UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`14/711,772
`
`05/14/2015
`
`MICHIO SUZUKA
`
`PANDP0141US
`
`2570
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19mm
`CLEVELAND, OHIO 44115
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`DAMDUSTIN Q
`
`MW
`
`1721
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/13/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdoeket@rennerotto.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`14/711,772
`Examiner
`DUSTIN Q DAM
`
`Applicant(s)
`SUZUKAetaI.
`Art Unit
`1721
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on February 28, 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—13 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabte. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)D accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12):] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)D All
`
`b)[:l Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) D Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20180607
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Summary
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Office Action is in response to the Remarks filed February 28, 2018.
`
`In view of the Remarks filed February 28, 2018, the rejections of claims 1—13 under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent December 29, 2017 have been
`
`maintained.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1—13 are currently pending.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`4.
`
`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 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.
`
`5.
`
`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.
`
`6.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 3
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1—6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara et al.
`
`(JP 2011—150881 submitted with IDS filed May 14, 2015) in view of Inoue et al. (US. Pub. No.
`
`2009/0032105 A1).
`
`a.
`
`With regard to claims 1, 3, and 6, Nakahara et al. discloses a photoelectric
`
`conversion element comprising:
`
`0
`
`a photoanode (transparent conductive film 7, semiconductor layer 6, and
`
`the dye absorbed on semiconductor layer 6, Fig. 1 cited to read on the claimed
`
`photoanode since it functions as an electrode responsive to radiation as described
`
`in [0017]);
`
`o
`
`a counter electrode (2, Fig. 1 since it functions as a counter electrode as
`
`described in [0040-0041]); and
`
`o
`
`a liquid electrolyte between the photoanode and the counter electrode
`
`(electrolyte layer 4 depicted in Fig. 1 as between the cited photoanode and cited
`
`counter electrode and described in [0042] as containing an ionic liquid), the liquid
`
`electrolyte containing
`
`0
`
`a nitroxyl radical—bearing compound (see [0046] teaching a “nitroxyl
`
`radical” can be “2,2,6,6—tetramethylpiperidine—1—oxy1 (TEMPO)”),
`
`o
`
`a cation (see [0043] exemplifying various cations, such as
`
`“dialkylimidazolium cation is preferable from the viewpoint of relatively low
`
`viscosity and excellent ion conductivity”), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 4
`
`0
`
`an anion (see [0044] exemplifying various fluorocarbon anions).
`
`Nakahara et al. teaches various cations can be included in the liquid electrolyte
`
`such as “a dialkylimidazolium cation” (see [0043]) but does not specifically teach the
`
`claimed dimethylimidazolium cation represented by chemical formula 1.
`
`However, Inoue et al. teaches an electrolyte composition for a photoelectric
`
`conversion element (see TITLE). Inoue et al. teaches conventional cations used in
`
`electrolytes for photoelectric conversion devices include “Specific examples of the
`
`dialkylimidazolium cations are 1,3—dimethylimidazolium cation” (see [0030]).
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have selected the 1,3—dimethylimidazolium cation taught by
`
`Inoue et al. for the cation in the liquid electrolyte of Nakahara et al. because the selection
`
`of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose, in the instant case a
`
`dialkylimidazolium cation in an electrolyte for a photoelectric conversion element,
`
`supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
`
`The only difference between the invention, as claimed in claim 1, and the
`
`photoelectric conversion element of Nakahara et al., as modified to include the 1,3—
`
`dimethylimidazolium cation of Inoue et al. above, is the specific concentration of the
`
`cation being 0.2 mol/L or more and 0.5 mol/L or less.
`
`However, the concentration of the cation in the electrolyte layer in the
`
`photoelectric conversion element of modified Nakahara et al. is a result effective
`
`variable. Nakahara et al. already recognizes that dialkylimidazolium type cations are
`
`preferable from the viewpoint of relatively low viscosity and excellent ion conductivity
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 5
`
`(see [0043]). The concentration of the cation directly affects the viscosity and ion
`
`conductivity of the electrolyte layer.
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the concentration of dimethylimidazolium
`
`cation in the electrolyte layer of Nakahara et al., as modified by Inoue et al. above, and
`
`arrive at the claimed range of 0.2 mol/L or more and 0.5 mol/L or less through routine
`
`experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing
`
`the viscosity and ion conductivity of the electrolyte layer.
`
`b.
`
`With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Nakahara et al. in
`
`view of Inoue et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Nakahara et al. discloses
`
`wherein the liquid electrolyte contains
`
`0
`
`one or more mediators each having a concentration (see [0049-0050]
`
`teaching one additional mediator, another redox species including an
`
`oxoammonium cation which is a one electron oxidation product of a i'iitroxyl
`
`radical and a monovaient anion, inherently having a concentration).
`
`Nakahara et al. teaches the overall concentration of the cited nitroxyl radical and
`
`the cited additional oxoammonium salt type mediator can be 0.5 mol/L or more and 5
`
`mol/L or less (see [0054-0055]) but does not teach the individual concentration of the
`
`cited additional mediator.
`
`However, the concentration of the additional mediator is a result effective
`
`variable. Nakahara et al. already recognizes the concentration of the nitroxyl radical—
`
`oxoammonium salt combination affects the diffusion current and viscosity of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 6
`
`electrolyte (see [0054]). The concentration of the cited additional mediator directly
`
`affects the overall viscosity and diffusion current of the electrolyte.
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the concentration of the cited additional
`
`mediator in the electrolyte of Nakahara et al., as modified by Inoue et al. above, and
`
`arrive at the claimed range of not exceeding 0.001 mol/L through routine experimentation
`
`(see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the diffusion
`
`current and viscosity of the electrolyte.
`
`c.
`
`With regard to claims 4 and 5, dependent claim 3 is obvious over Nakahara et al.
`
`in view of Inoue et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
`
`Nakahara et al. teaches an electrolyte layer including various fluorocarbon anions
`
`(see [0044] exemplifying various fluorocarbon anions) but does not specifically teach the
`
`claimed bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide anion.
`
`However, Inoue et al. teaches an electrolyte composition for a photoelectric
`
`conversion element (see TITLE). Inoue et al. teaches conventional anions used in
`
`electrolytes for photoelectric conversion devices include
`
`“Bistrifluoromethanesulfonylimide anion” (see [0099]).
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have selected the Bistrifluoromethanesulfonylimide anion
`
`taught by Inoue et al. for the anion in the liquid electrolyte of Nakahara et al. because the
`
`selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose, in the
`
`instant case a fluorocarbon anion in an electrolyte for a photoelectric conversion element,
`
`supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 7
`
`8.
`
`Claims 7—13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara et
`
`al. (JP 2011—150881 submitted with IDS filed May 14, 2015) in view of Inoue et al. (US. Pub.
`
`No. 2009/0032105 A1), as applied to claims 1—6 above, and in further view of Matsumoto (U.S.
`
`Pub. No. 2013/0319526 A1).
`
`a.
`
`With regard to claims 7 and 9, independent claim 1 is obvious over Nakahara et
`
`al. in view of Inoue et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Nakahara et al.
`
`discloses wherein
`
`o
`
`the nitroxyl radical—bearing compound is a radical compound that is
`
`2,2,6,6—tetramethylpiperidine 1—oxyl (recall Nakahara et al. at [0046] teaching a
`
`“nitroxyl radica ” can be “2,2,6,6—tetramethylpiperidine—1—oxy1 (TEMPO)”);
`
`o
`
`a mole fraction of an oxidized form of the radical compound in the liquid
`
`electrolyte is 0% or more and 1% or less of a total quantity of the radical
`
`compound and the oxidized form (see [0049-0053] of Nakahara et al. teaching the
`
`oxoammonium salt can be “PROXYL*TF SI” and it would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to have picked the “2,2,6,6—
`
`tetramethylpiperidine—1—oxy1 (TEMPO)” as the nitroxyl radical and to have
`
`chosen the “PROXYL*TF SI” type oxoammonium salt as the redox mediators in
`
`the electrolyte of Nakahara et al. because Nakahara et al. suggest each material;
`
`the cited redox mediators of Nakahara et al., as modified by Inoue et al. above, is
`
`cited to read on the claimed “a mole fraction of an oxidized form of the radical
`
`compound in the liquid electrolyte is 0% or more and 1% or less of a total
`
`quantity of the radical compound and the oxidized form” because it contains 0%
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 8
`
`of an oxidized form of the radical compound, the 2,2,6,6—tetramethylpiperidine 1—
`
`oxyl, in the liquid electrolyte).
`
`Nakahara et al., as modified by Inoue et al. above, does not disclose a distance
`
`between the photoanode and the counter electrode does not exceed 30 um.
`
`However, Matsumoto teaches a dye—sensitized solar cell (see TITLE). Matsumoto
`
`recognizes that the distance between the photoanode and the counter electrode as a result
`
`effective variable directly affecting the photoelectric conversion characteristic in which
`
`an increase in the distance deteriorates the characteristics (see [0010]). Matsumoto
`
`teaches the distance between the photoanode and the counter electrode should be reduced
`
`compared to the sealing portion (see [0034]) which leads to superior photoelectric
`
`conversion characteristics (see [0037]). Matsumoto also exemplifies a distance of 20 um
`
`(see [0131]).
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the distance between the photoanode and the
`
`counter electrode in the photoelectric conversion element of Nakahara et al., as modified
`
`by Inoue et al. above, and arrive at the claimed range for distance not exceeding 30 um
`
`through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led
`
`to superior photoelectric conversion characteristics.
`
`b.
`
`With regard to claim 8, dependent claim 7 is obvious over Nakahara et al. in view
`
`of Inoue et al. and Matsumoto under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
`
`Nakahara et al. teaches the overall concentration of the cited radical compound
`
`and the cited additional oxoammonium salt type mediator can be 0.5 mol/L or more and 5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 9
`
`mol/L or less (see [0054-0055]) but does not teach the individual concentration of the
`
`cited radical compound.
`
`However, the concentration of the radical compound is a result effective variable.
`
`Nakahara et al. already recognizes the concentration of the nitroxyl radical—
`
`oxoammonium salt combination affects the diffusion current and viscosity of the
`
`electrolyte (see [0054]). The concentration of the cited radical compound directly affects
`
`the overall viscosity and diffusion current of the electrolyte.
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the concentration of the cited radical compound
`
`in the electrolyte of Nakahara et al., as modified by Inoue et al. above, and arrive at the
`
`claimed range of not exceeding 50 mmol/L through routine experimentation (see MPEP
`
`2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the diffusion current and
`
`viscosity of the electrolyte.
`
`c.
`
`With regard to claim 10, dependent claim 7 is obvious over Nakahara et al. in
`
`view of Inoue et al. and Matsumoto under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Nakahara et
`
`al. generally teaches
`
`a first substrate on which the photoanode is located (8, Fig. 1),
`
`a second substrate on which the counter electrode is located (1, Fig. 1);
`
`o
`
`o
`
`and
`
`o
`
`a sealer by which the liquid electrolyte is sealed between the first substrate
`
`and the second substrate (5, Fig. 1).
`
`Nakahara et al. does not teach wherein the sealer is a resin—containing sealer.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 10
`
`However, Matsumoto teaches a dye—sensitized solar cell (see TITLE). Matsumoto
`
`teaches a similar sealer (3, Fig. 4—5 & see [0057] “sealing portion 3”). Matsumoto teaches
`
`conventional materials suitable for sealers include “resins” (see [0077]).
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have selected the resin material taught by Matsumoto for the
`
`sealer in the photoelectric conversion element of Nakahara et al. because the selection of
`
`a known material based on its suitability for its intended function, in the instant case a
`
`sealer material for a perimeter seal which liquid electrolyte can be sealed between a first
`
`substrate and a second substrate in a dye—sensitized solar cell, supports a prima facie
`
`obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
`
`(1.
`
`With regard to claims 11—13, dependent claim 10 is obvious over Nakahara et al.
`
`in view of Inoue et al. and Matsumoto under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Nakahara
`
`et al. teaches wherein
`
`o
`
`the liquid electrolyte is sealed in a rectangular region with a short size (see
`
`Fig. 1 depicting a cross section of the device in which the region between the
`
`cited photoanode and the cited counter electrode is a rectangular region viewed in
`
`the cross section having a short size, or small dimension, such as the distance
`
`from the cited photoanode and the cited counter electrode).
`
`Nakahara et al. does not teach wherein the first or second substrate has a
`
`depression having a depth of 10 pm or more and the other of the first and second
`
`substrate has a protrusion having a height of 10 pm or more, wherein the short size not
`
`exceeding 50 mm.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 11
`
`However, Matsumoto teaches a dye—sensitized solar cell (see TITLE). Matsumoto
`
`teaches a first and second substrate design (see Fig. 4—5 depicting first substrate 7 and
`
`second substrate 9) wherein the second substrate has a depression having a depth of 10
`
`um or more (see Fig. 4—5 depicting cited second substrate 9 designed with a depression
`
`with a depth below the sealer 3; see the Examples starting on [0130] teaching L1—L2 as
`
`30 um which is cited to provide for a depression depth of 10 um or more) and the other
`
`first substrate has a protrusion having a height of 10 um or more (the cited substrate 7 is
`
`cited to read on the claimed “has a protrusion” because it has a protruding layer 6
`
`extending and protruding from its top surface as depicted in Fig. 4—5; see [0066] teaching
`
`the thickness of layer 6, the cited protrusion, as having a thickness/height of 0.5 um to 50
`
`mm which is cited to include a value within the claimed range of 10 um or more).
`
`Matsumoto teaches the electrolyte 4 is sealed in a rectangular region with a short size
`
`(see Fig. 4 depicting a cross section of the device in which the region between the
`
`photoanode and the counter electrode is a rectangular region viewed in the cross section
`
`having a short size, or small dimension, such as the distance from the photoanode and the
`
`counter electrode; see [0131] teaching distance between the photoanode and the counter
`
`electrode, the cited short size, can be 20 um which does not exceed the claimed 50 mm).
`
`Matsumoto teaches the substrate design with reduced distance between the
`
`photoanode and counter electrode compared to the distance at the sealer portion leads to
`
`superior photoelectric conversion characteristics (see [0037]).
`
`Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to have modified the photoelectric conversion element of
`
`Nakahara et al., as modified by Inoue et al. and Matsumoto above, to include the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 12
`
`substrate design or Matsumoto because it would have led to superior photoelectric
`
`conversion characteristics.
`
`9.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed February 28, 2018 have been fully considered but they are
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`not persuasive.
`
`a.
`
`Applicant contends in the response that since the 1,3—dimethylimidazolium cation
`
`cited in Inoue is disclosed in a laundry list of dialkylimidazolium cations, a person of
`
`ordinary skill would not have found the selection of the 1,3—dimethylimidazolium cation
`
`obvious. However, this argument is not persuasive.
`
`b.
`
`Nakahara et al. already teaches using dialkylimidazolium cations (see [0043]
`
`exemplifying various cations, such as “dialkylimidazolium cation is preferable from the
`
`viewpoint of relatively low viscosity and excellent ion conductivity”). Inoue teaches
`
`dialkylimidazolium cations and specifically lists the cited 1,3—dimethylimidazolium
`
`cation.
`
`c.
`
`The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose,
`
`in the instant case a dialkylimidazolium cation in an electrolyte for a photoelectric
`
`conversion element, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP
`
`2144.07). Applicant has not provided evidence to the contrary.
`
`d.
`
`Applicant contends on page 7 to 8 that Inoue teaches the cited 1,3—
`
`dimethylimidazolium cation in a different system than the claimed formula. However, the
`
`cited 1,3—dimethylimidazolium cation is not exclusively limited to the system of Inoue.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 13
`
`e.
`
`Applicant argues in the response that the cited references do not disclose the
`
`unexpected result of a 10% higher retention rate when compared to ethylimidazaolium.
`
`f.
`
`However, applicant has not established how the alleged unexpected 10% retention
`
`rate increase is commensurate with the limitations of claim 1, i.e. the concentration range.
`
`Furthermore, applicant alleges the unexpected result of a 10% higher retention rate is
`
`seen when comparing ethylimidazaolium to dimethylimidazolium. However, the
`
`rejections of the claims do not substitute ethylimidazaolium for dimethylimidazolium.
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing
`
`date of this final action.
`
`11.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270—5120.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/711,772
`Art Unit: 1721
`
`Page 14
`
`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, Jennifer Michener can be reached on 571.271.1424. 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 the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/DUSTIN Q DAM/
`Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`June 7, 2018
`
`/JENNIFER K MICHENER/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
`
`