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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 12 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 December 2025.
Applicant’s request for a rejoinder under MPEP §821.04 is acknowledged. Upon finding any of the elected product claims allowable, non-elected claims which require all the limitations of the allowable product will be considered for rejoinder.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 25 April 2023 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one additive independently selected from sodium dihydrogenphosphate or potassium hydroxide, an additional substance and an antifoam.” Because the claim already permits selection of one or more additives from the list, the extra “or” in the middle of the claim should be removed as it only adds confusion to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
It is further noted the presence of the phrase “additional substance” in this list, and the lack of limiting definition in the specification (e.g., [0047] does not limit the additional substance), is interpreted as merely requiring any substance in addition to potassium superoxide, an ionic liquid, water, and a further salt or antifreeze in the composition of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…is independently selected from alkyl, in particular methyl, ethyl, propyl or butyl…”. The phrase “in particular” here is interpreted as limiting the claim to the particular alkyl groups listed in the claim, or the also recited benzyl and aryl groups.
Claims 4 and 5 recite further limitations on a series of the alternative limitations recited in claim 3. The limitations of claims 4 and 5 are interpreted as requiring the assigned species only when such cations and anions are present in the composition of claim 3. For example, claim 4 is interpreted as requiring the substituted ammonium ion to be a tetraalkylammonium ion only when an ammonium ion is present in the composition of claim 3, and not as requiring the presence of a tetraalkylammonium ion if the limitations of claim 3 are met with a phosphonium ion, or any of the other cations recited in claim 3. Similarly, claim 5 is interpreted as limiting the substituents on the N-substituted ions that are present in the composition of claim 3, and not as separately requiring all the listed ions be present in the composition.
Claims 8-11 are interpreted similarly to claims 4 and 5: these claims only further limit the components of the compositions according to claim 1 that are present in said composition, as they do not specifically require the elements recited in the claim to be present.
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 1-16 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 is drawn to “a composition” but based on the specification, [0013] and [0050], claim 1 can also be interpreted as reciting three separate compositions (an oxygen source, an ionic liquid, and a water-containing solution or mixture), or two separate compositions (an oxygen source/ionic liquid mixture and a water-containing solution or mixture), which are not yet in contact with one another, and therefore do not form a single composition. It is therefore unclear what exactly is being claimed in claim 1, and the claim is rejected.
Claims 2-16 depend upon claim 1 without resolving the indefiniteness and are likewise rejected.
Claim 4 recites a list of species for the possible cations and anions recited in claim 3, but does not use any conjunction to conclude the list. It is therefore indefinite whether the composition must contain all of the ions listed in claim 4, or just one of them. For the purposes of further examination, claim 4 will be interpreted as requiring just one of the conditions recited in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the antifoam" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no antifoam is referenced in the claim or in claim 12 upon which claim 16 depends. For the purposes of further examination, claim 16 will be interpreted as if it depends upon claim 14, which does recite an antifoam, instead of claim 12.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 requires that the ionic liquid of claim 1 be a liquid in a temperature range of from -60 °C to +150 °C. Claim 7 requires that the ionic liquid be a liquid over the narrower, included range of from -40 °C to +110 °C. The narrower range of claim 7 is actually less restrictive than the range recited in claim 6: there is no ionic liquid that will be a liquid over the full range of -60°C to +150°C required by claim 6 and not a be a liquid over the narrower range of -40°C to +110°C required by claim 7, and therefore claim 7 fails to further limit claim 6. Additionally, an ionic liquid that is only a liquid over the range of -50°C to +120°C will meet the limitations of claim 7 without meeting the limitations of claim 6.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallfass et al. (US 2019/0016597 A1) in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Kallfass teaches a composition for generating oxygen, comprising: an oxygen source and an ionic liquid ([0010]), where the ionic liquid consists of one cation and one anion ([0029]).
Kallfass further teaches that their oxygen source (peroxides such as hydrogen peroxide) could be decomposed to oxygen in ionic liquids by contact with metals salts similar to in aqueous solution, and could yield breathable oxygen at low-temperatures ([0132]). Kallfass additionally teaches that exemplary ionic liquids are those that are liquid from -70 °C to +150 °C ([0135]), suggesting that operating in this temperature range is desirable. Kallfass further notes that that it is unfortunate that water freezes at 0 °C, preventing the production of O2 in water below this temperature ([0007]), again suggesting that operating below 0 °C is desired.
Kallfass does not teach the oxygen source being potassium superoxide, nor does Kallfass teach a water-containing solution or a water containing mixture as part of the composition.
However, Xu teaches an oxygen generator where oxygen is produced from the mixing potassium superoxide and water (the potassium superoxide agent and water can mix and react in the mixing reaction oxygen generator … to generate oxygen, thereby replenishing the oxygen content of the ambient air; [n0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the hydrogen peroxide oxygen source of Kallfass with a potassium superoxide, and to replace the catalyst used by Kallfass with decomposition inducing water, as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because potassium superoxide also generates potassium hydroxide in its reaction with water, which can serve to absorb CO2, as taught by Xu ([n0003]).
Furthermore, like Kallfass, Ross also teaches an apparatus and process for generating oxygen from peroxides and a catalyst ([0010] and [0032]). Ross further teaches that the additives, including salts and antifreeze, can be added to the water of an oxygen-generator to influence the temperature ([0026]) and to depress the freezing point of water by 20 °C compared with the freezing point of water (to -5 °F, which is -20 °C; [0027]). Ross further teaches that one such salt that can cause this freezing point depression is lithium chloride ([0027]), an alkali metal chloride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a water-containing solution to generate the oxygen in the method of modified Kallfass, where the water-containing solution contains a given amount of an alkali metal chloride and/or antifreeze to effectively lower the freezing point of the water-containing solution, including by 20 °C compared with a freezing point of the water, as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kallfass teaches that it is desirable to carry out the oxygen generating reaction at low-temperatures, including those at which water would freeze, and because Ross teaches that additives, and lithium chloride in particular, can depress the freezing point of the solution into the range suggested by Kallfass.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 1, where Kallfass teaches a composition consisting of an oxygen source, an ionic liquid and a metal salt (the composition comprising a combination of constituents consisting of at least one oxygen source, at least one ionic liquid, and at least one metal salt; [0011]). Xu teaches the introduction of water and that a catalyst is not required for converting potassium superoxide to water, and Ross teaches that a lithium chloride salt can lower the freezing point of water into a desired range, as analyzed for claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a composition consisting of these three constituents—an oxygen source that is potassium superoxide, an ionic liquid, and a water-containing solution comprising lithium chloride. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the combination of Kallfass, Xu, and Ross teaches that these are the essential components of a superoxide based oxygen-generating composition derived from Kallfass’s composition consisting of one oxygen source, at least one ionic liquid, and at least one metal salt.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 1, where Kallfass also teaches ionic liquid can be 1,3-dimethylphosphatedimethylphosphate ([0029]), which contains a N, N’-disubstituted imidazolium cation (1,3-dimethylimidazolium) and substituted phosphate anion (dimethylphosphate).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 3, where Kallfass teaches the cation of the ionic liquid may be tetraethylammonium, as in tetraethylammonium but-3-enoate ([0029]), which is a tetraalkylammonium ion.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 3, where Kallfass teaches both substituents of the N’,N-disubstituted imidazolium can be methyl, as in 1,3-dimethylphosphatedimethylphosphate ([0029]), which contains an N’,N-dimethyl imidazolium cation (1,3-dimethylimidazolium).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 1, where Kallfass also teaches that exemplary ionic liquids are those that are liquid from -70 °C to +150 °C ([0135]). Any ionic liquid that is a liquid from -70 °C to +150 °C will also be a liquid from -60 °C to +150 °C and from -40 °C to +110 °C, as required by claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 1, where Ross teaches that the antifreeze comprises the dihydric alcohol of ethylene glycol ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ethylene glycol in the method of modified Kallfass, as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ross teaches that such an additive can keep water from freezing at low-operating temperatures (e.g., -5 °F or -20°C; [0027]), such temperature being suggested by Kallfass ([0007] and [0135]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 1, where Ross teaches the alkali metal chloride is lithium chloride. Because the salt is being mixed with water, it would have also been obvious to substitute lithium chloride hydrate for lithium chloride used by Ross, thereby meeting the limitations of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the substitution obvious because the aqueous solutions produced by lithium chloride and lithium chloride hydrate will be identical in composition.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 10, where the further salt is lithium chloride, or its obvious variant lithium chloride hydrate. Claim 11 further limits an alternative limitation of claims 1 and 10, where the further salt is a hydroxide with an organic cation. Claim 11, however, does not require that the further salt be tetrabutylammonium hydroxide, only that if the further salt is a hydroxide of an organic cation that it be tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (see Claim Interpretation). Therefore, by teaching the limitations of claim 1 using an alkali metal chloride, modified Kallfass teaches all the required limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 1, where Ross teaches the total weight of the further salt relative to a total weight of the water containing mixture is 83 g (LiCl) to 183 g (100 g H2O + 83 g LiCl; [0027]), or 45% by weight, which meets the limitations of claims 12 and 13.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 13, and Kallfass further teaches that other constituents may be present in the composition, including silicon dioxide as a heat sink ([0164]), which meets the limitations of claim 14 as an additional substance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallfass et al. (US 2019/0016597 A1) in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 14, and further in view of Rho (WO 2006/001607 A1), as evidenced by Kumari et al. (“Basics of Clay Minerals and Their Characteristic Properties”, in Clay and Clay Minerals, G. M. D. Nascimento, ed. IntechOpen, 2001, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.97672). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 14, but does not teach an additional substance of a phyllosilicate or fumed silica being added to the composition.
However, Rho teaches an oxygen generating composition comprised of potassium superoxide and a material for improving moldability and processability, where the material for improving moldability and processability can be bentonite or kaolinite (abstract and [36]), two phyllosilicates, as evidenced by Kumari (clay minerals such as kaolinite, smectite, chlorite, micas are main components of raw materials of clay and formed in presence of water… They are known as hydrous phyllosilicate (abstract); Bentonite is an impure form of aluminum phyllosilicate clay (p. 10, ¶ 4)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the composition of modified Kallfass an additional substance that is a phyllosilicate, as taught by Rho. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the moldability and processability of the potassium superoxide, as taught by Rho.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallfass et al. (US 2019/0016597 A1) in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 14, and further in view of Huvard et al. (US 8,147,760 B1) and Schwab et al. (US 2010/0084597 A1). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is being interpreted as depending upon claim 14 and not upon claim 12, which does not recite an antifoam (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112).
Modified Kallfass teaches the composition of claim 14 but does not teach the composition containing an antifoam of octanol, paraffin wax, or a polysiloxane.
However, like Kallfass, Huvard teaches an apparatus for oxygen production from an oxygen source and water/catalyst mixture (abstract) and Huvard further teaches that an antifoam agent can be included in the water mixture (water, catalyst, and antifoam begin to flow out of the spout; col. 13, lines 31-32). Huvard additionally teaches that polydimethylsiloxane can serve as an antifoam (col. 8, line 1), though it is not the antifoam used in their method.
However, Schwab also teaches that polysiloxanes are appropriate antifoam agents for aqueous systems and ionic liquids (claim 12 and [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the composition of modified Kallfass an antifoam consisting of a polysiloxane, as taught by Huvard and Schwab. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Huvard teaches that antifoams can control foam formation during an oxygen-generating processes and Schwab teaches that polysiloxanes can be used to defoam aqueous systems and ionic liquids, as used in the method of Kallfass.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 8-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,479,682 in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘682 patent recites a composition for generating oxygen, comprising: oxygen source and an ionic liquid where the ionic liquid must consist of at least one cation and at least one anion. Claim 1 of the ‘682 patent further recites that the ionic liquid be a liquid down to -10 °C, suggesting a desire to operate at this temperature.
Claim 1 of the ‘682 patent does not recite the identity of the oxygen source being potassium superoxide, nor does the claim teach a water-containing solution or a water containing mixture as part of the composition.
However, Xu teaches an oxygen generator where oxygen is produced from the mixing potassium superoxide and water (the potassium superoxide agent and water can mix and react in the mixing reaction oxygen generator … to generate oxygen, thereby replenishing the oxygen content of the ambient air; [n0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as the oxygen source in the composition of the ‘682 patent potassium superoxide, and to further include the decomposition inducing water, as taught by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because potassium superoxide mixed with water is a composition capable of producing breathable oxygen for human breathing as taught by Xu ([0003]), and required by the ‘682 patent claims.
Furthermore, Ross also teaches an apparatus and process for generating oxygen from peroxides and a catalyst ([0010] and [0032]). Ross further teaches that the additives, including salts and antifreeze, can be added to the water of an oxygen-generator to influence the temperature ([0026]) and to depress the freezing point of water by 20 °C compared with the freezing point of water (to -5 °F, which is -20 °C; [0027]). Ross further teaches that one such salt that can cause this freezing point depression is lithium chloride ([0027]), an alkali metal chloride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water-containing solution to generate the oxygen in the modified composition of the ‘682 patent, where the water-containing solution contains a given amount of an alkali metal chloride and/or antifreeze to effectively lower the freezing point of the water-containing solution, including by 10 °C compared with a freezing point of the water, as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because claim 1 of the ‘682 patent suggests operating at low-temperatures, including down to -10 °C at which temperature water would otherwise freeze, and because Ross teaches that additives, and lithium chloride in particular, can depress the freezing point of the solution into the range suggested by claim 1 of the ‘682 patent.
Regarding instant claim 2, the essential features of the composition of the ’682 patent can be considered those recited in the claim: the oxygen source, the ionic liquid, and a metal salt. Xu teaches that the oxygen source can be potassium superoxide and that the composition should further include water to decompose the superoxide, and Ross teaches that the metal salt can be lithium chloride to cause freezing point depression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate a composition from that recited in the ‘682 patent that consists of only these essential features, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention of claim 2.
Regarding instant claims 3-5, claim 6 of the ‘682 patent teaches the ionic liquid can be 1,3-dimethylimidazoliumdimethylphosphate or tetraethylammonium but-3-enoate. It would therefore also be obvious to use a mixture of these two liquids for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06(I)), where said mixture would then contain an N’N-disubstituted imidazolium cation, a tetraalkylammonium cation, and a substituted phosphate anion, where both the substituents on the N’,N-disubstituted imidazolium ion are methyl, thereby meeting the limitations of instant claims 3-6.
Regarding instant claims 8 and 9, Ross also teaches that the water-containing solution may comprise an antifreeze of ethylene glycol ([0027]), which meets the limitations of the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 10, the composition of claim 10 is an obvious variation of the composition of the ‘682 patent, where Ross teaches the alkali metal chloride can lithium chloride. Because the salt is being mixed with water, it would have also been obvious to substitute lithium chloride hydrate for lithium chloride used by Ross, thereby meeting the limitations of the instant claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the substitution obvious because the aqueous solutions produced by lithium chloride and lithium chloride hydrate will be identical in composition.
Regarding instant claim 11, the composition of claim 10 is an obvious variation of the composition of the ‘682 patent, where Ross teaches that further salt is lithium chloride, or its obvious variant lithium chloride hydrate. Claim 11 further limits an alternative limitation of claims 1 and 10, where the further salt is a hydroxide with an organic cation. Claim 11, however, does not require that the further salt be tetrabutylammonium hydroxide, only that if the further salt is a hydroxide of an organic cation that it be tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (see Claim Interpretation). Therefore, by teaching the limitations of claim 1 using an alkali metal chloride, modified Kallfass teaches all the required limitations of claim 11.
Regarding instant claims 12 and 13, the composition of claim 1 is an obvious variation of the composition of the ‘682 patent, and Ross further teaches the total weight of the further salt relative to a total weight of the water containing mixture is 83 g (LiCl) to 183 g (100 g H2O + 83 g LiCl; [0027]), or 45% by weight, which meets the limitations of claims 12 and 13.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,479,682 in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuehn et al. (US 2018/0141811 A1). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding instant claims 6 and 7, the composition of claim 1 is an obvious variation of the composition of the ‘682 patent, as analyzed above, but the claims of the ‘682 patent do not require that the ionic liquid is a liquid from -60 °C to +150 °C and from -40 °C to +110 °C, as required by instant claims 6 and 7, respectively.
However, Kuehn also teaches compositions for generating oxygen comprising an oxygen source and an ionic liquid (abstract) and further teaches that is desirable to generate oxygen at subfreezing temperatures ([0008]) and that most preferred ionic liquids for their composition and method are those that are liquid from -70 °C to +150 °C ([0104]). Any ionic liquid that is a liquid from -70 °C to +150 °C will also be a liquid from -60 °C to +150 °C and from -40 °C to +110 °C, as required by claims 6 and 7, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ionic liquid in the modified composition of the ‘682 patent that is a liquid over the range of 70 °C to +150 °C, as taught by Kuehn, thereby arriving at the invention of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to generate oxygen at subfreezing temperatures, as suggested by Kuehn.
Claims 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,479,682 in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rho (WO 2006/001607 A1), as evidenced by Kumari et al. (“Basics of Clay Minerals and Their Characteristic Properties”, in Clay and Clay Minerals, G. M. D. Nascimento, ed. IntechOpen, 2001, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.97672). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, the composition of claim 1 is an obvious variation of the composition of the ‘682 patent, but the claims of the ‘682 patent do not recite an additional substance of a phyllosilicate or fumed silica being present in the composition.
