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
This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 6/28/23.
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application and are being examined in this Office Action.
Priority
The applicant claims benefit as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
204
588
media_image1.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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the recitation of “essentially horizontal”. The specification doesn't define the metes and bounds of “essentially horizontal” in regard to the cylindrical drying apparatus, such that one would know what is included and what is excluded in an essentially horizontal cylindrical drying apparatus. In applicant’s specification on page 5, line 26, applicant’s state “In the context with cylindrical drying apparatuses, the term “essentially horizontal” does not only include exactly horizontal cylindrical drying apparatuses but also slightly tilted drying apparatuses, for example up to 15° tilt angle.” This definition of “slightly tilted” and the recitation of an example of up to “15° tilt angle” is not sufficient to clearly define the metes and bounds of “essentially horizontal” in regard to the cylindrical drying apparatus.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the recitation of “most of the water”. The specification doesn't define the metes and bounds of “most” in regard to the water amount, such that one would know what is included and what is excluded in a removal of most of the water.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the recitation of “methylglycine diacetate (MGDA) alkali metal salt (A)”. There is no antecedent basis for "methylglycine diacetate (MGDA) alkali metal salt (A)” in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends on.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the recitation of “predominantly”. The specification doesn't define the metes and bounds of “predominantly” in regard to the L-enantiomer ee value, such that one would know what is included and what is excluded in a predominantly L-enantiomer with an ee value in the range of from 0.1 to 35%.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the recitation of “alkoxy groups or CH2COOH groups that may be neutralized with alkali metal“. It is unclear how the recitation of “may be neutralized with alkali metal” limits the type of alkoxy groups or CH2COOH groups. Furthermore, applicant’s recitation of “alkali metal” is also unclear, since it is unknown how an alkali metal can neutralize. Does applicant mean alkali or alkali base?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrzena et al. (US 20120046491, pub date Feb. 23, 2012).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Mrzena et al. teaches preparation of a powder or granules of alkali metal salts of methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid (MGDA). Mrzena et al. exemplifies introducing an aqueous slurry solution of MGDA with a solids content of 69%, to a rapidly rotating contact dryer. The contact dryer was heated to a wall temperature of 120 degree C and rotated with a speed of 275 revolutions per minute. The contact dryer dried the MGDA product in the aqueous slurry from an initial solids content of 69% to a solids content of 88% of readily pourable crystalline granules. (paragraphs 7, 18, 41-44)
Mrzena et al. teaches the contact dryers can be horizontal thin-film dryers from Buss, which produce product with better flowability, lower hygroscopicity and better storage stability. The MGDA or methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid trisodium salt product formed has a degree of crystallinity of greater than or equal to 30%. The methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid trisodium salt product reads on claim 4, when M = Na and x = 0. (paragraph 18-21)
Mrzena et al. also teaches in the initial stage that the MGDA can be evaporated at a pressure range of 0.1 bar absolute to 4 bar absolute. Mrzena et al. exemplifies evaporation with a wall temperature of 120 degree C at a reduced pressure of 0.5 bar. (paragraph 14 and 40, claim 9)
With regard to applicant’s limitation for a racemic mixture of MGDA in claim 5, it would be reasonable to expect the product to be isolated in racemic form, since Mrzena et al. is silent with regard to any enantiomeric enrichment. Typically when no enantiomeric enrichment is indicated, the product isolated is assumed to be racemic, since the racemic form is the equilibrium product. Resolution to obtain enantiomeric enrichment typically involves chiral resolving agents to separate any enantiomers. Mrzena et al. does not use any chiral resolving agents, thus the MGDA product is assumed to be isolated in racemic form.
With regard to applicant’s limitation for a moisture content of the MGDA salt in the range of 1 to 20% by weight in claim 6, since Mrzena et al. exemplifies a solids content of 88% from the aqueous slurry, it would be reasonable to expect that the rest of the content, up to 12%, consists of water moisture, which would read on applicant’s moisture content range.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Mrzena et al. is deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s pressure range of 100 to 600 mbar abs.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
However, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to optimize the pressure of the drying, since Mrzena et al. teaches pressure ranges of 0.1 bar absolute to 4 bar absolute for the evaporator. Additionally merely modifying process conditions such as pressure are not a patentable modification, absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Thus with regard to applicant's pressure limitation, it is the position of the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of this limitation to provide the best effective variable depending on the result desired. Because the art teaches variable pressure ranges for the evaporation step, the examiner asserts that the pressure is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the pressure in the drying step. The applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitations stated. Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the applicant, the formation of free-flowing crystalline granules of MGDA alkali metal salt.
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 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 of this title, 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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrzena et al. (US 20120046491, pub date Feb. 23, 2012), in view of Mueller et al. (US 20190119611, pub date April 25, 2019).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Mrzena et al. teaches preparation of a powder or granules of alkali metal salts of methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid (MGDA). Mrzena et al. exemplifies introducing an aqueous slurry solution of MGDA with a solids content of 69%, to a rapidly rotating contact dryer. The contact dryer was heated to a wall temperature of 120 degree C and rotated with a speed of 275 revolutions per minute. The contact dryer dried the MGDA product in the aqueous slurry from an initial solids content of 69% to a solids content of 88% of readily pourable crystalline granules. (paragraphs 7, 18, 41-44)
Mrzena et al. teaches the contact dryers can be horizontal thin-film dryers from Buss, which produce product with better flowability, lower hygroscopicity and better storage stability. The MGDA or methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid trisodium salt product formed has a degree of crystallinity of greater than or equal to 30%. The methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid trisodium salt product reads on claim 4, when M = Na and x = 0. (paragraph 18-21)
Mrzena et al. also teaches in the initial stage that the MGDA can be evaporated at a pressure range of 0.1 bar absolute to 4 bar absolute. Mrzena et al. exemplifies evaporation with a wall temperature of 120 degree C at a reduced pressure of 0.5 bar. (paragraph 14 and 40, claim 9)
With regard to applicant’s limitation for a racemic mixture of MGDA in claim 5, it would be reasonable to expect the product to be isolated in racemic form, since Mrzena et al. is silent with regard to any enantiomeric enrichment. Typically when no enantiomeric enrichment is indicated, the product isolated is assumed to be racemic, since the racemic form is the equilibrium product. Resolution to obtain enantiomeric enrichment typically involves chiral resolving agents to separate any enantiomers. Mrzena et al. does not use any chiral resolving agents, thus the MGDA product is assumed to be isolated in racemic form.
With regard to applicant’s limitation for a moisture content of the MGDA salt in the range of 1 to 20% by weight in claim 6, since Mrzena et al. exemplifies a solids content of 88% from the aqueous slurry, it would be reasonable to expect that the rest of the content, up to 12%, consists of water moisture, which would read on applicant’s moisture content range.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Mrzena et al. is deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s pressure range of 100 to 600 mbar abs.
Mrzena et al. is also deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s (meth)acrylic acid or polyethylenimine (co)polymers in claim 7, and sieving step in claim 8.
Mueller et al. teaches a process for making granules of alkali metal salts of MGDA. Useful additives that are also organic builders include (co)polymers of poly(meth)acrylates, poly(meth)acrylic acid (the free acid) or polyethylenimines. The granules formed from this process exhibit good properties with respect to biodegradability and complexing behavior but also show low hygroscopicity and an excellent behavior towards peroxides and percarbonates. (paragraphs 79-88 and 169)
Mueller et al. also teaches that the average particle diameter of the granules can be determined by sieving methods and that sieving can separate off the fines from the granules. (paragraphs 23, 64 and 206)
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
However, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to optimize the pressure of the drying, since Mrzena et al. already teaches varying the pressure, in the range of 0.1 bar absolute to 4 bar absolute for the evaporator. Additionally merely modifying process conditions such as pressure are not a patentable modification, absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
It would also be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to include (co)polymers of poly(meth)acrylic acid or polyethylenimine in the slurry, since Mueller et al. teaches the addition of these additives are useful and are organic builders.
Furthermore, it would also be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to sieve the MGDA product, since Mueller et al. teaches sieving allows the determination of the average particle diameter of the granules and separates off the fines from the granules.
Thus it would be obvious to optimize the pressure, to include (co)polymers of poly(meth)acrylic acid or polyethylenimine, and to sieve the MGDA product in order to form granules that exhibit good properties with respect to biodegradability and complexing behavior but also show low hygroscopicity and an excellent behavior towards peroxides and percarbonates.
Also, with regard to applicant's pressure limitation, it is the position of the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of this limitation to provide the best effective variable depending on the result desired. Because the art teaches variable pressure ranges for the evaporation step, the examiner asserts that the pressure is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the pressure in the drying step. The applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitations stated. Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the applicant, the formation of free-flowing crystalline granules of MGDA alkali metal salt.
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 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 of this title, 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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrzena et al. (US 20120046491, pub date Feb. 23, 2012), in view of Buss-SMS-Canzler (2012, pg 1-10), in applicant’s IDS filed 6/28/23.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Mrzena et al. teaches preparation of a powder or granules of alkali metal salts of methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid (MGDA). Mrzena et al. exemplifies introducing an aqueous slurry solution of MGDA with a solids content of 69%, to a rapidly rotating contact dryer. The contact dryer was heated to a wall temperature of 120 degree C and rotated with a speed of 275 revolutions per minute. The contact dryer dried the MGDA product in the aqueous slurry from an initial solids content of 69% to a solids content of 88% of readily pourable crystalline granules. (paragraphs 7, 18, 41-44)
Mrzena et al. teaches the contact dryers can be horizontal thin-film dryers from Buss, which produce product with better flowability, lower hygroscopicity and better storage stability. The MGDA or methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid trisodium salt product formed has a degree of crystallinity of greater than or equal to 30%. The methylglycine N,N-diacetic acid trisodium salt product reads on claim 4, when M = Na and x = 0. (paragraph 18-21)
Mrzena et al. also teaches in the initial stage that the MGDA can be evaporated at a pressure range of 0.1 bar absolute to 4 bar absolute. Mrzena et al. exemplifies evaporation with a wall temperature of 120 degree C at a reduced pressure of 0.5 bar. (paragraph 14 and 40, claim 9)
With regard to applicant’s limitation for a racemic mixture of MGDA in claim 5, it would be reasonable to expect the product to be isolated in racemic form, since Mrzena et al. is silent with regard to any enantiomeric enrichment. Typically when no enantiomeric enrichment is indicated, the product isolated is assumed to be racemic, since the racemic form is the equilibrium product. Resolution to obtain enantiomeric enrichment typically involves chiral resolving agents to separate any enantiomers. Mrzena et al. does not use any chiral resolving agents, thus the MGDA product is assumed to be isolated in racemic form.
With regard to applicant’s limitation for a moisture content of the MGDA salt in the range of 1 to 20% by weight in claim 6, since Mrzena et al. exemplifies a solids content of 88% from the aqueous slurry, it would be reasonable to expect that the rest of the content, up to 12%, consists of water moisture, which would read on applicant’s moisture content range.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Mrzena et al. is deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s pressure range of 100 to 600 mbar abs.
Mrzena et al. is also deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s continuous fluidization technology dryer in claim 9.
Buss-SMS-Canzler teaches their horizontal thin-film dryers, which can continuously mix under vacuum, with a rotor and a heated dryer wall. Furthermore, Buss-SMS-Canzler teaches a CFT (Combi Fluidization Technology) dryer which can operate under vacuum. The CFT dryer avoids sticky/viscous phases and the formation of crusts. (all of pages 5 and 9)
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
However, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to optimize the pressure of the drying, since Mrzena et al. teaches pressure ranges of 0.1 bar absolute to 4 bar absolute for the evaporator. Additionally merely modifying process conditions such as pressure are not a patentable modification, absent a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 U.S.P.Q. 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Additionally, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to include Buss-SMS-Canzler’s CFT dryer in the drying apparatus, since Mrzena et al. already teaches using contact dryers from Buss. Thus it is old in the art to utilize Buss-SMS-Canzler’s CFT dryer in order to avoid sticky/viscous phases and the formation of crusts.
Also, with regard to applicant's pressure limitation, it is the position of the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of this limitation to provide the best effective variable depending on the result desired. Because the art teaches variable pressure ranges for the evaporation step, the examiner asserts that the pressure is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the pressure in the drying step. The applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitations stated. Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the applicant, the formation of free-flowing crystalline granules of MGDA alkali metal salt.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Jennifer Cho Sawyer
Patent Examiner
Art Unit: 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691