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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II and species triazines and diethyl amine in the reply filed on 02/27/26 is acknowledged. As such, claims 21-23 and 26-30 read on both the elected invention and elected species at the same time and will thus be examined. Claims 24-25 are thus withdrawn from further consideration. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, even though they said the election was made with traverse, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim 23 and 30 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 23 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “wherein a triazine is the only sweetener”. The problem here is that in Applicant’s independent claim 21, Applicant sets forth a Markush Group of “at least one reaction catalyst”, wherein all of said “catalyst” are notoriously well known in the art to individually function as sweeteners for scavenging acidic gas/components, such as hydrogen sulfide. The below applied prior-art references of Kamoun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0175769 A1 and RU 2216607 C2, clearly establish this basic fact. As such, Applicant’s said limitation of dependent claim 23 would seem to exclude Applicant’s requires “catalyst” component of independent claim 21.
Claim 30 is also being rejected here because it is directly dependent on rejected claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 21-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuhle et al. U.S. Patent Number 4,459,151.
Kuhle et al. discloses herbicidally active compositions comprising fluorine-containing 4,6-diamino-s-triazines. Applicant’s claims are deemed to be clearly anticipated over Example 4 which teaches in part: “14.8 g (0.06 mol) of 2,4-dichloro-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethylamino)-s-triazine (prepared as described in Example 3) were dissolved in 100 ml of acetone, and 12 ml of an approximately 45% strength aqueous dimethylamine solution were added dropwise at room temperature.”.
When the said concentration of acetone is converted to grams it is 78.4 grams. When said 45% strength of 12 ml of an dimenthylamine in an aqueous solution is converted to grams, the concentration of dimethylamine is 3.51 grams and the concentration of water is 6.6 grams. Thus the calculated concentration of the triazine compound in the overall solution is 14.33 wt.%. The calculated concentration of the dimethylamine compound in the overall solution is 3.46 wt.%. The calculated concentration of water in the overall solution is 6.39 wt.%. The rest is acetone.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw et al. U.S. Patent Number 3,577,541.
Shaw et al. discloses compositions for effecting tranquility with triazines. Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over Example 22 which teaches in part: “A suspension of 5 parts of 2-chloro-4,6-bis(methoxy-amino)-s-triazine in 20 parts of water is treated with 1.77 parts (0.0243 mole) of diethylamine, and the mixture is slowly heated to the reflux.”. Please note that according to the invention, the treatment (i.e. addition) of the diethylamine component seems to be added (dropwise) to the suspension of said triazine and water.
When the full amount of diethylamine has been added to the aqueous triazine suspension, the concentration of the triazine component in the overall suspension is calculated to be 18.68 wt.% (falls directly within Applicant’s claimed sweetener concentration ranges), the concentration of water in the overall composition is calculated to be 74.71 wt.% (falling within applicant’s dependent claim 27 water concentration range), and the concentration of diethylamine in the overall suspension is calculated to be 6.61 wt.% (which falls only a little outside of Applicant’s “catalyst” 1-6 wt.% concentration range of independent claim 21). Nevertheless, because the diethylamine component is added slowly (dropwise) to the suspension of said triazine and water, it is inevitable that during its slow addition, the concentration of the diethylamine compound within the suspension, would inevitably fall within applicant’s “catalyst” concentration range of 1-6 wt.%. When such inevitable happens, Applicant’s claims are clearly anticipated over Shaw et al.’s suspension of Example 22.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamoun et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0175769 A1 optionally in view of RU 2216607 C2.
Kamoun et al. discloses scavenger compositions for acidic gases (e.g. hydrogen sulfide).
Kamon et al.’s claim 19 reads as followed: “The multi-component scavenging system of claim 11, comprising:
from about 20 to about 80 wt. % of the at least one nitrogen containing scavenger based on the total weight of the multi-component scavenging system;
from about 0.01 to about 5 wt. % of the at least one hygroscopic agent based on the total weight of the multi-component scavenging system; and
from about 15 to about 79.99 wt. % water based on the total weight of the multi-component scavenging system.”.
The at least one nitrogen containing scavenger is disclosed to be selected from a variety of nitrogen containing scavengers, such as various triazines (MMA-Triazine is disclosed as a preferred triazine and it fully meets the limitations of Applicant’s sweetener component of all claims), see paragraph [0040] and claims 5, 13 and 15. Other specifically disclosed effective nitrogen containing scavengers are dimethylamine and dipropylamine (both of which fall directly within Applicant’s “catalyst’ component of independent claim 21), see paragraph [0041] and claim 5.
Kamoun et al.’s Formulations A through C, F through H, K through M, and P through R, (see TABLES I-III) all teach aqueous solutions comprising a triazine sweetener at a concentration falling within 40 to 50 wt.% of the aqueous solution (which falls directly within Applicant’s sweetener concentration ranges of all claims), and a concentration of water falling within a concentration range of 44.1 to 59 wt.% of the aqueous solution (which falls directly within Applicant’s water concentration range of dependent claim 27).
Kamoun et al. differs from applicant’s claimed invention in that there is not a direct teaching (i.e. by way of an example) to a scavenging compositions wherein the composition comprises in addition to the triazine sweetener, a secondary sweetener selected from either dimethylamine and/or dipropylamine wherein its concentration falls within Applicant’s 1-6 wt.% concentration range of independent claim 21.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Kamoun et al.’s disclosure as sufficient motivation to actually make an aqueous multi-component scavenging system which comprises a mixture of nitrogen containing scavengers, such as a mixture of (MMA triazine) with either dimethylamine or dipropylamine within Applicant’s claimed concentration ranges because: 1) combinations of nitrogen containing scavengers are directly suggested in paragraphs [0040]-[0041] and claim 5, 2) it is well known in the art that it is not inventive to merely employ combination of components together for which they are individually known to perform the same function, outside a showing of unexpected and superior results., and 3) Applicant’s claimed concentration ranges for the triazine sweetener component and dimethylamine or dipropylamine “catalyst” component, can be easily met by one having ordinary skill in the art by routine experimentation in light of Kamoun et al.’s overall disclosure, and are thus considered obvious ranges outside a showing of unexpected and superior results.
In the alternative, Kamoun et al. can optionally be taken in view of RU 2216607 C2’s disclosure that it is well known in the art to make acid (hydrogen sulfide) scavenging compositions comprising combinations of nitrogen containing scavengers, such as a combination of a triazine with dimethylamine.
Specifically, RU 2216607 C2 discloses a method for making inhibitors for prevention of ferrous metal corrosion in acidic media (e.g. hydrogen sulfide containing media). The compositions comprise (by mass%): trimethylamine, 0.01-0.5; dimethylamine, 8.0 - 18.0; N,N- tetramethylmethylene diamine(bis-amine), 10.0 - 35.0; 1,3,5-trimethylhexahydro- 1,3,5-triazine, 0.5 - 3.0; water, 1.0 -10.0; and methanol the balance.
Thus one having ordinary skill in the art, using the combined disclosures of Kamoun et al. in view of RU 2216607 C2, would be highly motivated to actually employ a mixture of nitrogen containing scavengers, such as a combination of a triazine with dimethylamine in Kamoun et al.’s acidic scavenging compositions for the scavenging benefits said would impart.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764