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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/10/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 15, 23, 27, 30, 47, 53, 58, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui et al. (US 2013/0096285 A1) (Qui), in view of evidence by Zakzeski et al. (“The Catalytic Valorization of Lignin for the Production of Renewable Chemicals”, 2010) (Zakzeski).
Regarding claims 1, 27, and 47, Qui teaches a lignin-based water-reducing agent with high degree of sulfonation and high molecular weight and preparation method thereof (Qui, Title; Abstract) (i.e., a process for preparing a composition comprising a sulfonated lignin), wherein in the instant disclosure, it is taught that a water reducer is a dispersant (Specification, Paragraph [3]). Qui teaches adding industrial lignin to water and adjusting the mass concentration of lignin to 30-60 wt% by total weight of the aqueous solution of the industrial lignin, which overlaps the range of the presently claimed; and setting the solution pH to 9~14, which falls within the range of the presently claimed (Qui, [0016]) and wherein the pH of the industrial lignin needs to be kept at 9~14 during the preparation of the product (Qui, [0037]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed (i.e., preparation of a lignin-containing aqueous suspension having a solids content of up to about 45 wt% and a pH greater than about 6, by mixing a lignin with water).
Qui further teaches raising the solution temperature to 50~100°C (Qui, [0016]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed heating temperature range.
Qui further teaches adding the sulfonating agent into the above solution, and letting the sulfonation reaction take place at a temperature of 80~100°C (Qui, [0018]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed sulfonation temperature, and wherein when the sulfonating agent is added to the solution, sulfite ions are introduced into the lignin (Qui, [0052]) (i.e., the sulfonating agent generating sulfite ions in the aqueous suspension).
Further, Qui teaches the weight ratio of industrial lignin to sulfonating agent is 100:30-200 (Qui, [0019]). The molecular weight of the lignin monomer in Kraft lignin, a form of industrial lignin, is about 182 g/mol as evidenced by Zakzeski (Zakzeski, p. 8, Table 2). Qui teaches the sulfonating agents may be selected from sodium metabisulfite and sodium sulfite (Qui, [0053]) (i.e., claim 27). The molecular weight of sodium metabisulfite is 190.11 g/mol and the molecular weight of sodium sulfite is 126.05 g/mol, and the sulfite molecular weight in sodium metabisulfite is about 160 g/mol and in sodium sulfite is about 80 g/mol.
Therefore, the molar ratio of sulfonating agent to lignin when the sulfonating agent is sodium metabisulfite, is 0.19-1.25 mol: 0.55 mol (i.e., 30g/(160g/mol) – 200g/(160g/mol) : 100g/(182g/mol)) which then equals 0.35-2.27 mols sulfite : 1 mol of lignin, which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed (i.e., claim 47).
Further, when the sulfonating agent is sodium sulfite, the molar ratio of sulfonating agent to lignin is 0.38-2.5 mol: 0.55 mol (i.e., 30g/(80g/mol) – 200g/(80g/mol) : 100g/(182g/mol)) which then equals 0.69-4.55 mols of sulfite : 1 mol of lignin, which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, Qui teaches cooling the reaction mixture down to room temperature to obtain the product of lignin-based water reducer with high degree of sulfonation and high molecular weight (Qui, [0018]) (i.e., cooling the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture to produce the dispersant composition of sulfonated lignin).
While Qui does not explicitly teach each step is “under stirring”, Qui refers to each product of the steps as a “mixture” (Qui, [0018]), therefore, stirring would have occurred in order to form the mixture.
Additionally, given that Qui discloses the sulfonated lignin that overlaps the presently claimed sulfonated lignin, including sodium metabisulfite and sodium sulfite, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the sodium metabisulfite or sodium sulfite, which is both disclosed by Qui and encompassed within the scope of the present claimed and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, the recitation in the claims that the dispersant composition of sulfonated lignin is “used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal or agricultural products” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Qui discloses a process of preparing a composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the water reducer, i.e., dispersant, composition of Qui would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. as a dispersant used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal or agricultural products, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the concentration of the industrial lignin needs to be controlled at 30-60 wt% by total weight of the aqueous solution of the industrial lignin (Qui, [0034]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed. Further, as Qui teaches the ratio should be “controlled”, it is clear that the ratio would be controlled or maintained throughout the process.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein during the preparation of the product, the pH of the industrial lignin needs to be kept at 9-14 (Qui, [0037]). Further, as sulfite compounds are acidic, it is clear that during the sulfonating reaction, the solution pH would decrease and have to be adjusted with bases to increase the pH following the sulfonating reaction (i.e., pH of the lignin-containing aqueous suspension before the addition of the sulfonating agent is higher than the sulfonation pH).
Regarding claim 7, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein alkaline pulping such as the kraft method and caustic soda method is the main method that is used in China’s paper industry (Qui, [0004]). Qui further teaches particularly suitable industrial lignin are alkali lignins produced from alkaline pulping (i.e., kraft method or caustic sodas method) (Qui, [0031-0032]) (i.e., Kraft lignin or soda lignin).
Regarding claim 15, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the solution pH of the industrial lignin in water is set to 9-14 and the temperature is raised to 50-100°C (Qui, [0028]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed; and the pH is adjusted by adding strong bases (Qui, [0039]).
Given that Qui discloses the aqueous lignin suspension that overlaps the presently claimed lignin-containing aqueous suspension, including addition of bases, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the base, which is both disclosed by Qui and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sulfonating reaction takes place at a temperature of 80-100°C (Qui, [0018]) (i.e., temperature is adjusted prior to reaction), which falls within the presently claimed range.
Regarding claim 30, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the sulfonating agent is added to the lignin solution which was heated (Qui, [0016]; [0018]) (i.e., adding the sulfonating agent to the heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension in one or more addition steps). The pH of the solution is kept at 9-14 by addition of bases (Qui, [0037]; [0039]); and the temperature for sulfonation is 80-100°C (Qui, [0018]) (i.e., adjusting the sulfonation temperature).
Regarding claim 53, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the reaction mixture is cooled to room temperature (Qui, [0018]), which falls within the range of the presently claimed.
Regarding claim 58, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein during the preparation of the product, the pH of the lignin needs to be kept at 9-14 (i.e., throughout the entire process including following cooling) (Qui, [0037]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 71, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein in example 1, the final product is produced by spray-drying (Qui, [0065]) (i.e., drying to obtain the sulfonated lignin in solid form).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gellerstedt et al. (“Softwood kraft lignin: Raw material for the future”, 2015) (Gellerstedt).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the properties of industrial lignin vary with the raw materials, pulp technology, and methods of purification (Qui, [0030]). As Qui teaches part of the process to produce industrial lignin includes various purification methods, it is clear the industrial lignin of Qui is a purified industrial lignin. Further, Qui teaches the industrial lignin must be kept at a pH of from 9-14 (i.e., post purification pH must be from 9-14) (Qui, [0037]), which overlaps with the range of the presently claimed.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, Qui does not explicitly teach the kraft lignin is a agricultural kraft lignin, softwood kraft lignin, or hardwood kraft lignin.
With respect to the difference, Gellerstedt teaches large quantities of kraft lignin are formed in the pulp industry (Gellerstedt, Abstract) and wherein the water solubility of kraft lignin can be increased through addition of sulfonate groups (Gellerstedt, p. 845, Col. 2, Paragraph 3 – p. 846, Col. 1, line 1). Gellerstedt specifically teaches more than 50% of kraft pulps is based on softwood pulping (Gellerstedt, p. 846 – 2. Dissolution of lignin).
As Gellerstedt expressly teaches, development of material systems based on softwood kraft lignin should be beneficial for the future sustainable society and add value to a renewable resource (Gellerstedt, Abstract).
Gellerstedt is analogous art as it is drawn to the production and use of kraft lignin from pulping processes (Gellerstedt, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of using softwood kraft lignin as the kraft lignin as disclosed by Gellerstedt, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the kraft lignin of Qui by using softwood kraft lignin in order to be a sustainable source of kraft lignin, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Norgren et al. (“Stabilisation of kraft lignin solutions by surfactant additions”, 2001) (Norgren).
Regarding claim 20, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the lignin-containing aqueous solution is performed in the presence of at least one surface-active agent.
With respect to the difference, Norgren teaches the tuning of colloidal stability of kraft lignin in aqueous alkaline solutions (Norgren, Abstract). Norgren specifically teaches adding commercial softwood kraft lignin from mill black liquors to water and NaOH (Norgren, p. 241 – 2.1. Materials; p. 242, 2.2.1. Preparation of sample solutions).
As Norgren expressly teaches, addition of surfactants resulted in higher colloidal stability of lignin in aqueous alkaline solutions than solutions without surfactants. Furthermore, in already aggregated kraft lignin solutions, additions of STDC were found to cause ‘de-aggregation’ and the number of formed aggregates was dramatically decreased (Norgren, Abstract).
Norgren is analogous art as it is drawn to aqueous alkaline solutions of lignin (Norgren, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of adding surfactants to the aqueous alkaline solutions comprising lignin as disclosed by Norgren, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aqueous alkaline lignin solutions of Qui by including a surfactant in order to increase the colloidal stability and decrease aggregation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (“Evolution of sulfur during fast pyrolysis of sulfonated Kraft lignin”, 2018) (Han).
Regarding claim 63, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach reducing the content of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture before or after cooling.
With respect to the difference, Han teaches sulfonated kraft lignin has a high sulfur content due to the extraction and subsequent sulfonation processes. Han teaches pyrolysis to remove the sulfur containing compounds (i.e., VOCs) from the sulfonated lignin (Han, Abstract). Han specifically teaches a high proportion of sulfur compounds are detected after a fast pyrolysis of sulfonated kraft lignin. Almost all of the sulfur-containing bonds in lignin structure can be broken at 550°C (Han, p. 167, Col. 2, Paragraph 2).
As Han expressly teaches sulfur is undesirable in liquid feedstock for chemicals and fuels since it increases the acidity and causes air pollution problems from combustion (Han, p. 162, Col. 2, Paragraph 2).
Han is analogous art as it is drawn to sulfonated kraft lignin (Han, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of removing sulfur containing compounds from sulfonated lignin mixtures as disclosed by Han, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Qui to include the removal of sulfur containing compounds in order to reduce the harmful effects such as increasing acidity in chemical and fuels and causing air pollution, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qui, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aro et al. (“Production and Application of Lignosulfonates and Sulfonated Lignin”, 2017) (Aro).
Regarding claim 67, Qui teaches the process of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a sulfite precipitation step before or after the cooling, to obtain a sulfite-free sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, wherein the sulfite precipitation comprises the formation of an insoluble sulfite salt by addition of salt or base to the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, followed by a physical separation of the insoluble salt.
With respect to the difference, Aro teaches the production of sulfonated lignin-based products (Aro, Abstract). Aro specifically teaches using the Howard process, lime (calcium oxide) is added to spent liquor to precipitate calcium sulfite, which can be filtered and removed (Aro, p. 1864, Col. 2, Paragraph 3).
As Aro expressly teaches, filtering the calcium sulfite and subjecting it to a pH change and further purification regenerates pulping chemicals (Aro, p. 1864, Col. 2, Paragraph 3).
Aro is analogous art as it is drawn to the production of sulfonated lignin-based products and methods (Aro, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of precipitating using calcium oxide to precipitate sulfite from spent liquor followed by filtering and removal as disclosed by Aro, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Qui by incorporating the addition of calcium oxide to precipitate the sulfites out of the solution followed by filtering and removal in order to regenerate pulping chemicals for further use, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“Qiu does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin, comprising: preparation of a lignin-containing aqueous suspension having a solids content of up to about 45 wt% and a pH greater than about 6, by mixing a lignin with water; heating the lignin-containing aqueous suspension to at least about 65 °C and not more than about 160 °C under stirring to obtain a heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension; sulfonation of the lignin to obtain a sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, by adding a sulfonating agent to the heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension, the sulfonating agent generating a sulfite ion, a bisulfite ion or a mixture thereof in the aqueous suspension, the sulfonation being performed under stirring at a sulfonation temperature of at least about 90 °C and not more than about 160 °C, at a sulfonation pH of from about 8.5 to about 11 and using a molar ratio of the sulfonating agent to the lignin between about 0.1:1 to about 1.5:1 on a sulfite to monomeric lignin sub-unit basis; and cooling the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture to produce the dispersant composition of sulfonated lignin, wherein the dispersant composition of sulfonated lignin is used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal or agricultural products.
Specifically, Qiu does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin. Further, Qiu does not teach or suggest that the dispersant composition of sulfonated lignin is used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal or agricultural products.”
Remarks, p. 9-10
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues that Qui does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition, Qui explicitly teaches the composition is a water reducer composition, and in the instant disclosure it is taught that dispersants can also be referred to as water reducers (Specification, Paragraph [3]). Therefore, it is clear that the water reducer of Qui is a dispersant composition.
Applicant further argues that Qui does not teach the dispersant composition is used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal, or agricultural products. However, this limitation is merely intended use.
The recitation in the claims that the dispersant composition of sulfonated lignin is “used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal or agricultural products” is merely an intended use. Applicants’ attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Qui discloses a process of preparing a water reducer, i.e., dispersant, composition as presently claimed, it is clear that the water reducer composition of Qui would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. as a dispersant used in gypsum manufacturing, drilling fluids, coal or agricultural products, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“In addition, the Applicant would like to point out that the sulfonation process of lignin of Qiu is different from the sulfonation process of lignin of amended claim 1. Qiu involves a graft copolymerization of the lignin with dihydroxyketones before the sulfonation step.
The graft copolymerization of industrial lignin and dihydroxyketone is carried out through etherification reaction, and the long chains containing active carbonyl and hydroxyl are introduced into lignin (e.g., Qiu, paragraph [0047]). It is important to regulate the weight ratio of dihydroxyketone to industrial lignin at 20-500:100. If the weight ratio of dihydroxyketone is lower than 20, the final product will have lower molecular weight, and have poorer water-reducing property. If the weight ratio of dihydroxyketone is higher than 500, the reaction will be too drastic to control. Also, the whole cost will increase (e.g., Qiu, paragraph [0048]). Thus, the use of dihydroxyketone and graft copolymerization step are essential for sulfonation of Qiu and the process fails without the use of dihydroxyketone and a step of graft copolymerization.
Obviously, the method disclosed by Qiu belongs to the methods involving over- functionalization. However, this is contrary to the aim of the process of the present application, as mentioned in paragraph [0121] of the present application (US 2022/0259245A1):"The present process can thus allow introducing sulfonate functions on the aliphatic moieties of the lignin without requiring a step of functionalizing or graft polymerizing the lignin to introduce side chains containing reactive groups on the lignin, before sulfonation."
Further, the samples are required to be purified through anion and cation exchange resins wherein the anion exchange resin is 717 strong-base styrene-type anion exchange resin, and the cation exchange resin is 732 strong-acid styrene-type cationic exchange resin from Guangzhou Huada Chemical Reagent Co. Ltd. (e.g., Qiu, paragraph [0078]). Thus, Qiu method requires additional purification step.
However, the products resulting from the present process (paragraph [0144] of the present application (US 2022/0259245A1) present high dispersion efficiency. The process can thus allow producing dispersant compositions in mild conditions, without having to resort to over-functionalization (e.g., use of formaldehyde, oxidation or other). The process can result in a ready- to-use dispersant with high solids content, without requiring purification steps (emphasis added) or only straightforward ones (e.g., VOC removal and/or sulfite precipitation). The ready- to-use dispersant is capable amongst many uses, of functioning as a low to mid-range dispersant in concrete, with minimal impact on setting time and an improved workability retention profile compared to current alternatives. Therefore, the Applicant would like to again point out that the sulfonation process of lignin of Qiu is different from the sulfonation process of lignin of amended claim 1.”
Remarks, p. 10-11
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While Qui may include graft copolymerization and purification steps, the claims state “A process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin, comprising” (emphasis added). Therefore, the process is not limited to only the stated steps and may comprise others including graft polymerization and purification steps. As Qui teaches a process that comprises all of the claimed steps, the process of Qui corresponds to the claimed process, regardless of additional graft copolymerization and purification steps.
Applicant further argues:
“Finally, the results of the potentiometry test are reported in Table 3 below. The data show an increase of the charge density in the modified Kraft lignin resulting from the present process. The dispersing ability of the sulfonated lignins resulting from the present process, compared to commercial PNS and lignosulfonates in Example 14, can be viewed in light of the results in table 3. Despite relatively low charge density compared to that of a commercial PNS, and similar to that of a commercial LR Lignosulfonate, the dispersion performance of the sulfonated lignins from the present process surpasses both product classes in LR and MR water reductions. The present process therefore results in a dispersant presenting high dispersion to charge efficacy (paragraph [0175] of the present application (US 2022/0259245A1)).”
Remarks, p. 11
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
The data to show advantageous effects by using a modified Kraft lignin in the present invention is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Firstly, the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims. The data only provides support for:
A process for preparing a composition comprising a sulfonated lignin, comprising:
preparation of a lignin-containing aqueous suspension having a solids content of 32 wt%, 29 wt%, or 28 wt% and a pH of 10.4, 11.5, 11.4, or 11.3, by mixing different types of Commercial Softwood Kraft Lignin with water;
heating the lignin-containing aqueous suspension to 90°C or 85°C under stirring to obtain a heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension;
sulfonation of the lignin to obtain a sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, by adding sodium sulfite or sodium metabisulfite as the sulfonating agent to the heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension, the sulfonating agent generating a sulfite ion, a bisulfite ion or a mixture thereof in the aqueous suspension, the sulfonation being performed under stirring at a sulfonation temperature of 120°C, 150°C, 110°C, or 100°C at a sulfonation pH of 10.8, 10.0, 9.7, 9.1, or 11.5 and using an undisclosed molar ratio of the sulfonating agent to the lignin on a sulfite to monomeric lignin sub-unit basis; and
cooling the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture.
While the claim broadly recites:
A process for preparing a composition comprising a sulfonated lignin, comprising:
preparation of a lignin-containing aqueous suspension having a solids content of up to about 45 wt% and a pH greater than about 6, by mixing any form of lignin with water;
heating the lignin-containing aqueous suspension to at least about 65 °C and not more than about 160 °C under stirring to obtain a heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension;
sulfonation of the lignin to obtain a sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, by adding any form of sulfonating agent to the heated lignin-containing aqueous suspension, the sulfonating agent generating a sulfite ion, a bisulfite ion or a mixture thereof in the aqueous suspension, the sulfonation being performed under stirring at a sulfonation temperature of at least about 90 °C and not more than about 160°C at a sulfonation pH of from about 8.5 to about 11 and using a molar ratio of the sulfonating agent to the lignin between about 0.1:1 to about 1.5:1 on a sulfite to monomeric lignin sub-unit basis; and
cooling the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture.
Secondly, the data does not show using the upper- and lower-ends of initial solids content weight percentage and initial pH of the lignin-containing aqueous suspension; temperature at which the lignin-containing aqueous suspension is heated to; sulfonation temperature; sulfonation pH; and molar ratio of sulfonating agent to the lignin. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of sulfonation temperature and sulfonation pH.
Applicant further argues:
“Zakzeski teaches catalytic valorization of lignin for the production of renewable chemicals. Several catalysts for lignin valorization are discussed. The molecular weight of the lignin monomer in Kraft lignin, a form of industrial lignin, is about 182 g/mol as evidenced by Zakzeski (Zakzeski, p. 8, Table 2) (Office Action, page 4). Zakzeski teaches molecular weight of lignin, however, Zakzeski does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. Thus, the teaching as provided by Zakzeski does not remedy the deficiencies in Qiu. Further, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine Qiu and Zakzeski to arrive a process of preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. For any of the foregoing reasons, the combination of Qiu and Zakzeski does not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims 1 as amended. Therefore, claim 1 and all the claims dependent therefrom are not obvious over Qiu in view of Zakzeski. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection.”
Remarks, p. 11-12
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Zakzeki does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Zakzeki is used as an evidentiary reference, namely to disclose the molecular weight of lignin. Therefore, it is not necessary for this evidentiary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention.
Further, Zakzeki is only used as an evidentiary reference in order to provide the molecular weight of different lignins. It is noted that the "test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art", In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,208 USPQ 871,881 (CCPA 1981) and that "combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures", In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USP 224, 226 (CCPA).
Applicant further argues:
“Gellerstedt does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. Thus, the teaching as provided by Gellerstedt does not remedy the deficiencies in Qiu. Further, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine Qiu and Gellerstedt to arrive a process of preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. For any of the foregoing reasons, the combination of Qiu and Gellerstedt does not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims 1 as amended. Therefore, claim 1 and all the claims dependent therefrom are not obvious over Qiu in view of Gellerstedt. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection.”
Remarks, p. 12
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Gellerstedt does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Gellerstedt is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach using softwood Kraft lignin and softwood Kraft lignin that has a post purification pH of from about 1 to about 10, in order to be a sustainable source of Kraft lignin (Gellerstedt, Abstract), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Norgren does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. Thus, the teaching as provided by Norgren does not remedy the deficiencies in Qiu. Further, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine Qiu and Norgren to arrive a process of preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. For any of the foregoing reasons, the combination of Qiu and Norgren does not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims 1 as amended. Therefore, claim 1 and all the claims dependent therefrom are not obvious over Qiu in view of Norgren. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection.”
Remarks, p. 13
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Norgren does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Norgren is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach the lignin-containing aqueous solution is performed in the presence of at least one surface-active agent, in order to increase colloidal stability and decrease aggregation (Norgren, Abstract), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Han does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. Thus, the teaching as provided by Han does not remedy the deficiencies in Qiu. Further, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine Qiu and Han to arrive a process of preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. For any of the foregoing reasons, the combination of Qiu and Han does not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims 1 as amended. Therefore, claim 1 and all the claims dependent therefrom are not obvious over Qiu in view of Han. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection.”
Remarks, p. 13-14
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Han does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Han is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach reducing the content of volatile organic compounds from the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture before or after the cooling, in order to reduce the harmful effects such as increasing acidity in chemical fuels and causing air pollution (Han, p. 162, Col. 2, Paragraph 2), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Aro does not teach or suggest a process for preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. Thus, the teaching as provided by Aro does not remedy the deficiencies in Qiu. Further, there is no motivation for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine Qiu and Aro to arrive a process of preparing a dispersant composition comprising a sulfonated lignin as required by amended independent claim 1. For any of the foregoing reasons, the combination of Qiu and Aro does not teach or suggest all of the elements of the claims 1 as amended. Therefore, claim 1 and all the claims dependent therefrom are not obvious over Qiu in view of Aro. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the obviousness rejection.”
Remarks, p. 14
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Aro does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Aro is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach sulfite precipitation before or after the cooling, to obtain a sulfite-free sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, wherein the sulfite precipitation comprises the formation of an insoluble sulfite salt by addition of salt or base to the sulfonated lignin-containing mixture, followed by a physical separation of the insoluble salt, in order to regenerate pulping chemicals for further use (Aro, p. 1864, Col. 2, Paragraph 3), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Ching-Yiu 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.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732