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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “wherein the Michler’s base-type donor group represents the symmetric Michler’s base-type donor of general formula (Da)” is objected to grammatically. This objection can be overcome by changing the phrase to “wherein the Michler’s base-type donor group comprises the symmetric Michler’s base-type donor of general formula (Da)” which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-5 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.
In claims 3 and 5, the limitations of R3, R6 or R7 when they are “(CH2)n-O-(CH2)n” render the claim indefinite as each of these R groups are attached at one point of their respective ring systems and it is unclear how the substituent can have CH2 groups at both ends. Specifically, it is unclear where else in the molecule this is attaching as the R3 and R7 are attached to a carbon having a double bond on it, which means it would be impossible for the “(CH2)n-O-(CH2)n” to bond to that carbon to form a ring structure. As to R6 the remaining carbon atoms in the pi-group are shown as not being able to have a substituent, and therefore it is unclear where the “(CH2)n-O-(CH2)n” group it to bond if it is to form a ring. This rejection can be overcome by deleting this substituent, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (Sci. Chem. China, 2021, Vol. 64, pg. 263-273).
With regard to claims 1-3 and 5, the nonlinear chromophore compound M1 clearly anticipates the chromophore of claims 1-3 and compound M2 clearly anticipates the chromophore of claims 1, 2 and 5 (pg. 265, left column).
With regard to claims 7-10, given that these compounds are identical to that claimed, they will inherently possess the photostability claimed.
Claims 1, 2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (Dyes and Pigments, 2022, Vol. 205, pg. 110546-1 to 10).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, the nonlinear chromophore M1 on page 2 in Figure 1 clearly anticipates these claims.
With regard to claims 7-10, given that the compound is identical to that claimed, it will inherently possess the photostability claimed.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pecinovsky et al. (US 2021/0405504).
With regard to claims 1-4, the second nonlinear chromophore at [0047] in the left column of page 10 clearly anticipates these claims.
With regard to claims 7-10, given that the compound is identical to that claimed, it will inherently possess the photostability claimed.
Claims 1, 2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1/2) as being anticipated by Pecinovsky et al. (US 2023/0174852).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, the second nonlinear chromophore at [0036] clearly anticipates these claims.
With regard to claims 7-10, given that the compound is identical to that claimed, it will inherently possess the photostability claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecinovsky et al. (US 2023/0174852).
Pecinovsky et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach the same electron-accepting group as in claim 2 and that the pi-bridging group can have the structure of (Πc) [0024] and [0033].
PNG
media_image1.png
131
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Y group can be hydrogen and the A group can be a substituted C2-C4 alkyl group that is substituted by CF3, which is shown as a potential substituent in the first structure at [0035], z can be 1 and ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be 0 to 3 [0033]; however, they do not teach a chromophore having the pi-bridging group claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made a pi-bridging group of a substituted cyclohexene structure having a CF3 as claimed. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in forming such a structure as the structure and substituents are taught in the prior art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pecinovsky et al. (US 2021/0405504).
Pecinovsky et al. teach all of the limitations of claim 1 above. They also teach the same electron-accepting group as in claim 2 and that the pi-bridging group can have the structure of (Πc) [0036]. The Y group can be hydrogen and the A group can be an unsubstituted C2-C4 alkyl group, z can be 1 and ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be 0 to 3 [0036]; however, they do not teach a chromophore having the pi-bridging group claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have made a pi-bridging group of an unsubstituted cyclopentene structure. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in forming such a structure as the structure and substituents are taught in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Examiner notes that Luo et al. (WO 2023/174071) is cumulative to the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARD T HIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Gerard Higgins/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights