view of Lim et al. (“Halogen bonding-enhanced electrochemical halide anion sensing by redox-active ferrocene receptors”, Chem. Commun., 2015).
Regarding claim 3, Karagollu teaches all the elements of the metallopolymer of claim 1 as stated above. Karagollu does not teach X being iodide or bromide, but does teach the metallopolymer being tested for electrochemical binding and recognition quality toward anions including Br- and Cl- (see e.g. Page 793, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5).
Lim teaches a redox active ferrocene receptor for anion electrochemical sensing (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a hydrogen bonded to a triazole of the receptor is replaced with an iodide (see e.g. Fig. 1, XB structures with X=I as opposed to HB structures with X=H; Page 14640, Col. 2, lines 9-14), this replacement enhancing the recognition and sensitivity of electrochemical sensing towards halides such as chloride and bromide (see e.g. Page 14643, Col. 1, paragraph starting “In conclusion”, lines 1-8), which can be beneficial to aspects of medicine, industrial processes and environmental analyses (see e.g. Page 14640, Col. 1, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metallopolymer of Karagollu to have X be iodide instead of the hydrogen as taught by Lim to enhance the recognition and sensitivity of electrochemical sensing with the metallopolymer towards halides such as chloride and bromide, which can be beneficial to aspects of medicine, industrial processes and environmental analyses.
Regarding claim 5, Karagollu teaches all the elements of the metallopolymer of claim 1 as stated above. Karagollu further teaches n being about 22 (see e.g. Table 1 and Scheme 2, based on the increase of Mn from 13100 to 17700 from P2 to P3, with each added ethynylferrocene accounting for ~210.057 g/mol).
Karagollu does not teach the metallopolymer being P(FcTS-I), instead teaching it comprising P(FcTS) without the iodide (see e.g. Scheme 2, Fc-functionalized chain of polymer P3 as shown above). Karagollu does however teach the metallopolymer being tested for electrochemical binding and recognition quality toward anions including Br- and Cl- (see e.g. Page 793, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5).
Lim teaches a redox active ferrocene receptor for anion electrochemical sensing (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a hydrogen bonded to a triazole of the receptor is replaced with an iodide (see e.g. Fig. 1, XB structures with X=I as opposed to HB structures with X=H; Page 14640, Col. 2, lines 9-14), this replacement enhancing the recognition and sensitivity of electrochemical sensing towards halides such as chloride and bromide (see e.g. Page 14643, Col. 1, paragraph starting “In conclusion”, lines 1-8), which can be beneficial to aspects of medicine, industrial processes and environmental analyses (see e.g. Page 14640, Col. 1, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metallopolymer of Karagollu to have X be iodide instead of the hydrogen, and thus form P(FcTS-I) as taught by Lim to enhance the recognition and sensitivity of electrochemical sensing with the metallopolymer towards halides such as chloride and bromide, which can be beneficial to aspects of medicine, industrial processes and environmental analyses.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karagollu.
Regarding claim 7, Karagollu teaches n being about 22 (see e.g. Table 1 and Scheme 2, based on the increase of Mn from 13100 to 17700 from P2 to P3, with each added ethynylferrocene accounting for ~210.057 g/mol), which very close to, only 3 less than, the lower end of the claimed range of “about 25 to about 250”. Page 8, lines 9-13, of the instant specification further states that, for integer ranges, the term “about” can include one or two integers greater than or less than the ends of the range.
MPEP § 2144.05 I states “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (U.S. 2017/0113951) in view of Karagollu, and further in view of Vapnik et al. (“Redox-copolymers for the recovery of rare earth elements by electrochemically regenerated ion-exchange”, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2021).
Regarding claim 8, Su teaches a redox electrode (see e.g. Paragraph 0002, lines 4-6, redox-functionalized electrode) comprising a metallopolymer (see e.g. Paragraph 0151, lines 1-6 and last 5 lines, redox species of first electrode comprising organometallic polymer) and a carbon allotrope (see e.g. Paragraph 0175, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0304, dispersion of carbon nanotubes of first electrode).
Su does not explicitly teach the metallopolymer comprising that of claim 1, but does teach it being a redox-active metallopolymer containing ferrocene (see e.g. Paragraph 0151, last 5 lines, and Paragraph 0154), as well as the desire for the metallopolymer to be selective toward target ions such as phosphates (see e.g. Paragraph 0155, and Paragraph 0195, lines 11-17).
Karagollu teaches a metallopolymer comprising formula I, as P(FcTS), wherein M is Fe, R1 is H, X is H (see e.g. Scheme 2, Fc-functionalized chain of polymer P3 as shown below); n is about 22 (see e.g. Table 1 and Scheme 2, based on the increase of Mn from 13100 to 17700 from P2 to P3, with each added ethynylferrocene accounting for ~210.057 g/mol); and wherein the metallopolymer is redox active (see e.g. Page 793, Col. 2, paragraph starting “The cyclic”, lines 1-8, redox reactions of the ferrocene in P3), the metallopolymer being selective towards phosphate ions (see e.g. Page 796, Col. 1, lines 6-10).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metallopolymer of Su to comprise the metallopolymer of Karagollu as a particular suitable ferrocene-containing redox-active metallopolymer with selectivity toward phosphate ions. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Su does not explicitly teach the electrode comprising a crosslinker, but does teach the desire to identify chemical cross-linking strategies for the electrode (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0590, lines 10-14).
