DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement of the Response to the Election of Species Requirement
2. Applicants’ election with traverse of the species, betaine salt ionic liquid, within the response of 04 February 2023 is acknowledged. It is noted that applicants failed to identify the claims encompassing the elected species, as required by the Election of Species Requirement (see page 3, first full paragraph of the Office communication of 23 December 2025); however, in view of applicants’ statements within pages 6 and 7 of the response, which is considered to constitute an admission that the species are not patentably distinct, the Election of Species Requirement has been withdrawn. Additionally, applicants’ attention is directed to the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the Election of Species Requirement, wherein Office examination practice in view of such an admission is set forth.
Indefiniteness Rejection
3. 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.
4. Claims 6, 9, and 10 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.
Firstly, with respect to claim 9, it is unclear in the context of the method, what constitutes “each raw material”.
Secondly, with respect to claim 10, applicants have failed to specify the type and basis of the claimed percent value range. It is unclear if the percent range is a weight percent range, and it is unclear if the percent range is based on the combination of the oil and extractant or the extractant or some other entity.
Thirdly, with respect to claim 10, the language, “the oil content”, “the upper liquid overflow”, “the mixture”, and “the extract and white oil”, lacks antecedent basis.
Lastly, with respect to claim 6, it is questioned if “1-ethyl-3-imidazolium dicyanamide”, as claimed, is correct or if it contains an omission.
Prior Art Rejection
5. 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.
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.
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.
6. Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 115305602 A.
CN 115305602 A discloses ionic liquid or more than one ionic liquid, wherein the disclosed ionic liquids meet those claimed. See abstract, paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the translation, and third paragraph of page 6 of the translation.
7. Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115305602 A in view of applicants’ aforementioned admission (see paragraph 2, above).
CN 115305602 A discloses ionic liquid or more than one ionic liquid, wherein ionic liquids are disclosed that correspond to those claimed. See abstract, paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the translation, and third paragraph of page 6 of the translation. However, the claims further specify species not disclosed by the reference, such as betaine salt ionic liquid. Still, in view of applicants’ aforementioned admission, the position is taken that the disclosed species are adequate to render the patentably indistinct species prima facie obvious.
8. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115305602 A in view of applicants’ aforementioned admission (see paragraph 2, above) and Larochelle et al. (US 2025/0179613 A1).
CN 115305602 A discloses ionic liquid or more than one ionic liquid, wherein ionic liquids are disclosed that correspond to those claimed. See abstract, paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of the translation, and third paragraph of page 6 of the translation. However, the claims further specify species not disclosed by the reference, such as betaine salt ionic liquid, as well as amounts of the ionic liquids. Still, in view of applicants’ aforementioned admission, the position is taken that the disclosed species are adequate to render the patentably indistinct species prima facie obvious. Furthermore, considering that the species are not patentably distinct, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to combine then in virtually any amount, with the reasonable expectation that viable compositions would result.
9. Though the primary reference is silent regarding the claimed alcohol-ether mixture, the use of such mixtures as modifiers for ionic liquid containing compositions was known at the time of invention, as evidenced by the teachings within paragraphs [0174], [0175], and [0228] of Larochelle et al. Furthermore, quantities of the modifiers are disclosed that fall within the claimed range of claim 3. Therefore, since it has been held that it prima facie obvious to use a known component for its known function, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to incorporate the modifiers of Larochelle et al in the disclosed amounts into the ionic liquid compositions of the primary reference, so as to arrive at the instant invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed complex of claim 8.
11. Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the specific process limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rabon A Sergent whose telephone number is (571)272-1079. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-1831. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RABON A SERGENT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765