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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant's Response to Election/Restriction, filed January 14, 2026. As filed, claims 1-7 are pending in the instant application.
A complete response to this Office Action should include cancellation of non-elected subject matter or other appropriate action.
Priority
This application filed 03/14/2023 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63321567 , filed 03/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed in the instant application. Applicants are reminded of the duty to disclose anything believed to be material to the patentability of the instant application in accordance with 37 CPR 1.56.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 6-7, drawn to compounds of formula (I) and compositions thereof in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1,2 ,6, 7 will be examined on the merits 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, 6-7 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 1 recites “and combinations thereof” pertaining to the definitions of variables R1-R3, X, A of Markush formula (I). Claim 2 recites “and combinations thereof” pertaining to the definitions of variables R1-R3, X, A of Markush formula (II). The recitation in said claims for definition of variables of Markush formula “combination thereof” renders said claims and the dependent claims indefinite, because is unclear how the groups could be combined at one position of the chemical structure and satisfy valence requirement. See MPEP 2173.05(h). "When materials recited in a claim are so related as to constitute a proper Markush group, they may be recited in the conventional manner, or alternatively.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moghadam et al. Fuel (2017), 208, 214-222 (cited in PTO-892 attached herewith).
The article by Moghadam teaches on scheme 2 page 216 phosphonium ionic liquid with glyceryl moiety of structure shown below which corresponds to the instantly claimed compounds of formula I wherein variables R, r2, r3 are each alkyl group, X is succinic acid, and A is bromide.
Shown below is the compound disclosed by the cited prior art as displayed in Registry file: [AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
579
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the prior art teaches the limitations of instant claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 2, 6, 7 are rejected. Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA MURESAN whose telephone number is (571)-270-7587. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 am to 5:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANA Z MURESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights