DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission on 06/29/2026 has been entered. Upon entering the submission, claims 6-7, and 20-21 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 22-23 are cancelled. Claims 6-7, 12-21, and 24-25 are pending. Claims 12-21 and 24-25 remain withdrawn. Claims 6, and 7 are under examination on the merits.
Response to RCE Submission
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 overcomes the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Applicant amended claim 5 by further limiting “at least one of R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, and R15 is a non-fluorinated linear or branched alkyl group containing 6-30 carbon atoms”, and Y+ is an ammonium species of formula (2)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: R3, R4, and R5 are independently selected from hydrocarbon groups containing 4-30 carbon atoms.” Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection because the previously cited references do not teach and/or suggested the claimed ionic liquid composition as being amended. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Following new rejection are necessitated by the new amendment filed 05/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New)
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No.2,341,614 (“the `614 patent”) to Hentrich et al. in view of Gmar et al., Molecules, (2020), v.25, p.2584 (1-14).
Applicant’s claim 6 is drawn to an ionic liquid composition having the formula (la)
PNG
media_image2.png
208
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein: R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, and R15 are independently selected from H atom and non-fluorinated hydrocarbon groups having 1-30 carbon atoms with optional presence of a single -O-linker, wherein at least one of R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, and R15 is a non-fluorinated linear or branched alkyl group containing 6-30 carbon atoms; and Y+ is an ammonium species of formula (2)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: R3, R4, and R5 are independently selected from hydrocarbon groups containing 4-30 carbon atoms.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `614 patent (claims 1-3) discloses a capillary active substance (composition) of sodium salts of 4,4’-di-sec.octyl-benzene-disulfimide and 4,4’-di-sec.dodecyl-benzene-disulfimide, and alkali salts thereof.
Gmar et al. discloses amines in organophosphorus compounds (as ammonium salts) are used in ionic liquids for the application to solvent extraction, wherein the amines are tri-2-ethylhexylamine (TEHA), triisooctylamine (TIOA), and tri-n-octylamine (TOA). See Table 1 at p.2584 (3 of 14).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The differences between the claimed compositions (salts) of the Formula (1a) and the compositions of the `614 patent is the prior art does not teach the ammonium cation Y+ of the salts of the Formula (1a). Instead, the `614 patent teaches the cation of the salt is a sodium cation or forming sodium salts, or alkali salts thereof.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, instantly claimed compositions would have been obvious over the compositions of the `614 patent because the difference between alkali salts and ammonium salts having the ammonium cation Y+ is taught and/or suggested by Gmar et al. Specifically, Gmar et al. teaches the cations of protonated tertiary amine are used in preparing the ammonium salts in ionic liquids for the application to solvent extraction. Since the `614 patent teaches the alkali salts of 4,4’-di-sec.octyl-benzene-disulfimide and 4,4’-di-sec.dodecyl-benzene-disulfimide are active capillary substances (compositions), one ordinary skilled in the art would have known that said active capillary substances (compositions) can be used for the application to solvent extraction. Therefore, the two references are drawn to an analogous art, and combinable toward the claimed subject matters. Therefore, the combined references would have rendered claim 6 obvious.
In terms of claim 7, wherein at least two of R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, and R15 are non-fluorinated hydrocarbon groups containing 6-30 carbon atoms, the `614 patent teaches the salt contains 4,4’-di-sec.octyl-benzene-disulfimide or 4,4’-di-sec.dodecyl-benzene-disulfimide, wherein two of R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, and R15 are either C8-alkyl or C12-alkyl.
Conclusions
The ionic liquid composition of
PNG
media_image3.png
161
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is allowable.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected.
Claims 12-21 and 24-25 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status 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).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights