DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 12/11/25:
claims 1-9 are presently pending
claims 3-9 are withdrawn
the 102/103 rejection of claims 1-2 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection are presented herein
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 and 2 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.
As to claim 1, the claim has been amended so as to be directed towards a pickling solution that comprises “an ionic liquid comprising” various cations (see claim 1 at lines 3-5); however, the claim appears to list the corresponding anions as a part of the solution but separate from the ionic liquid (see claim 1 at lines 6-8). This is in contrast to the disclosure in the specification which discloses an ionic liquid as being a cation and anion collectively (see e.g. Specification at ¶16-¶22). As such, the claim in setting forth the three components of the pickling solution would seem to contradict the disclosure of the specification as to what constitutes an ionic liquid.
Please note, for purposes of claim interpretation the examiner will be treating the ionic liquid as including both at least one of the cations and at least one of the anions with the pickling solution additionally comprising the third component of claim 1 lines 9-11.
As to claim 2, while the preamble of claim 1 has been amended to recite a pickling solution, claim 2 is still directed towards an ionic liquid. Additionally, as written, claim 2 requires both the cation and anion as recited and so would appear to contradict claim 1 as set forth above which attempts to define the ionic liquid just in terms of the cation.
However, claim 2 would appear to be intended to further limit the pickling solution as amended and so will not be treated as still being directed towards the ionic liquid. As written though, the preamble is unclear as to whether an ionic liquid is being claimed, or the pickling solution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “On the use of Imidazolium and Ammonium-based Ionic Liquids as Green Solvents for the selective recovery of Zn(II), Cd(II), Cu(II) and Fe(III) from Hydrochloride Aqueous Solutions” by Rios et al., Sep. Purif. Technol. 97, pages 150-157 (2012) (hereinafter referred to as “RIOS”).
Regarding claim 1, RIOS teaches a solution (see RIOS at Abstract teaching a mixture of components including an ionic liquid “IL” including a cation and anion as claimed with HCl which would be capable of use as a pickling solution to some degree as claimed), comprising:
an ionic liquid comprising at least one of a cation as claimed and at least one anion as claimed (see RIOS at Abstract and section 3.1 on pages 151-152, first five paragraphs teaching an ionic liquids being mixed with a 1M HCl solution with the IL being [MTOA+][Cl-]); and
a HCl solution having a concentration of 1M or less (see RIOS at section 3.1 on pages 151-152, second paragraph teaching the ILs being mixed with a 1M HCl solution).
Regarding claim 2, RIOS teaches the solution in which the ionic liquid is option (b), i.e. [MTOA+][Cl-] or methyltrioctylammonium chloride (see RIOS at Abstract and rejection of claim 1 setting forth the IL being [MTOA+][Cl-] as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794