Vapnik teaches an electrode comprising a redox active ferrocene-containing polymer (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a crosslinker is added with the polymer in the electrode to prevent dissolution of the polymer and provide a more stable electrode (see e.g. Page 20072, Col. 1, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode of modified Su to comprise a crosslinker with the metallopolymer as taught by Vapnik to prevent dissolution of the polymer and provide a more stable electrode.
Regarding claim 9, modified Su teaches the metallopolymer and the carbon allotrope having a mass ratio of 0.5:1 or 1:1 (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0304, lines 12-20, 1:1 and 1:2 mass ratios of PVF/CNT).
Regarding claim 10, modified Su teaches the carbon allotrope being a carbon nanotube (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0175, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0304, dispersion of carbon nanotubes of first electrode).
Regarding claim 11, Su as modified by Vapnik teaches the crosslinker being 1,3-benzenedisulfonyl azide (see e.g. Vapnik Page 20072, Col. 1, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, Su as modified by Vapnik teaches the crosslinker being inserted via a nitrene into C-H bonds of the metallopolymer and the metallopolymer being crosslinked (see e.g. Vapnik Page 20072, Col. 1, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 13, Su as modified by Vapnik teaches the crosslinker having a wt% of 0.05 to 0.2 wt% in relation to the metallopolymer (see e.g. Vapnik Page 20072, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 5-9), which falls within the ±5% limits of “about 5% to about 20%” as described in Page 8, lines 9-12, of the instant specification, or is at least close (see MPEP § 2144.05 I as cited above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Su teaches an electrochemical method for separating anions (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0002, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0005, lines 1-5, methods of using electrochemical device for separation of target ions, e.g. anions), comprising:
contacting a solution comprising a solvent, a mixture of anions, and a redox electrode according to claim 8 (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0005, lines 2-6, Paragraph 0191, lines 1-8, Paragraph 0192, lines 1-13, and Paragraph 0197, redox-functionalized first electrode in contact with fluid source, i.e. solvent, comprising mixture of ions including the target anions and competing non-target anions; the electrode modified by Karagollu and Vapnik as stated above);
applying a voltage potential to the redox electrode wherein the voltage potential is applied under suitable conditions for voltammetry (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0005, lines 5-7, Paragraph 0192, lines 4-6, and Paragraph 0306, lines 20-38, electric potential applied to first electrode under conditions suitable for cyclic voltammetry); and
separating from the mixture a target anion (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0005, lines 5-8, and Paragraph 0192, lines 9-13);
wherein the redox electrode selectively binds to a target anion in the mixture thereby separating the target anion from the mixture (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0005, lines 8-17, and Paragraph 0192, lines 5-13, ferrocene redox species on first electrode selectively binds/captures target anion to separate it from the other non-target ions in the fluid source).
Regarding claim 15, modified Su teaches the applied voltage potential being sufficient to oxidize the metallopolymer of the redox electrode (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0005, lines 13-15, and Paragraph 0192, lines 5-7, ferrocene redox species of first electrode oxidized upon application of electric potential).
Regarding claim 16, Su as modified by Karagollu teaches the target anion being an oxyanion (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0195, lines 3-7 and 12-17, target anion including phosphates and phosphonates; see e.g. Karagollu Page 796, Col. 1, lines 6-10, P3 selective toward phosphate anions).
Regarding claim 17, Su as modified by Karagollu teaches the target anion being PhHPO3- (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0195, lines 3-7 and 12-17, target anion including phosphates and phosphonates; see e.g. Karagollu Page 796, Col. 1, lines 6-10, P3 selective toward phosphate anions).
Regarding claim 18, modified Su teaches the redox electrode selectively binding to a target anion in the mixture (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0005, lines 8-17, and Paragraph 0192, lines 5-13, ferrocene redox species on first electrode selectively binds/captures target anion).
Regarding claim 19, Su as modified by Karagollu teaches he metallopolymer of the redox electrode being P(FcTS) (see e.g. Karagollu Scheme 2, Fc-functionalized chain of polymer P3 as shown above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Su teaches the redox electrode selectively binding to a target anion via hydrogen bonding to P(FcTS) when Fc is oxidized to Fc+ (see e.g. Su Paragraph 0139, lines 1-13, selective interaction of functionalized electrode towards target anions by hydrogen bonding when ferrocene is oxidized).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuhlmann (“Polymer Analogous Reactions on Redox-Active and Conjugated Polymers for Electronic Applications”) discloses a crosslinked polymer film ferrocene functionalized copolymer with formula I, wherein M is Fe, R1 is H, and X is H.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights