CTNF 18/294,683 CTNF 67880 Information Disclosure Statement SU 1645024 and DE 1175623, cited in the information disclosure statement of 2 February 2024 have been considered with respect to the explanation of these references given in the specification. Specification 06-31 AIA The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 22-23 on page 11 state the phosphate ester of formula (I) can be ethoxylated and/or propoxylated, which means the phosphate ester of formula (I) can be only ethoxylated. The description of the phosphate ester of formula (I) teaches that the propylene oxide unit of each of A and B must be present by teaching m and p, which are the amounts of propylene oxide unit of each of A and B respectfully is 1-10. Thus the description of formula (I) means the phosphate ester of formula (I) cannot be only ethoxylated. Lines 9-10on page 16 state the phosphate ester of formula (II) can be ethoxylated and/or propoxylated, which means the phosphate ester of formula (I) can be only propoxylated. The description of the phosphate ester of formula (I) teaches that the ethylene oxide unit of each of D and E must be present by teaching s and u, which are the amounts of ethylene oxide unit of each of D and E respectfully is 1-10. Thus the description of formula (II) means the phosphate ester of formula (II) cannot be only propoxylated. Lines 16-17 on page 20 state the phosphate ester of formula (III) can be ethoxylated and/or propoxylated, which means the phosphate ester of formula (I) can be only ethoxylated or only propoxylated. The description of the phosphate ester of formula (III) teaches that the propylene oxide unit of G must be present by teaching v is 1-10 and the ethylene oxide unit of J must be present by teaching y is 1-10. Thus the description of formula (III) means the phosphate ester of formula (III) cannot be only ethoxylated or only propoxylated. Line 36 on page 22 through line 1 on page 23 teach A and B in formulas IV and IVa can be ethoxylated and/or propoxylated, which means the A and B can be only ethoxylated. Since A and B in these formulas have the same definition for A and B for formula (I), they cannot be only ethoxylated since they both must contain propylene oxide, as discussed above. Lines 1-2 on page 25 teach D and E in formulas V and Va can be ethoxylated and/or propoxylated, which means the D and E can be only propoxylated. Since D and E in these formulas have the same definition for D and E for formula (II), they cannot be only propoxylated since they both must contain ethylene oxide, as discussed above. Since the process on page 35 for making a collector composition comprising a phosphate ester having formula (I) and a phosphate ester having formula (II) is different from the process on page 33; the labeling of the steps in the process on page 35 should not be a continuation of the numbering from the process on page 33. The steps in the process on page 35 should be labeled using other letters or numbers besides “iv” and “v”. The specification teaches the amount of collector is 20-2000 g per ton of raw phosphate rock. It is unclear which system of weight the disclosed “ton” is based on, metric, which means it is equivalent 1000 kg, or English, which can be 2000 lbs. (U.S and Canada) or 2,240 lbs. (UK) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 8, 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Since the process of claim 11 is different from that of claim 10 and does not depend from claim 10; labeling of the steps in the process of claim 11 should not be a continuation of the numbering from the process of claim 10. The steps in the process of claim 11 should be labeled using other letters or numbers besides “iv” and “v”. In claims 8 and 16, component d is defines as “at least one a fatty alcohol of formula (IV), a fatty alcohol of formula (IVa), a fatty alcohol of formula (V), a fatty alcohol of formula (Va), or mixture thereof”. The use of both “at least one” and “or mixtures thereof” is redundant since both phrases have the same effect. It is suggested to delete one of these two phrases . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 12, 14, 15 and 17-20 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. Claims 14 and 17 recites the limitation "the phosphates". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and thus these claims are indefinite. Dependent claims 15 and 18 implicitly include the limitation "the phosphates". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore these claims are also indefinite. Claims 15 and 18 teach the amount of collector is 20-2000 g per ton of raw phosphate rock. It is unclear which system of weight the disclosed “ton” is based on, metric, which means it is equivalent 1000 kg, or English, which can be 2000 lbs. (U.S and Canada) or 2,240 lbs. (UK). In view of this, these claims are indefinite. Claims 12, 19 and 20 are product-by-process claims where the claimed collector compositions are produced by the processes of claims 9, 10 and 11, respectfully. Claim 9 is directed to a process for producing the collector composition of claim 1 and claims 10 and11 are directed to processes for producing the collector composition of claim 5. Thus the collector composition of claim 12 would be the same as the collector composition of claim 1 and the collector composition of claims 19 and 20 would each be the same as the collector composition of claim 5. Thus claims 12, 19 and 20 are indefinite as to how these claims differ from claims 1 and 5. The process of claims 17 and 18 use the collector composition of claim 12. As discussed above, the collector composition of claim 12 would be the same as the collector composition of claim 1. Thus claims 17 and 18 are indefinite as to how the claimed process is different from that of claims 14 and 15, which use the collector composition of claim 1. Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof; should claim 5 be found allowable, claims 19 and 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof and should claims 14 and 15 be found allowable, claims 17 and 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the others as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The claimed “ton” in claims 15 and 18 is being interpreted as reading on all three weights, a metric ton (1000 kg), 2000 lbs. and 2,240 lbs. This is the broadest most reasonable interpretation of this term. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being clearly anticipated by WO 2020/157106 . This reference teaches a collector composition for the separation by floatation of carbonate containing a phosphate rock and the process of separating by floatation carbonates contained a phosphate rock using the collector composition. The taught process comprises forming an aqueous suspension of phosphate rock in water; introducing air in the suspension in the presence of the collector composition and separating the formed foam together with carbonates contained therein, wherein the phosphates remain as a floatation concentrate (lines 4-16 on page 27). The examples teach the rock is crushed, which reads on the claimed ground rock, before it is mixed with water. This is the process of claims 14 and 17. The most preferred ratio of collector composition to 1000 kg (ton) of raw phosphate rock is 50-1000 g (pg 29, lines 2-3), which falls within the range of claims 15 and 18. Page 35 and the examples teaches preferred collector compositions. These compositions include one comprising C 13-15 alkyl(EO) 6 (PO) 3 phosphate monoester sodium salt; one comprising 16.5 wt% C 13-15 alkyl(EO) 6 (PO) 3 phosphate monoester sodium salt and 16.5 wt% C 16-18 alkyl(EO) 2 phosphate mono/diester sodium salt; and 16 wt% C 13-15 alkyl(EO) 6 (PO) 3 phosphate monoester sodium salt and 16 wt% C 16-18 alkyl(EO) 1-10 phosphate mono/diester sodium salt. The taught C 13-15 alkyl(EO) 6 (PO) 3 phosphate monoester sodium salt falls within formula (I) of claims 1-4. The taught C 16-18 alkyl(EO) 1-10 phosphate mono/diester sodium salts fall within formula (II) of claim 5 and the taught mixture of phosphate ester sodium salts fall within the composition of claim 5. In the compositions that contain both phosphate esters, the ratio of the ester that contains both EO and PO to the ethoxylate ester is 50%, which falls within the range of claim 6. Thus the reference teaches the collector composition of claims 1-6 and the process of claims 14 and 15. The examples teach the disclosed collector composition is produced by mixing the disclosed components and the phosphate esters are produced by reacting P 2 O 5 with the corresponding alkyl alkoxylates. For the preferred esters, this means reacting P 2 O 5 with C 16-18 alkylO(EO)H or C 13-15 alkylO(EO)H and C 13-15 alkylO(PO)H. This ester producing step process is that of claims 9 and step ii of claim 10 and the taught step of mixing the ester is step iii of claim 10. Since the taught processes are those of claims 9 and 10, the produced esters are those of claims 12 and 19 and the taught process of separating by floatation carbonates contained a phosphate rock using the collector composition reads upon that of claims 17 and 18. While the taught compositions comprising C 13-15 alkyl(EO) 6 (PO) 3 phosphate monoester sodium salt and C 16-18 alkyl(EO) 1-10 phosphate mono/diester sodium salt, which reads upon the composition of claim 5, is not produced by the process of claim 11, these compositions teach that of claim 20 since claim 11 is a product-by-process claims and, as discussed above in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection over claim 20, reads upon the composition of claim 5. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The reference teaches the claimed compositions of claims 12, 19 and 20, process of claims 9 and 10 and the floatation process of claims 17 and 18 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/157106 . As discussed above, this reference teaches the claimed process separating by floatation carbonates contained a phosphate rock using a collector composition which has a composition that falls within that of claims 1 and 12. Page 28, line 3 through page 29, line 3 teaches the ratio of collector composition to 1000 kg (ton) of raw phosphate rock is 10-10,000 g, which overlaps the ranges of claims 15 and 18. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The reference suggests the claimed process . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 8 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome objection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection, set forth in this Office action. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of a collector composition for the separation by floatation of carbonates containing in phosphate rocks having the composition of claims 7, 8 and 16. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record to add a alkoxylated phosphate ester having formula (III) or at least one fatty alcohol of formula (IV), fatty alcohol of formula (IVa), fatty alcohol of formula (V) and fatty alcohol of formula (Va) to the taught collector of WO 2020/157106. The process of claim 11 is not taught or suggested in the cited art of record. There is no teaching or suggestion to produce a mixture of an alkoxylated phosphate ester having formula (I) and an alkoxylated phosphate ester having formula (II) by reacting P 2 O 5 with a mixture of a fatty alcohol of formula (IV) and/or a fatty alcohol of formula (IVa), and a fatty alcohol of formula (V) and/or a fatty alcohol of formula (Va). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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. /C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 cmk 6/1/26 Application/Control Number: 18/294,683 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/294,683 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/294,683 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734
Prosecution Insights