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 § 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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Braun et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,723, 874) . Regarding claim 1, Braun et al. teaches p reparation of SO2 F2 from SO2 Cl2 u sing Tributylamine.2.6 HF and Tributylamine.TFA.2.6 HF which meets the limitation of method for preparing sulfuryl fluoride by using sulfuryl chloride fluorination (column 5, lines 55-67). Braun et al. teaches tributylamine.2.6 HF which meets the limitation of a hydrogen fluoride complex (column 6, lines 10-30). Braun et al. teaches trifluoroacetic acid which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of adding a solvent (Examples 2-7). Braun et al. teaches a three neck flask or steel cylinder which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a reaction kettle (Examples 2-7). Braun et al. teaches reflux condenser was fed with cold brine at a temperature of -30 ̊ C. via a cryomat which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of after the reaction system is cooled to 10°C or less (Example 2). Braun et al. teaches SO 2 Cl 2 was then dropped into the solution slowly and with vigorous stirring at room temperature which meets the limitation adding sulfuryl chloride dropwise under atmospheric pressure (Example 2). Braun et al. teaches in order to complete the expulsion of reaction products and the reaction, the reaction solution was brought to 50 °C until no further evolution of gas was observed at the bubble counter which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of and while a temperature of the reaction system is controlled to be 60°C or less to obtain sulfuryl fluoride (Example 2) . Regarding claim 2, Braun et al. teaches the reaction became slightly exothermic (T max. 32 °C ) which is encompassed by wherein the temperature of the reaction system is controlled to be 20°C to 45°C (Example 6). Regarding claim 3, Braun et al. teaches carboxylic acid fluorides of Formula I RC(O)F are prepared in which R stands for C1-C7-alkyl; or for C1-C7-alkyl substituted by at least 1 chlorine atom and/or by at least 1 fluorine atom which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of hydrogen fluoride complex synthesis, wherein a hydrogen fluoride complex represented by R- (HF)n is synthesized by an acid-binding agent and hydrogen fluoride, wherein R represents an acid-binding agent molecule, n represents a number greater than 0 and less than 12 (column 3, lines 20-40) . Regarding claim 4, Braun et al. teaches carboxylic acid which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the acid-binding agent is an organic weak alkali (column 3, lines 20-40) . Regarding claim 5, Braun et al. Tributylamine.TFA.2.6 HF which meets the limitation of which meets the limitation of wherein the hydrogen fluoride complex is at least one selected from an organic tertiary amine hydrogen fluoride complex and an azaaromatic hydrocarbon hydrogen fluoride complex (Examples 2-7) . Regarding claim 6, Braun et al. teaches wherein the acid-binding agent is further added to the reaction system before the sulfuryl chloride is added dropwise (Examples 2-7) . Regarding claim, claims 7 and 9 Braun et al. teaches the molar ratio of the HF adduct of the hydrofluoride, relative to the base contained therein, to acid chloride lies in the range from 1:0.01 to 1:1 (1 mole R.sub.3 N.2.6 HF and 1 mole acid chloride are then in a ratio of 1:1), if one Cl atom is to be exchanged per acid chloride adduct (column 3, lines 35-50) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0053913) . Regarding claim 8, Braun et al. teaches a method for preparing sulfuryl fluoride by using sulfuryl chloride fluorination . Braun et al. does not teach a polar aprotic organic solvent. Zhuo et al. teaches a new process for the synthesis of fluorinated conductive salts (abstract). Zhou et al. teaches inert solvents such as acetonitrile use for HF, hydrogen fluoride (paragraph 49). IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an inert solvent such as acetonitrile for the method of making sulfuryl fluoride to maintain the HF adduct in solution because it is a known inert solvent for HF. Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 106946231 ) . Braun et al. teaches a method for preparing sulfuryl fluoride by using sulfuryl chloride fluorination . Braun et al. teaches acid such as hydrochloric acid as a by product (Examples 2-7).Braun et al. does not teach alkali washing for impurity. Chen et al. teaches water absorbing impurity and removing gas, obtaining by-product hydrochloric acid, discharging secondary impurity removing gas, washing the water again (abstract) . Chen et al. teaches an alkali washing solution to remove impurities (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the alkali wash taught by Chen et al. to remove the impurities from the sulfuryl fluoride because it increases the purity of the final product. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5827 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713 . 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. /GUINEVER S GREGORIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 03/21/2026