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. This application is the national stage entry of PCT/KR2022/006570 , filed 09 May 2022; and claims benefit of foreign priority document REPUBLIC OF KOREA 10-2021-0059886 , filed 10 May 2021. This foreign priority document is not in English. Claims 1-11 are pending in the current application and are examined on the merits herein. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title stated in the ADS filed 08 Nov 2023 and the top of page 1 of the specification recites the term “ALKYL-AGARBIOSIDE”. This appears to be a typographical error for the art-recognized term “ALKYL-AGAR O BIOSIDE” (emphasis added) such as described at page 2, paragraph 11 and 12 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Further regarding the title, MPEP 606 provides a listing of words that are not considered as part of the title of an invention, should not be included at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues . This listing includes the words “ Improved ”, “New”, and “Novel”. In this case the title begins with the word “NOVEL” and this word will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues . 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. Claim s 1-3, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (ChemistrySelect, 2021, 6, p389-395, First published: 19 January 2021 , cited in PTO-892) . Wang et al. discloses a new type of agaran-derived non-ionic surfactants has been prepared through the one-pot transformation of agarose . The two steps process involves the butanolysis of agarose into butyl mono- and disaccharide 3,6-anhydro L- and D-galactose acetals promoted by the presence of Amberlyst-15Dry, followed by the transacetalization with n -dodecanol using the same acid catalyst (page 389, abstract). Wang et al. discloses the one-pot conversion of agarose to derivatives 5-10, where compound 10 is where n = 3 (page 393, scheme 2), or a compound of claimed Chemical Formula 1 where R is a C 4 alkyl group and meeting limitations of claim 1. The method of producing these compounds comprises reacting agarose with the alkanol n-butanol in the presence of Amberlyst-15 Dry as the catalyst, a transacetalization step with dodecanol, filtered and washed, neutralized with NaOH, and then chromatographed to separate the products (paragraph spanning pages 393-394), where Amberlyst-15 Dry is a strongly acidic catalytic resin, the treatment is simultaneous, and meeting limitations of claims 3 and 6. Wang et al. discloses the compounds as a mixture in ultrapure water to measure the CMC and surface tension of the composition, such as a mixture of compounds 9 and 10, or surfactant composition containing all of compounds 5-10 (page 394, paragraph spanning left and right column; table 2). These sugar-based surfactants in a pure form or as mixtures exhibited attractive surface-active properties that compared favorably to conventional alkylpolyglycosides. Studies that are now in progress are aimed at modulating the alkyl chain length in order to optimize their efficiency and/or to extend their field of applications as foaming or emulsifying agents. Moreover, physiological activities such as skin whitening and moisturizing will be investigated to evaluate their potentiality as bioactive cosmetics as shown with 3,6-anhydro-L-galactose (L-AHG) (page 394, right column, paragraph 2), implying the aqueous compositions which comprise the compound 10 meet the structural limitations of , or alternatively leading one of skill in the art to readily envision, a moisturizing composition or moisturizing cosmetic composition meeting claims 8 and 9 . Regarding claims 2 and 10-11, Wang et al. describes the compounds as derivatives and can be produced by transacetalization to substitute the alkyl substituent , implying that the compounds 9 and 10 are reasonably interpreted as a “derivative” of the claimed compound where R is an ethyl group. Therefore the compounds 9 and 10 and their compositions disclosed in Wang et al. meet the limitations of claims 2 and 10-11. 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. 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. Claim s 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (ChemistrySelect, 2021, 6, p389-395, First published: 19 January 2021 , cited in PTO-892) . Wang et al. teaches as above regarding claims 1-3, 6, and 8-11. Wang et al. does not specifically disclose the compound wherein R is an ethyl group (claims 2 and 10-11). Wang et al. does not specifically disclose the method wherein the alkanol is ethanol and R is an ethyl group (claim 7). Wang et al. further teaches s tudies that are now in progress are aimed at modulating the alkyl chain length in order to optimize their efficiency and/or to extend their field of applications as foaming or emulsifying agents (page 394, right column, paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wang et al. by varying the alkyl chain length of the alkylglycoside and select the alkanol used to prepare this alkylglycoside. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teachings of Wang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because Wang et al. teaches it is desired to modulat e the alkyl chain length in order to optimize their efficiency and/or to extend their field of applications , and teaches the use of alkanols n-butanol and dodecanol having different alkyl chain length in the method of preparing the alkylglycoside. See also MPEP 2144.09 at II. citing In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977) and providing that c ompounds which are homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH 2 - groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In this case Wang et al. teaches the alkylglycoside wherein R is n-butyl made using n-butanol , which is a homolog of the alkylglycoside wherein R is ethyl made using ethanol. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (ChemistrySelect, 2021, 6, p389-395, First published: 19 January 2021 , cited in PTO-892) as applied to claim s 1-3 and 6-11 above, and further in view of von Rybinski et al. (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 1998, 37, p1328-1345, cited in PTO-892) . Wang et al. teaches as above. Wang et al. further teaches varying the conditions and concentrations used in the production of the surfactants (page 393, table 1). Wang et al. does not specifically teach the method wherein the strong acid is one or more of hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid (claim 4) . Wang et al. does not specifically teach the method wherein 1 or 20% (w/v) of agar or agarose is treated with the strong acid at a concentration of 10 to 100 mM (claim 5) . von Rybinski et al. teaches the state of the art regarding alkyl polyglycosides. von Rybinski et al. teaches the reaction of glycoses with alcohols catalyzed by strong acids was discovered by Fischer in 1893, such as the reaction of glucose with ethanol catalyzed by HCl. (page 1331, right column, paragraph 2 and scheme 4). Depending on the type of carbohydrate used, all manufacturing processes for the Fischer synthesis of alkyl polyglycosides can be attributed to two process variants, namely direct synthesis and the transacetalization process (Scheme 5) (page 1332, right column, paragraph 1 and Scheme 5). In an example, glucose is suspended in excess fatty alcohol (2 - 6 mol), and the reaction is carried out in the presence of an acidic catalyst, typically a sulfonic acid. After removal of water as by-product (1 equiv relative to glucose) under vacuum, the product mixture comprises alkyl mono-, alkyl oligo-, and alkyl polyglycosides (page 1332, right column, paragraph 2). As catalysts, any acids with sufficient strength are suitable for this purpose such as sulfuric acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid, alkylbenzenesulfonic acid, and sulfosuccinic acid (page 1333, right column, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wang et al. in view of von Rybinski et al. in order to substitute the acid catalyst used in the synthesis of the alkyl polyglycoside and to determine the optimum or workable concentrations through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Wang et al. in view of von Rybinski et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because von Rybinski et al. teaches the state of the art regarding alkyl polyglycosides and teaches the reaction of glycoses with alcohols catalyzed by strong acids is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to substitute different strong acids used as the catalyst because von Rybinski et al. teaches it was recognized in the prior art that different strong acids, such as HCl or sulfuric acid, are known to be equivalent catalysts for this well-known Fischer synthesis . See MPEP 2144.06 at II. Regarding the concentration of the agarose and the acid, both Wang et al. and von Rybinski et al. suggest it would have been obvious to vary the reaction conditions to determine the optimum or workable concentrations through routine experimentation. See also MPEP 2144.05 at II. providing “ Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ” Conclusion No claim is found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan S Lau whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3531 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9a-5p Eastern . 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 Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JONATHAN S LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693