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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: There are illegible characters in at least table 1 and 2. See publication 2024/0141101.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 29 and 31 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 29’s “having from 1 to 10” is meaningless.
Claim 31’s “and also the products of partial or complete quaternization” is indefinite as the polymer is either quaternized or not. Both is not possible.
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.
Claims 17-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotemann 2019/0256714 in combination with Sotemann 2020/0188935.
Sotemann ‘714 exemplifies (table 1) producing collector agents for white pigments from alkoxylated fatty amine, dicarboxylic acid and fatty acid. (paras. 361-361) The alkoxylated fatty amine can be ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine which is applicant’s preferred “A” (see applicant’s table 1). The dicarboxylic acid can be adipic acid which is applicant’s preferred “B” (see applicant’s table 1). The fatty acid can be tallow fatty acid which is applicant’s preferred “D” (see applicant’s table 1).
Sotemann lacks applicant’s “C” such as methyldiethanolamine (ie MDEA).
Collector agents for white pigments from alkoxylated fatty amine, dicarboxylic acid and MDEA are known. Sotemann ‘935 exemplifies (table 1) such collector agents. Sotemann ‘935’s discussion of the prior art (paragraph 15) recognizes polymers from alkoxylated fatty amine, dicarboxylic acid and fatty acid were previously known. Sotemann (paragraph 32,33) intends to improve the collector agent’s properties (eg toxicity, foaming etc).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that much (if not all) of the improvement of Sotemann ‘935 is due to the simultaneous use of the alkoxylated fatty amine with MDEA.
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to add some MDEA monomer (replacing some the alkoxylated fatty amine) in Sotemann ‘714’s collector polymer to improve Sotemann’s collector polymer.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
R1 of Sotemann’s ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine must have 8 more carbons by applicant’s own admission. MDEA has an R7 of one carbon. This meets applicant’s claims 18 and 19.
Methylchloride (table 1 of Sotemann ‘714) is used as the quaternizing agent – meeting applicant’s claim 20 and 30.
The ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine (paragraph 195’s formula IIIa of Sotemann ‘714 meets applicant’s claim 21.
MDEA meets applicant’s claim 22 and 29.
Adipic acid meets applicant’s claims 23 and 24.
The mole ratio of adipic acid to both ethoxylated alkyl amines for Sotemann ‘935 is 1:2 to 2:1 (paragraph 295) which meets applicant’s claim 25.
The ratio of ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine to MDEA is 1:2 to 2:1 (paragraph 295 of Sotemann ‘935) – meeting applicant’s claim 26.
Sotemann 714’s ratio of fatty acid to ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine is 0.4-0.5:1. Even upon replacing large amounts of the ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine with MDEA, the ratio would still be within applicant’s range of claim 27.
Sotemann 714’s claim 1 calls for “p” to be 1-15, which meets applicant’s claim 28’s “q1” and “q2” being 1-15. Claims 28’s structure would be met by the proposed combination with t=0; m2,m4,m6 each being 1,2 or 5; Ra and Rb being –(CH2)4- and R being the remnants of the fatty acid.
Claims 17-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellberg 2013/0274492 in combination with Jorda WO2019/034817.
Jorda 2020/0362100 is relied on as translation of WO2019/034817.
Hellberg depicts (paragraph 33) a corrosion inhibitor. Such a polymeric corrosion inhibitor is made from adipic acid and alkoxylated C8-C24 fatty amine. It is readily apparent that a C8-C24 fatty acid was also used to provide the terminal RC=O- groups.
Adipic acid is applicant’s preferred “B” (see applicant’s table 1). The C8-C24 fatty acid is applicant’s “D”. The depicted structure would have employed HO-CH2CH2N(R4)CH2CH2-OH as the alkoxylated C8-C24 fatty amine which qualifies as applicant’s “A”.
Hellberg lacks applicant’s “C” such as methyldiethanolamine (ie MDEA).
Polymers useful as corrosion inhibitors made from alkoxylated fatty amine, dicarboxylic acid and MDEA are known.
Jorda exemplifies (table 1) such alkoxylated fatty amine/dicarboxylic acid/MDEA polymers and discloses these polymers are useful as corrosion inhibitors (paragraph 115).
Jorda’s discussion of the prior art (paragraph 15) recognizes polymers from alkoxylated fatty amine and dicarboxylic acid were previously known.
Jorda (paragraph 8) intends to improve the polymer’s properties (eg toxicity, stability etc).
One of ordinary skill would recognize that much (if not all) of the improvement of Jorda is due to the simultaneous use of the alkoxylated fatty amine with MDEA.
It would have been obvious at the effective filing date to add some MDEA monomer (replacing some the alkoxylated fatty amine) in Hellberg’s corrosion inhibitor to improve Hellberg’s polymer.
In regards to applicant’s dependent claims:
MDEA has an R7 of one carbon. This meets applicant’s claims 18 and 19.
Various quaternizing agents can be included (Hellberg’s claim 9) – meeting applicant’s claim 20 and 30.
MDEA meets applicant’s claim 22 and 29.
Adipic acid meets applicant’s claims 23 and 24.
The mole ratio of both alkoxylated alkyl amines to diacid should be 1:2 to 2:1 for Jorda (paragraph 70) which meets applicant’s claim 25.
The ratio of ethoxylated tallow alkyl amine to MDEA is 1:2 to 2:1 (paragraph 71 of Jorda) – meeting applicant’s claim 26.
Hellberg’s ratio of fatty acid to ethoxylated fatty amine is 1:1.2 to 1:10 (paragraph 31). Even upon replacing large amounts of the ethoxylated fatty amine with MDEA, the ratio would still be within applicant’s range of claim 27.
Hellberg’s claim 3 calls for “p” to be 1-15, which meets applicant’s claim 28’s “q1” and “q2” being 1-15. Claims 28’s structure is met by the proposed combination with t=0; m2,m4,m6 each being 1; Ra and Rb being –(CH2)4- and R being the remnants of the fatty acid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J BUTTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3pm.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/DAVID J BUTTNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765 2/11/26