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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-7 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. Dependent claim 3, which is directly dependent on dependent claim 2 and also indirectly dependent on independent claim 1, is indefinite in regards the limitation of: “ the corrosion inhibitor (B) according to claim 2 ”, because corrosion inhibitor (B) lacks antecedent basis in both dependent claim 2 and independent claim 1. Does Applicant actually mean to claim the corrosion inhibitor of general formula (B1) instead of (B)? Claims 4-7 are also being rejected here because they are all directly dependent on indefinite dependent claim 3. Dependent claim 7 is itself further indefinite in that it sets forth a mass ratio of the compound represented by the general formula (B1) to the content of the ionic liquid (A), but the problem is that the compound represented by the general formula (B1) is itself an ionic liquid which thus renders said mass ratio very confusing. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Binnemans et al. WO 2007/147222 A2 . Binnemans et al. discloses novel ionic liquids and methods of making. Binnemans et al. discloses novel ionic liquids of formula IV (i.e. N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide , abbreviated as [MHbetPyr][Tf 2 N] ) and formula V (i.e. N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide , abbreviated as [M E HbetPyr][Tf 2 N]) ). Said ionic liquids of formula IV and formula V, are employed in Examples 20 and 21 respectfully , to under go a r eaction with LiOH or NaOH or KOH or RbOH or CsOH to form their corresponding alkali metal salts. Said alkali metal salts of N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide and N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide , fall directly within Applicant’s General Formula (B1) of independent claim 1, thus being directly anticipated by Binnemans et al . ’s disclosure. Applicant’s dependent claim 2 is also anticipated over Examples 20 and 21 because said alkali metal salts of N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide and N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide , have the inherent property of being able to function as corrosion inhibitors even though said property does not seem to be explicitly stated within Binnemans et al. ’s disclosure. Applicant’s dependent claim 3 is also anticipated over Examples 20 and 21 because said alkali metal salts of N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide and N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide , are themselves ionic liquids and ionic liquids are known to function as lubricants, thus meeting the limitation of the claim requiring an ionic liquid (A). Applicant’s dependent claim 6 is also anticipated over Examples 20 and 21 due to the fact that Applicant uses the wording of “ a content of the compound represented by the general formula (B1) . . . ”. Please note that t he use of the phrase : “ a content ” means that which follows is given by way of illustration and not by way of limitation. If Applicant actually wants to limit the concentration range of the compound represented by the general formula (B1) to the range set forth in the claim , Applicant will need to replace the article “ a ” by the word -- the --. Applicant’s dependent claim 7 is also anticipated over Examples 20 and 21 due to the fact that Applicant uses the wording of “ a ratio of the content of the compound represented by the general formula (B1) . . . ”. Please note that the use of the phrase: “ a content ” means that which follows is given by way of illustration and not by way of limitation. If Applicant actually wants to limit the ratio of the content of the compound represented by the general formula (B1) to the ratio set forth in the claim , Applicant will need to replace the article “ a ” by the word -- the --. Claims Free Of Any Prior- A rt Rejections Claims 4-5 are deemed to be free of any prior-art rejections for the following reasons: While Binnemans et al. WO 2007/147222 A2 discloses different types of ionic fluid species falling within their formulas (I)-(III) and (VI)-(XI), none of these ionic fluid species would fall within Applicant’s ionic liquid (A) comprising the cation s of General Formula (A1), as set forth in dependent claim 4 or the cations of General Formula s (A 2 ) and (A3) , as set forth in dependent claim 5. I onic liquids having cations of General Formula (A1), as set forth in Applicant’s dependent claim 4 and the cations of General Formulas (A2) and (A3), as set forth in dependent claim 5 are known in the art, see Formula (II) in Schmidt-Amelunxen et al. U.S. Patent Application No.: 2011/0092399 A1 . Nevertheless, there is an extreme lack of motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art to actually combine Binnemans et al. WO 2007/147222 A2 alkali metal salts of N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide and N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide , with Schmidt-Amelunxen et al. ’s ionic fluids of Formula (II) , because Binnemans et al. ’s said alkali metal salts resulted from the process of using N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide and N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ionic liquids, to react with and thus to extract, alkali metal cations from an aqueous solution. There is just no motivation to combine Binnemans et al.’s said reaction products (i.e. alkali metal salts of N-carboxymethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide and N-carboxyethyl-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide ) , with Schmidt-Amelunxen et al.’s ionic fluids of Formula (II) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1117 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7026 . 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. /JOSEPH D ANTHONY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764