Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 15 March 2024 lists the Houard et al article twice. One of the two citations has a line drawn through it and the other has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 2, the color of the atoms in the structures are so similar it cannot be determined which ones are N, which ones are O, which ones are C and which ones are H. The two graphs in figures 6-10 are not labeled. The shapes identifying each line in figure 11 are so small it cannot be determines which of the lines in the graph correspond with TbC6, TbC10 and TBC18.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification missing the required “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING”. See MPEP § 608.01(f) and 37 CFR 1.74.
The different graphs in figures 6-8 are not discussed in the specification. Page 16 simply states these figures show EPR spectrograms. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In this claim, the phrase “referred to as NIT” should be replaced by “(NIT)”. This is the preferred format in U.S. claim language when reciting a chemical compound and its abbreviation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6 and 8-13 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 4-6, 8 and 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9, and implicitly claims 10-12, define the metallogel as “including a gel comprising the nanotubes of claim 1”. It is unclear what is meant by “including a gel comprising the nanotubes of claim 1” since this is not conventional claim language used in the preambles of the claims in U.S. patents. Claim 10 which defines how the metallogel is produced and lines 12-13 on page 1 teaches a metallogel is a gel comprising coordination polymers, such as those that make up the nanotubes of claim 1. It is suggested to replace “including” with “consisting of” so that the claim is clear in its meaning and reflects what is taught in claim 10 and the specification.
The process of claim 13 is indefinite. First of all, there is no indication in the claim that the material dissolved in the solvent nor that the single-chain magnets obtained by a reaction between a metal salt and an organic ligand are the supramolecular nanotubes of claim 1.. The claim is also indefinite since it is unclear if “the mixture” in steps 2-4 refers “a mixture including single-chain magnets” or the solution formed by the mixture including single-chain magnets dissolved in the solvent. The specification and claim 10 teaches it is the solution that is deposited and cooled. The claim is indefinite since it is unclear what is present in the mixture which is dissolved in the solvent besides single-chain magnets since a mixture, by definition, is composed of more than one component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 14 are allowed.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4-6 and 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
There is no teaching or suggestion in the art of record of supramolecular nanotubes comprising at least 1 single-chain magnet including a coordination polymer comprising at least one linear macromolecular chain made up of repeating units of a metal ligand complex, wherein the ligand comprising at least one carbon chain having 9-27 carbon atoms. The closest art of record is the Houard et al article which teaches supramolecular nanotubes comprising at least 1 single-chain magnet including a coordination polymer comprising at least one linear macromolecular chain made up of repeating units of a metal ligand complex, wherein the ligand comprising at least one carbon chain having 6 carbon atoms. There is no teaching or suggestion in the art for the taught ligand to have more than 6 carbon atoms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
7/27/26
Prosecution Insights