However, Rho teaches an oxygen generating composition comprised of potassium superoxide and a material for improving moldability and processability, where the material for improving moldability and processability can be bentonite or kaolinite (abstract and [36]), two phyllosilicates, as evidenced by Kumari (clay minerals such as kaolinite, smectite, chlorite, micas are main components of raw materials of clay and formed in presence of water… They are known as hydrous phyllosilicate (abstract); Bentonite is an impure form of aluminum phyllosilicate clay (p. 10, ¶ 4)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the composition of the ‘682 patent an additional substance that is a phyllosilicate, as taught by Rho. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the moldability and processability of the potassium superoxide, as taught by Rho.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,479,682 in view of Xu (CN 214390082 U) and Ross (US 2006/0269454 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Huvard et al. (US 8,147,760 B1) and Schwab et al. (US 2010/0084597 A1). The provided English machine translation of Xu (CN 214390082 U) is relied upon in the analysis below.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 16, the composition of claim 1 is an obvious variation of the composition of the ‘682 patent, but the claims of the ‘682 patent do not recite the composition also including an antifoam of octanol, paraffin wax, or a polysiloxane.
However, like the ‘682 patent, Huvard teaches oxygen production from an oxygen source and water/catalyst mixture (abstract) and Huvard further teaches that an antifoam agent can be included in the water mixture (water, catalyst, and antifoam begin to flow out of the spout; col. 13, lines 31-32). Huvard additionally teaches that polydimethylsiloxane can serve as an antifoam (col. 8, line 1), though it is not the antifoam used in their method.
However, Schwab also teaches that polysiloxanes are appropriate antifoam agents for aqueous systems and ionic liquids (claim 12 and [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the composition of the ‘682 patent an antifoam consisting of a polysiloxane, as taught by Huvard and Schwab. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Huvard teaches that antifoams can control foam formation during an oxygen-generating processes and Schwab teaches that polysiloxanes can be used to defoam aqueous systems and ionic liquids, such as the oxygen-generating composition of the ‘682 patent.
Claims 1-2 and 7-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/306,271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are recited within the claims of the ‘271 application.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 9 as it depends upon claim 1, of the ‘271 application requires all the limitations of instant claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘271 application recites a composition consisting of the only those elements recited in instant claim 2, but lacking the ionic liquid constituent. However, claim 9 recites that the oxygen source can be present in suspended form in an ionic liquid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the oxygen source in the composition of claim 2 of the ‘271 patent as a suspension in an ionic liquid, thereby arriving at instant claim 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because claim 9 shows that an ionic liquid can carry the oxygen source.
Regarding claims 7, claim 9 of the ‘271 patent includes all the limitations required by instant claim 1, but is silent o the liquid temperature range of the ionic liquid.
However, claim 19 recites bringing components that may include an ionic liquid together at temperatures in the range of from -70 °C to +110 °C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ionic liquid that remains a liquid over this entire range, which includes remaining a liquid over the smaller range of -40 °C to +110 °C recited in instant claim 7.
Regarding instant claims 8-16, claims 3-8 of the ‘271 application recite all the limitations of instant claims 8-13, and claims 10-12 of the ‘271 application recite the additional limitations of instant claims 14-16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 3-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/306,271 in view of Kallfass et al. (US 2019/0016597 A1).
Regarding instant claims 3-5, claims 1 and 9 of the ‘271 application require all the limitations of instant claim 1, but do they do not recite the identity of the cations and the anions in the ionic liquid as recited in instant claims 3-5.
However, Kallfass teaches a similar process for generating oxygen using ionic liquids and an oxygen source, and Kallfass further teaches that acceptable ionic liquids include 1,3-dimethylimidazoliumdimethylphosphate and tetraethylammonium but-3-enoate ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ionic liquids taught for the similar oxygen generating process in the composition of the ‘271 claims, thereby arriving at the invention of claims 3-5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because while the claim 9 of the ‘271 application recites using an ionic liquid, it is silent on the specific identity of possible liquids, which Kallfass provides.
Regarding instant claim 6, claims 1 and 9 of the ‘271 application require all the limitations of instant claim 6, but do they do not recite a temperature range over which the ionic liquid must remain a liquid.
However, Kallfass teaches that exemplary ionic liquids are in the liquid state over the temperature range of -70 °C to +150 °C, a range that would also require them to be a liquid over the range of -60 °C to +150 °C, as required by the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the composition of the ‘271 application ionic liquids that are liquid over the range of -60 °C to +150 °C, as taught by Kallfass. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to use the oxygen generating composition at low-temperatures.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735