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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, and 3- 8 and 10- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solarek (EP0603727A1) . In regards to claim 1, Solarek teaches a method for producing high-purity derivatized starch, in which a raw starch material is subject to purifying and slurrying ( Pa ge 5 Lines 42-43 , “ Waxy corn starch (1000 g) was slurried in 1500 cc water, 150 g of 4% sodium hydroxide added and the slurry heated to 40°C ” ) , D erivatization (Pa ge 5 Lines 44-46 , “ The mixture was reacted overnight at 40°C then split into three parts and each part was reacted with a different amount of epichlorohydrin: 0.002, 0.004 and 0.006% at 40°C for 16 hours ”) , where the epichlorohydrin substitutes hydroxyl groups with ethers, G elatinization (Pa ge s 6-7 , “ Starches were cooked using either a boiling water bath (BWB) to simulate batch cooking or mini-jet cooker (Jet) to simulate commercial jet cooking, and evaluated for alkaline dynamic pigment retention using the procedure of Example I with the results given below in Table 2. The boiling water bath (BWB) cooking method involved slurrying the starch (1% solids) in an agitated or stirred beaker or container which is placed in a water bath tank. Heating was provided to a temperature of about 200-212°F by electric means (electric heating coil) immersed in the water bath with stirring and heating continued for about five minutes until the gel point and heaviest viscosity (peak viscosity) is past. The starch is allowed to remain in the boiling water for another 25 minutes to insure complete dispersion. After this time, it is removed and immediately placed into a cold water bath to simulate quenching. The procedure of jet cooking using the mini-jet cooker was the same as described in Example I ”) and pH adjustment ( Pa ge 7 Lines 37-39 , “ The slurry was heated to 45°C and 4.7% (dry basis of starch) of (3-chloro-2-hydroxy-propyl trimethylammonium chloride ( Quab 188, Degussa Corporation, 65% solids) was added while maintaining the slurry pH between 11.0-11.7 using periodic additions of 4% sodium hydroxide ” ) . Solarek also teaches that a starch after gelatinization and derivatization is mixed with a dilute acid ( Pa ge 13 Lines 39-40 , "Another amphoteric starch was prepared by reacting CBD-1 (Example IV) with an aminophosphonate reagent, N-(2-chloroethyliminobis(methylene) disphosphonic acid) or CMPA”). In regards to claim 3, Solarek teaches a method where there is a first alkaline washing step ( Page 5 Lines 44-46 , “ Waxy corn starch (1000 g) was slurried in 1500 cc water, 150 g of 4% sodium hydroxide added and the slurry heated to 40°C. One hundred (100) g of a 50% aqueous solution of diethylaminoethyl chloride hydrochloride (DEC) was added while maintaining the pH at 11.5 with 4% sodium hydroxide. The mixture was reacted overnight at 40°C then split into three parts and each part was reacted with a different amount of epichlorohydrin: 0.002, 0.004 and 0.006% at 40°C for 16 hours ”) and a second step for washing and concentrating the slurry ( Page 5 Lines 46-47 , Samples were neutralized to 6.0 pH, filtered, washed with water (two parts water per part of starch) and dried ”) . In regards to claim 4, Solarek teaches the use of an organic acid ( diethylaminoethyl chloride hydrochloride ) in the production of derivatized starch ( Page 5 Lines 44-46 , “ Waxy corn starch (1000 g) was slurried in 1500 cc water, 150 g of 4% sodium hydroxide added and the slurry heated to 40°C. One hundred (100) g of a 50% aqueous solution of diethylaminoethyl chloride hydrochloride (DEC) was added while maintaining the pH at 11.5 with 4% sodium hydroxide ”). In regards to claim 5, Solarek teaches that the slurry is concentrated to a solid content between 2 to 42 wt % (Pa ge 5 Lines 50-52 , “ The starch was typically slurried at 4 to 6% solids and was passed through the mini-jet cooker at a flow rate of about 0.034 gal/min (130 ml/min) with a retention time therein of about 2.3 seconds ”) In regards to claim 6, Solarek teaches a two stage acidification after gelatinization ( Pa ge 6 Lines 11-15 , “ The sample was acidified with sulfuric acid to solubilize the calcium carbonate and then filtered onto tared filter paper to recover the fine solids . A standard titration was run by adding Eriochrome Black "T" indicator and titrating with 0.1 N EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid, disodium salt) standard solution to a blue endpoint, using a calibrated burette. ” ) . In regards to claim s 7 and 8, Solarek teaches using a sodium hydroxide solution in the cationization step ( Page 5 Lines 44-46 , “ Waxy corn starch (1000 g) was slurried in 1500 cc water, 150 g of 4% sodium hydroxide added and the slurry heated to 40°C. One hundred (100) g of a 50% aqueous solution of diethylaminoethyl chloride hydrochloride (DEC) was added while maintaining the pH at 11.5 with 4% sodium hydroxide. The mixture was reacted overnight at 40°C then split into three parts and each part was reacted with a different amount of epichlorohydrin: 0.002, 0.004 and 0.006% at 40°C for 16 hours. Samples were neutralized to 6.0 pH, filtered, washed with water (two parts water per part of starch) and dried ”). In regards to claim 10, Solarek teaches that the raw starch material is a waxy maize starch ( Page 5 Lines 44-46 , “ Waxy corn starch (1000 g) was slurried in 1500 cc water, 150 g of 4% sodium hydroxide added and the slurry heated to 40°C ”). In regards to claim 11, Solarek teaches that the starch produced is used in the method of making paper (Pa ge 3 Lines 1-5 , “ More particularly, this invention relates to a method of making paper having a pH of about 4.5 or more comprising adding a crosslinked, cationized or amphoteric starch to the wet end of the system wherein the starch has been crosslinked by adding enough crosslinking agent to provide a starch having a percent breakdown viscosity of from about 2 to 85% and wherein the crosslinked, cationized or amphoteric starch has been jet cooked under super atmospheric pressure at a temperature of from about 195 to 325°F ”). 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. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solarek ( EP0603727A1 ) in view of Frans van Esch ( “The Efficiency of Hydrocyclones for the Separation of Different Starches”, Starch, Volume 43, Issue 11, 1991 ) . In regards to claim 2, Solarek teaches a method involving purification of a slurry obtained by washing and drying at an alkaline pH ( Pa ge 6 Lines 49-54 , “ The starches were prepared using the following general method. Starch was slurried in water (1 part starch/1.5 parts water) and 0.6 - 0.8% sodium hydroxide, based on weight of starch, was added as a 4% solution. The slurry was heated to 40-45°C and 3.1-4.7% (3-chloro-2-hydroxypropyl) trimethyl ammonium chloride was added as a 65% aqueous solution. After 12-16 hours reaction at 40-45°C, the reactions were split into equal parts and reacted further with varying amounts of epichlorohydrin at 40-45°C, 11.3-11.7 pH, 12-16 hours ” ) . Solarek does not explicit l y teach using a decanter, hydrocyclone , or separators during the purification step of the slurry. Frans van Esch teaches using a hydrocyclone to purify a starch slurry (1 Introduction, “ In each stage, a starch slurry, containing im-purities, is first mixed with relatively clean water from the next washing stage, then the starch is separated from the liquid, which contains the impurities ”; “ In many plants, hydrocyclones are used to separate the starch from the impurities in a starch washing system ”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a hydrocyclone for the purification of starch as it is well known to do so due to low costs, no moving parts, and wide usage (1 Introduction, “ The advantage of hydrocyclones are the low cost, the absence of moving parts, and the wide operating range ”). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solarek ( EP0603727A1 ). In regards to claim 9, Solarek teaches a degree of cationization between 0.02 to 0.5 (Pa ge 4 Lines 14-15 , “ The amount of cationic substituent on the starch can be varied and generally a degree of substitution (DS) of from about 0.005 to 0.2 and preferably from about 0.01 to 0.05 will be used ”). This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4531 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - F 8:30-6 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anthony Zimmer can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3591 . 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. /JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736