DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 14, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 12/14/2022 in the matter of Application N° 18/010,361. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Thus, claims 18-21 represent all claims currently under consideration.
In response to the restriction requirement mailed May 9, 2025, applicant elected Group II, claims 18-21, drawn to a composition comprising C4 to C24 alkyl polyglycolides, without traverse. The elected claims have been examined on the merits in the present action.
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 18, 20, and 21 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.
Claims 18, 20, 21, lack clarity insofar as they make reference to the term “mole fraction”. The stated values have no meaning if the “total” to which the “mole fraction” refers is not defined. The amount of alkyl glycosides at the end of a reaction is thought to be related to the “mole fraction”, where the total amount of alkyl glycosides is sorted based on the DP of the glycoside molecule, where the sum of all DPs equals 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-21 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulff et al. (US5962399A).
Regarding claims 18, 19, 20, and 21, Wulff et al. teach a number of commercial surfactants, each with a DP of 1.6 or mixes of C8 and C10 or C12, C14, and C16 with a DP of 2.2, are composed of several alkyl polyglycosides with alkyl chains of varying lengths, such as C8 and C10; C9, C10, and C11; C12, C14, and C16. A significant portion, or more than 0.10 mole fraction, of the alkyl glycoside products must be alkyl monoglycosides (DP1), according to the DP values of 1.6 and 2.2 (See column 18, line19-67; column 32, line 28-column 33, line 2). If the long chain (fatty) alcohol is removed from the reaction mixture by one of the distillation or evaporation methods, the polysaccharide by-products and any other materials with low volatility remain in the alkyl glycoside product. The product will contain the monoglycoside of the long chain alcohol as the predominant glycoside species on a percentage basis and various higher degree of polymerization long chain alcohol polyglycoside species in progressively decreasing mole percentage amounts or proportions from the DP2 and higher glycosides (See pg. 6, column 3, lines 5-9, and 11-16).
Regarding claims 18-21, and 26-29, Wulff et al. teach a significant stoichiometric excess of the long chain alcohol reactant is typically used during the previously mentioned acid-catalyzed saccharide reactant/long chain alcohol reaction process. A significant molar excess of residual unreacted long chain alcohol, the monoglycoside of the long chain alcohol as the predominant glycoside molecular species in both mole and weight percentage bases, and the various higher degree of polymerization long chain alcohol polyglycoside species in progressively decreasing percentage amounts or proportions are typically found in the reaction product mixture as initially made (See column 2, lines 15-27). A mixture of an alkyl polyglycoside component with a non-Flory distribution of glycosides containing a degree of polymerization of 2 and higher in progressively decreasing amounts, where the amount by weight of polyglycoside having a degree of polymerization of 3, predominates and has an average degree of polymerization of about 1.8 to about 3; and at least one other glycoside composition with an HLB between about 10 to 16. Where each of the binary components (a) and (b) is present in the mixture in proportion to the average carbon chain length in order to produce the alkylpolyglycoside surfactant composition with an average carbon chain length of approximately 9 to approximately 14 and an HLB in the range of approximately 10 to approximately 16; the alkylpolyglycoside component (a) is an at least binary component and the glycoside component (b) is an alkylpolyglycoside; (See claim 1a and 1b). commercially available products typically have an average Flory DP of about 1.3-1.7 (See column 7, lines 14-15). A pure monoglycoside will by definition have a degree of polymerization of 1 (DP 1). The concentrated, nearly pure alkyl monoglycoside product of this invention will thus approach a DP1 of 1 with decreasing levels of polyglycoside present; the average DP is less than about 1.1, preferably less than 1.02, and more desirably less than about 1.05 (See column 10, lines 35-42). The alkylpolyglycoside surfactant composition’s average chain length is between 9 and 12. Component (a) is a mixture of C12, C14, and C16 alkylpolyglycosides; component (b) is a binary mixture of C8 and C10 alkylpolyglycosides; the weight ratio of the C8 and C10 alkylpolyglycoside component (b) to the mixture of C12, C14, and C16 alkylpolyglycoside component (a) is between 1:1 and 10:1 (See claim 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Wulff et al. teach alkyl glycoside mixtures comprising: alkyl chains of varying carbon lengths; and glycoside chains having a distribution of degrees of polymerization, explicitly including monoglycosides (DP=1) and higher oligoglycosides (DP ≥ 2). Wulff further discloses that the reported DP values (e.g. 1.6-2.2) are mole-average values, representing statistical mixtures of glycoside species rather than discrete compounds. As recognized in the art, a mole-average DP inherently reflects the relative molar fractions of lower-DP and higher-DP glycoside species present in the mixture.
As previously explained in the Office Action, for a glycoside mixture to exhibit a mean DP in the range of 1.6-2.2, the mixture must necessarily contain a substantial fraction of higher-DP glycosides (DP ≥ 2) in addition to monoglycosides. Conversely, increasing the mole-average DP from the values explicitly taught by Wulff (1.6-2.2) to a value of ≥ 2.4 would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization, achievable by, increasing the proportion of oligoglycosides relative to monoglycosides; or adjusting known reaction parameters (e.g. alcohol-to-sugar ratio, reaction time, catalyst concentration), which Wulff teaches affect the DP distribution. Such optimization involves no change in kind, only a predictable change in degree, and would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
The degree of polymerization (DP) of alkyl glycosides is a recognized result-effective variable in glycoside synthesis. Accordingly, modifying the DP distribution to achieve a slightly higher mole-average DP (≥ 2.4) represents, routine experimentation; and a predictable result flowing from adjustments expressly taught or suggested by Wulff et al. See MPEP 2144.05 (optimization of result effective variables) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, notwithstanding the amendment to claim 18, Wulff et al. still renders the claim obvious, as achieving a mean DP ≥ 2.4 would have been, an obvious optimization of a known glycoside mixture; within the predictable capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art; and unsupported by any showing of criticality or unexpected results.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of the amendments made thereto.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0623. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615