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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 05/13/2016 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)).
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 29-31, 33, 35, 38-39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-31 41-43 of copending Application No. 19/191299 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim composition comprising a periodate salt and an ionic liquid additive; wherein the ionic liquid additive comprises 1-benzyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([Bzmim]Cl); wherein the molar ratio of [Bzmim]Cl to the periodate salt is from about 1:1 to about 100:1, from about 10:1 to about 50:1, or about 30:1.
The reference application discloses: “In some embodiments of the composition or method described herein, the ionic liquid additive comprises or is selected from the group consisting of a crown ether or a substituted imidazolium salt, or a combination thereof. In some such embodiments, the crown ether comprises or is 15-crown-S. In some embodiments, the molar ratio of 15-crown-5 to the periodate salt in the composition is from about 1:1 to about 50:1, from about 5:1 to about 25:1, or about 10:1” [0066].
The method claims of the reference application are a contemplated utility of the product described by the instant claims. See: MPEP 804(II)(B)(1) and MPEP 804(II)(B)(2)(a).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-14, 16, 29-31, 33, 35, 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 30-31, 33, 35-39 of copending Application No. 18568756 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim a comprising a periodate salt and an ionic liquid additive; wherein the ionic liquid additive comprises 1-benzyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([Bzmim]Cl); wherein the molar ratio of [Bzmim]Cl to the periodate salt is from about 1:1 to about 100:1, from about 10:1 to about 50:1, or about 30:1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEZIA RILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0786. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-6:00pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
/JEZIA RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681 1 July 2026
Prosecution Insights