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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 and 16 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation limitation “substrate” is the plain meaning thereof which can refer to at least two distinct structures including a base material on which a stack, layer or coating is generally applied or “a molecule that an enzyme acts upon to catalyze a chemical reaction.” Since the Applicant has not provided an explicit definition of the term, any structure or composition in the prior art which meets the aforementioned definitions would read on the present claim limitations. A luminescent substrate as claimed would therefore refer to a substrate structure or composition that emits light or is used in a device which emits light according to the definition of the term “substrate” above.
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 7 and 11 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.
Claim 7 contains the limitation “chemically acceptable”. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are as “chemically acceptable” does not have a commonly accepted meaning in the art and can refer to different physical or chemical properties including stability, solubility, heat resistance etc… What would make a compound “acceptable” chemically or not acceptable is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 contains the term “coexisting”. It is unclear what would constitute making the transition metal compound and vanadium “coexist” or what active step would be involved. It should be noted under MPEP 2173.05(q) a claim to a process that does not set for any steps involved generally raises issues of indefiniteness. Does simply synthesizing the two materials satisfy the requirement of “coexisting” or do the compounds have to be in the vicinity or in a mixture of one another?
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.
Claims 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokose et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0309787).
Regarding claims 1-2, Yokose et al. discloses a method for determining the sensitivity to a CDK4/6 inhibitor which includes bring a luminescent substrate in contact with a buffer solution. (Abstract, par. [0040]-[0041] and [0050]-[0052]). The buffer solution may further include orthovanadic acid (i.e. a vanadium compound). (par. [0190]-[0195]).
Regarding claims 3-6, orthovanadic acid is a compound which meets the structure of Formula(1) where M1 and M2 = hydrogen, n =2 and m = 0, and Z-1 is vanadium.
Regarding claim 7, Yokose et al. discloses that the substrate may be luminol or its derivatives. (par. [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “for stabilizing the luminescent substrate” is a statement of intended use which does not impart any additional structural or compositional features to the claim. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Given that the orthovanadic acid in the buffer solutions disclosed in Yokose et al. is as presently claimed, it is clear that it would be capable would be capable of performing the intended use of stabilizing the luminescent substrate as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the concentration of orthovanadic acid in the buffer solution is 1mM (par. [0195]) which lies within the presently claimed range in a specific example. (Example 1). As such, the claimed range is disclosed with sufficient specificity as to anticipate the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 10, Yokose et al. discloses that the pH of the buffer solution and substrate should lie in the range of 6-8 (par. [0033]) which lies within the broader claimed range and therefore anticipates the range.
Regarding claims 11-13, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 1-6 above and due to the teachings in Yokose et al. that the vanadium compound and the luminol are coexisting in solution by mixing the materials together. (Abstract, par. [0040]-[0041] and [0050]-[0052]).
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.
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 1-2, 8, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,765,348).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 16, Aziz et al. teaches an electroluminescent substrate including a light emitting region comprising an organic luminescent material. (Abstract, Fig. 2, element 28, col. 9, line 52- col. 10, line 4). Aziz et al. teaches that the electroluminescent material includes a plurality of thermal protective elements among which can be selected a vanadium containing metallic material (i.e. a transition metal compound/vanadium compound). (col. 11, lines 18-41)
Regarding claim 8, since the vanadium compound is a thermal protective material in a layer in proximity with the electroluminescent substrate, it would act as a material stabilizing the substrate from heat.
Regarding claims 11, the vanadium compound layer and the electroluminescent substrate layer are provided such that they coexist. (Abstract, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 07/20/2026
Prosecution Insights