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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application file. Election/Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s FILLIN "Pluralize the word -Claim- if necessary and insert claim number(s) for group." 1-11 , drawn to FILLIN "Describe the invention represented by this group." a poly(pyridyl)borate ligand defined by Formula I , classified in FILLIN "Insert USPC class and subclass if classified using United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified using Cooperative Patent Classification." C07F 5/027 . II. Claim s FILLIN "Pluralize the word -Claim- if necessary and insert claim number(s) for group." 12-19 , drawn to FILLIN "Describe the invention represented by this group." a metal complex , classified in FILLIN "Insert USPC class and subclass if classified using United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified using Cooperative Patent Classification." C07F 1/00 . FILLIN "Insert the appropriate roman numeral, e.g., --V--, --VI--, etc." III . Claim s FILLIN "Pluralize the word -Claim- if necessary and insert claim number(s) for group." 20 , drawn to FILLIN "Describe the invention represented by this group." a method of preparing a poly(pyridyl)borate ligand , classified in FILLIN "Insert USPC class and subclass if classified using United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified using Cooperative Patent Classification." B01J 31/18 . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are directed to related products . The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed FILLIN "Insert a reason for the restriction and insert one of form paragraphs 8.21.01-8.21.03." \* MERGEFORMAT are not of the same design (metal complex does not read on poly(pyridyl)borate ligand and vice versa), do not overlap in scope (claims to the poly(pyridyl)borate ligand do not anticipate or render obvious a metal complex), and the inventions are not obvious variants (one of ordinary skill would not envision a metal complex in view of a poly(pyridyl)borate ligand . Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants. Inventions I and III are unrelated . Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT are unrelated as the method of claim 20 can produce a materially different poly(pyridyl)borate ligand than the poly(pyridyl)borate ligand of formula I of instant claim 1 . Inventions I I and III are unrelated . Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the method of Invention III does not produce a product of Invention II, and the product of Invention II cannot be made by the process of Invention III. One of ordinary skill would not look to the process of Invention III to produce a product of Invention III. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim number(s)." 1-20 are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species: FILLIN "Clearly identify the species and/or grouping(s) of patentably indistinct species from which an election is to be made." a compound defined by formula I or a metal complex comprising the compound of Formula I and a transition metal . The species are independent or distinct because FILLIN "Insert the reason(s) why the species or groupings of species as disclosed are independent or distinct." \* MERGEFORMAT of the mutually exclusive characteristics for each potential functional group . In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: FILLIN "Insert the applicable reason(s) why there is a search and/or examination burden. See the examiner note for more information." The inventions require different fields of search (searching different groups/subgroups as well as employing different search strategies). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election. The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species. Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. During a telephone conversation with FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT Alexander Gabanic on FILLIN "Enter date of the conversation" \* MERGEFORMAT 03/10/2026 a provisional election was made FILLIN "Enter either -- with -- or -- without" \* MERGEFORMAT without traverse to prosecute the invention of FILLIN "Enter elected group or species" \* MERGEFORMAT A poly(pyridyl )borate ligand defined by Formula I as well as a species of Formula I corresponding to the compound of Formula III of instant claim 7 where R2 is 4-tert-butylphenyl , claim s FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1-3 and 7-9 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s FILLIN "Enter list of non-elected claims" \* MERGEFORMAT 4-6 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. As per MPEP 803.02, the examiner will determine whether the entire scope of the claims is patentable. Applicants' elected species is not allowable over the prior art as indicated in the rejection under 35 U.S.C 10 2(a)(1) . As the Applicant’s elected species has been found not allowable, the Markush-type claims have been rejected and claims to the nonelected invention held withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-3 and 7-9 have been examined to the extent that they embrace and are readable on the elected embodiment and the above identified nonelected species. Claims 1-3 and 7-9 have been found to be not allowable over the prior art. Claims 4-6 and 10-20 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner under 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Priority The following continuity data is acknowledged in the present application file: Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT of the use of legal phraseology ("disclosed herein" and "said poly(pyridyl)borate ligands") . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. 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 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Vanga et al. ( Vanga, Mukundam , Alvaro Muñoz-Castro, and HV Rasika Dias. "Fluorinated tris (pyridyl) borate ligand support on coinage metals." Dalton Transactions 51.4 (2022): 1308-1312. ) . Vanga disclose s the synthesis of tris(2-pyridyl)borate ligands with substituents at the 6-positions of the pyridine rings (see page 1308, right column and page 1311, left column) . Vanga discloses the instant elected species , [ t - BuPhB (6-(CF 3 ) Py ) 3 ] − ligand , as well as methods of producing said ligand (see Fig. 1 for compound 1 as well as page 1309, left column) . The [ t - BuPhB (6-(CF 3 ) Py ) 3 ] − ligand corresponds to a compound of formula I where R1 is 2 -(trifluoromethyl)pyridine , R2 is 4-tert-butylphenyl and R3 is hydrogen. The [ t - BuPhB (6-(CF 3 ) Py ) 3 ] − ligand is also encompassed by a compound of instant claims 2-3 and formula III of instant claims 7-9. Applicant may provide a declaration or affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130(a) to establish the contribution to the relevant subject matter in the prior art by inventors of the instant application to overcome this rejection. See MPEP 717.01(a)(1) which states: Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an "unequivocal" statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that he/she (or some specific combination of named joint inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982). The Vanga reference, published December 27, 2021, is available as prior art under 102(a)(1) as there is an additional inventive entity in the prior art reference and the publication date is before the effective filing date of the instant application. Conclusion Claims 1-20 are pending . Claims 4-6 and 10-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT QUINCY A MCKOY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 6:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jeffrey Murray can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5541 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /QUINCY A. MCKOY/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1626 /KAMAL A SAEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626