DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are pending, of which claims 9-12 have been withdrawn.
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
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/15/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: each clause of the claim starts with a capital letter. Only the first word should be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation that n is >=1, and the claim also recites that n is 1-6 and that n is 1-4, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 1 also recites the broad recitation that the viscosity is between 5 and 50 mps, and the claim also recites between 10 and 20 mps which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 1 further states a number of possibilities for R1, R2, and R3, but then gives a smaller number of possibilities as preferable. As such, it is unclear which of the possible identities for each R group are required.
Claims 3 and 4 each recite the broad recitation that n is 1-6, and also recite that n is 1-4, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation that the compound contains at least 0.3 g HCl/ g ionic compound, and also recites at least 0.4 g HCl/ ionic compound and 0.5 g HCl/ g ionic compound which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 the broad recitation that the compound has a conductivity of at least 20 mS/cm, and also recites at least 30 mS/cm, at least 40 mS/cm, and at least 50 mS/cm which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation
Claim 7 recites a narrow recitation that the compound has a hydrogen development at at least 1 V, and also recites at least 0.8 V and 0.5 V which are broader statements of the range/limitation.
Further regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 is indefinite because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits the indefiniteness from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20110247494 (“Dinnage”).
Regarding claim 1, Dinnage teaches a liquid sorbent for sorbing a material from a gas (see e.g. paragraphs [0007]-[0008]). The liquid absorbent is an ionic liquid (Id.). In a specifically claimed embodiment, Dinnage teaches that cationic portion of the ionic liquid can be triethylmethyl ammonium (see e.g. paragraph [0096] as well as claims 3 and 22). The anionic portion of the ionic liquid can be chloride (see e.g. paragraph [0098] as well as claims 2 and 21), meaning that the ionic liquid prior to sorbing the gas has the formula [NEt3Me][Cl]. The ionic liquid can be used to sorb hydrogen chloride from the gas (see e.g. paragraph [0101]). As described in the instant application, sorbing HCl gas by contact with an ionic liquid having the formula [NEt3Me][Cl] results in formation of [NEt3Me][Cl(HCl)n] (see instant specification at page 5, line 26-page 7, line 11). As such, the method of Dinnage would result in the same material. This material meets the limitations of claim 1 where R1 is ethyl and R2 is methyl, a is 3, b is 1, c is 0, and a + b + c = 4, and wherein n is greater or equal to 1. As noted in the instant specification, [NEt3Me][Cl(HCl)n] has a viscosity within the claimed range (see instant specification at Table 1).
As all necessary components of the claimed composition are recited in the claims of Dinnage, Dinnage is considered to anticipate claim 1. Examiner notes that none of the specific examples of Dinnage meet all of the claim limitations simultaneously. However, even if Dinnage does not actually anticipate claim 1, given that Dinnage claims each limitation of claim 1 separately, the composition of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, as described, Dinnage claims that cationic portion of the ionic liquid can be triethylmethyl ammonium (see e.g. paragraph [0096] as well as claims 3 and 22). In this case, a = 3, b = 1, and c = 0.
Regarding claims 3-4, Dinnage claims that cationic portion of the ionic liquid can be triethylmethyl ammonium (see e.g. paragraph [0096] as well as claims 3 and 22). Dinnage also claims that the anionic portion can be chloride (see e.g. paragraph [0098] as well as claims 2 and 21), meaning that the ionic liquid prior to sorbing the gas has the formula [NEt3Me][Cl] and would be [NEt3Me][Cl(HCl)n] after sorbing HCl.
Regarding claim 5, Dinnage does not expressly state the number of HCl molecules associated with each molecule of the ionic liquid. However, the instant application shows that the capacity of [NEt3Me][Cl] is 2.16 mol HCl/mol liquid, which would place n within the claimed range (see instant application at Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Dinnage does not expressly state the conductivity of the ionic liquid. However, the instant application shows that the conductivity of [NEt3Me][Cl] is 62.6 mS/cm, which is within the claimed range (see instant application at Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Dinnage does not provide the voltage range for H2 development of [NEt3Me][Cl(HCl)]. However, the instant application notes that [NEt3Me][Cl(HCl)] undergoes hydrogen development in a range of 1-1.2, which is within the claimed range (see instant specification at page 8, lines 22-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights