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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 27, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 16 – 21 are pending.
Claims 1 – 15 are cancelled.
Claims 16 – 21 are rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 8 paragraph [00034] references Appendix A. However, there is no Appendix attached to the disclosure.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 4 paragraph [0011] refers to "The Figure" as FIG 1. Also, paragraph [0028] refers to FIG. 1. This objection can be overcome by amending the disclosure to "The Figure" when referencing the Drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the single Figure is not referenced according to the MPEP 1.84 (u) Numbering of Views. 1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.
Amending the title of the drawing to "The Figure" will overcome this objection.
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 16- 21 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.
Claim 16 starting at line 10 recites; “converting nitrile groups of the monosodium salt of glutamic acid diacetonitrile to carboxylate groups thereby forming the chelating composition comprising water and at least about 47 weight percent of the tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid based on a total weight of the chelating composition as determined using an Fe-Total Sequestering Value, wherein the chelating composition has a pH of greater than about 9 and a viscosity of less than about 1350 mPa.s measured at about 5° C or less than 350 mPa.s measured at about 20°C using a Brookfield DV II plus viscometer with spindle S18 and a temperature controlled bath”. However, the claim fails to describe the specifics of converting the nitrile group of the monosodium salt of glutamic acid to the diacetonitrile to carboxylate groups that from the chelating composition. As such, it is not clear that the chelating composition is formed by the claimed process.
Claims 17 – 21 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
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) 16 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebei Chengxin Group Co., Ltd. (Q/32HCX17, 2018) (“Hebei”, English translation) in view of Shandong Taihe Water Treatment Technology Co., Ltd. (Q/0400STH 029, 2021) (“Shandong”, English translation).
The rejected claims cover, inter alia, A method of forming a chelating composition, said method comprising the steps of: combining monosodium glutamate and/or glutamic acid with formaldehyde to form a first combination; adding hydrogen cyanide to the first combination to form a second combination comprising a monosodium salt of glutamic acid diacetonitrile, a cyclic GLMN, and a sodium salt of glutamic acid N,N' - monoacetonitrile, maintaining a temperature of the second combination at less than about 1 6*C and a pH of less than about 7; and converting nitrile groups of the monosodium salt of glutamic acid diacetonitrile to carboxylate groups thereby forming the chelating composition comprising water and at least about 47 weight percent of the tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid based on a total weight of the chelating composition.
Dependent claims 17, 19, 20 and 21 further limit the process. Dependent claim 18 further limits the level of tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid in the chelating composition.
However, Hebei discloses that tetra sodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid solution is standardly prepared from the reaction of L-sodium glutamate with hydrocyanic acid and formaldehyde via condensation, alkaline hydrolysis and ammonia removal. (pp. 3) The tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid prepared in this manner will be a light yellow to yellow liquid. Also, the tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid meets the requirement of Table 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(pp. 4)
The difference between the process of the instantly claimed invention and Hebei is the test method used to measure the tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid content after the reaction.
However, Shandong discloses the method for measuring content of tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid. According to Shandong the tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid is required to meet the requirements of their Table 1. The requirements in Table 1 of Shandong overlap with those of Hebei. Also, Shandong discloses their test methods. Glutamic acid diacetate sodium quantitatively complexes with ferric chloride standard titration solution, and the content of glutamic acid diacetate sodium is obtained by calculation. (pp. 5, 4.1.1 Method Summary). The full test methods used to ensure the standards of Table 1 are met are set out in 4.1.2 – 4.3.2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to prepare tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid according to the process of Hebei and in order to ensure the tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid met the required content requirements the subject the product of Hebei to the type of testing methods discloses in Shandong to ensure that the composition contained the required content of tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid and at the required pH levels. Motivation is found in the teaching of Shandong where it is stated that specific standards are required for packing, storage and safety requirements for tetrasodium salt of glutamic acid N,N-diacetic acid
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claim 19, maintaining the temperature of the first combination at less than 11°C, in view of the similarity of processing steps and reactants, with Hebei, this can be determined by routine experimentation. Where 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).
Regarding claim 20 wherein a temperature of the second combination is maintained at less than about 10°C and wherein the hydrogen cyanide is added to the first combination for a total time of about 15 to about 120 minutes, the Examiner turns to Hebei In view of the similarity of processing steps and reactants, with Hebei, this can be determined by routine experimentation. Where 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at (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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights