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 1-16 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. After further review of the case, it is deemed necessary to withdraw the Restriction Requirement dated 02/23/2026.
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 1-7 and 11-16 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:
a. Claim 1 and claims dependent thereon are rejected because the phrase “A- represents an anion” is indefinite. What is covered and what is not? How can one tell if a given anion is not embraced by the claim? What is the test? In order to overcome this rejection, it is recommended that applicants recite specific anions as it was done in claims 8-10.
b. Claims 11-12 are rejected because the phrase “fluorophore solid or liquid material” is not clear. What makes the compounds “a fluorophore solid or liquid material”? What ingredients are added to make it a fluorophore solid or liquid material? How are said claims different from claim 1? The claims failed to narrow down the claim limitation of claim 1. Note that applicants simply label the compounds of claims 11-12 as “a fluorophore solid or liquid material”. It appears that claims 11-12 are duplicates of claim 1 since there is no additional claim limitation that distinguish between claim 1 and claims 11-12.
c. In claims 13-15, the phrase, “A use of a compound” is indefinite. Literally, it simply states an intention, which is a mental state, not a patentable limitation. Hence the claim is improperly dependent, as it does not further limit the claim on which it depends. That is how the claim has been examined. Alternatively, this may be intended as a method of use claim, in which case, the claim would be garbled, as it begins as a compound claim, and ends as a method claim. Moreover, as it does not contain any actual step, it would not be a proper process claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Objection
6. Claims 8-10 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 01/18/2024 has been acknowledged. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kahsay Habte Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)272-0667. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:00 PM.
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, JEFFREY MURRAY can be reached on 571-272-9023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kahsay Habte/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
May 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights