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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 1-21 are under examination. Claims 1-21 are rejected. No claims allowed.
Interview 03/02/2026
Applicant declined the suggestion by the examiner to delete the preferable phrases in the claims to place the application in condition for allowance.
NOTE: The below 112(b) rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims due to the relative term “A high-efficiency cyclic preparation” was not discussed in the interview.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
94
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
44
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
108
989
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
73
976
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1 recites “A high-efficiency cyclic preparation method”. This phrase is a relative term.
The term “A high-efficiency cyclic preparation method” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “A high-efficiency cyclic preparation method” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In the instant case one cannot ascertain the degree of ‘high-efficiency”. This high-efficiency could mean 99% or 85% or 80% efficiency. These values contradict each other.
The dependent claims are also indefinite because the dependent claims do not clarify the indefinite phrase of claim 1.
Claims 8-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-20 have preferable phrases. It is not clear whether the preferable phrases are limitations.
MPEP 2173.05(D): Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
Deletion of the preferable phrases in their entirety will obviate this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable upon obviating the current 112(b) rejection.
The closest prior art to the invention is Chen et al. (EP3786153, Published 03/03/2021). The closest prior art does not pertain to the current invention as discussed below.
Chen et al. teach the following on page 4.
PNG
media_image5.png
54
1069
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
86
1064
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
44
1062
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
77
1064
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The above teachings differ from the claimed invention in that the collected effluent containing taurine post resin treatment is sent to an ammonia gas process. Whereas the claimed invention crystalizes the taurine effluent.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.G.D/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/Andrew D Kosar/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights