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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Indian Application No. IN202321001371 filed on January 6, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of IN202321001371 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, applicant's claim for foreign priority has not been perfected.
Status of Claims
Pursuant to the amendment, filed on July 23, 2026, claims 1, 9 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Amended claim 12 is objected to for having an improper status identifier (“Original”).
For guidance on claim amendments, see MPEP § 714(II)(C) (“After each claim number, the status identifier of the claim must be presented in a parenthetical expression.”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The instant abstract exceeds 150 words in length and uses legal phraseology “said” in line 6. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendment filed on July 23, 2026, has been entered and fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claims 1 and 9 have been amended to omit the limitations lacking antecedent basis; thus, the amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections and are hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections for claims 1-11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant asserts the claimed invention exploits a newly discovered phenomenon: ageing of alkyl phosphate granules followed by controlled water wetting enables the effective removal of phosphoric acid impurities (Remarks, p.7, last ¶). Applicant has amended claim 1, specifically steps B)-E), to include a range of particle size of the granules, functional language of ageing the granules, temperature of the water during wetting and the duration of wetting, and functional language of removing phosphoric acid impurities because of filtering the granules. Applicant further asserts the specific sequence of steps recited in claim 1 provide effective removal of phosphoric acid impurities. Applicant asserts the criticality of the parameters claimed, i.e., size of granules, ageing, and wetting, is exemplified through comparative examples. Comparative example 1 shows that granules with a particles size of 1000 µm (i.e., > 800 µm) the free inorganic phosphate is present in three times the amount compared to smaller granules with smaller particle sizes; comparative example 2 highlights that wetting past 2 minutes led to failure of the process and a stable dispersion formed; and comparative example 3 shows that ageing past 10 days led to no additional purification benefit.
The arguments and amendments in their totality, are considered persuasive and are sufficient to overcome the rejections for claims 1-11 and 13-20. Thus the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is hereby withdrawn.
With respect to claim 12, the arguments presented are unpersuasive. Claim 12 is an independent product claim that has now been amended to present the product in granular form with a particle size of < 800µm. With respect to the Non-Final Action, mailed April 24, 2026, acknowledgement was made by the Examiner for the lack of granular form of the product taught by Duesterloh, however the claim did not specify the product was to be in granular form nor is it dependent on the process of claim 1, therefore the rejection is proper. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the current amendment narrows the scope of the claim and therefore necessitates a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,224,563 (“Duesterloh”) in view of EP1120456Al (“Schwerin”).
Duesterloh teaches topical compositions comprising a cetyl phosphate surfactant mixture consisting essentially of mono- and/or di-cetyl esters of phosphoric acid or salts thereof, cetyl alcohol, inorganic phosphate, heavy metals, and water. The inorganic phosphate content is <0.7 wt% (Abstract). Duesterloh states that conventional reactions of reacting cetyl alcohol with phosphorus oxychloride is not an attractive option because of the unwanted organochlorine impurities, and that new methods of reacting cetyl alcohol and phosphorpentoxide or phosphoric acid have been brought to market, albeit with formulation incompatibilities (column 1, lines 18-33). Duesterloh explicitly states that it would be well understood to a person skilled in the art to reduce the amount of inorganic phosphate in the cetyl phosphate surfactant mixture to generate particularly stable compositions (column 3, lines 16-19). The percentages of the potassium cetyl phosphate surfactant mixture is: 70-90 wt% of a potassium salt of monocetyl phosphate ester, 0.5-12 wt% of a potassium salt of dicetyl phosphate ester, 0-15 wt% of cetyl alcohol, and 0-0.7 wt% of an inorganic phosphate (claim 1). The preparation of the surfactant mixture involves reacting cetyl alcohol dissolved in cyclohexane with pyrophosphoric acid (the simplest form of polyphosphoric acid) diluted in cyclohexane. After the reaction is complete, the product is quenched and washed with water, and the cyclohexane is removed in vacuo. The crude product is further quenched with 50% KOH in water at 50°C and recrystallized in methanol to provide the desired surfactant mixture (column 6, lines 25-39).
Schwerin teaches that phosphoric esters are unique in that they possess excellent detergent properties and high ecotoxicological compatibility. Solid water-free forms of these phosphate esters are desirable so that they can be incorporated in powder detergents, dentifrices, or syndet soaps (¶ [0002]). The teachings also state that simultaneous drying and granulation of the aqueous alkyl phosphate pastes leads to high bulk density wherein more than 50% by weight of all particles have a diameter of less than 600 µm (¶ [0007]). Furthermore, Schwerin teaches granulation of cetyl monophosphate potassium salt (¶ [0012]).
Duesterloh and Schwerin are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using monoalkyl phosphate ester mixtures in industrial applications to provide for good detergency in formulations of powder detergents, topicals, syndet soaps, etc. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to obtain the product instantly claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to synthesize cetyl phosphate ester mixtures enriched with monocetyl phosphate esters relative to dicetyl phosphate esters, and low residual alcohol and phosphoric acid, by reacting cetyl alcohol with a phosphation reagent and convert them to salts by neutralizing with a metal hydroxide in view of Duesterloh (vide supra), followed by subsequent conversion of the reaction mixture to granules with a particle size of <600 µm, based on the teachings of Schwerin. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to produce a surfactant mixture enriched with monoalkyl phosphate esters and minimal impurities, having good detergent properties before converting the mixture to granules to meet the demand for obtaining solid-water free forms of said mixture to incorporate into detergents, dentifrices, and syndet soap, based on the teachings of Schwerin. The ratio of mono: dialkyl phosophate salt, inorganic phosphate, and free fatty alcohol, taught by Duesterloh, overlap with the amounts instantly claimed, and thus the claim is prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
In view of the amendments to claim 1, and the arguments presented about the criticality of the parameters instantly claimed are free of the prior art. The closest prior previously dentified were Reierson (EP0675076B1), Duesterloh (US 11,224,563), Schwerin (EP1120456Al), and Iveson (Powder Technology, 117, 3-39. Published 4 June 2001).
The claimed invention pertains to a process of preparing a product that contains at least 90:10 ratio of mono: dialkyl phosphate ester, where free phosphoric acid < 0.7 wt% and free fatty alcohol <1.5 wt%. If the product is neutralized, the product contains at least 89:11 ratio of mono: dialkyl phosphate salt, where inorganic phosphate < 0.9 wt% and free fatty alcohol <1.5 wt%. The process comprises a reaction between a fatty alcohol, with a C16-C22 alkyl group, and polyphosphoric acid (PPA) having a grade between 115 and 120%.
Reierson teaches a similar reaction, in which a phosphating agent enables solvent free reaction conditions to form greater than 80:20 ratio of monoalkyl phosphate:dialkyl phosphate, wherein the phosphating agent is in the range of 118% to about 125% (expressed as an effective equivalent percent polyphosphoric acid (PPA)) (¶ [0051]), but does not teach neutralization of granule formation.
Duesterloh teaches a similar reaction, in which a pyrophosphoric acid (simplest form of polyphosphoric acid) was employed through a solvent based synthesis and subsequent recrystallization process that provided a product with similar ratios as those instantly claimed: 70-90 wt% of a potassium salt of monocetyl phosphate ester, 0.5-12 wt% of a potassium salt of dicetyl phosphate ester, 0-15 wt% of cetyl alcohol, and 0-0.7 wt% of an inorganic phosphate (claim 1).
Schwerin teaches post-reaction processing of phosphoric esters including simultaneous drying and granulation of aqeous alkyl phosphate pastes with particles having a diameter of 600 µm and teaches granulation of cetyl monophosphate potassium salt (¶¶ [0007] & [0012]).
Iveson teaches the wet granulation process, in which consolidation of granules leads to liquid binders being squeezed out of the matrix and ending up on the surface of the granules.
While Examiner disagrees with Applicants’ assertion that a PHOSITA would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of the relied upon related references, the arguments presented by Applicant, with respect to the criticality of the parameters claimed through evidence provided by comparative examples, provide sufficient evidence to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in the Non-Final Action, mailed April 24, 2026. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that describes the criticality of the size, ageing, and wetting of the granules instantly claimed.
Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence in the records suggests that the process of making the product is novel and nonobvious over the prior art. In view of the foregoing considerations, instant claims 1-11 and 13-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Claim 12 is rejected.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are allowable over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHIL CHANDER AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7755. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam C Milligan can be reached at (571) 270-7674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/SAHIL CHANDER AGGARWAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/ADAM C MILLIGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1623
