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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In Tables 1-8, applicants showed a comparison with a single boiling process and differing embodiments of multiple boiling steps as in embodiments 1-8 herein. However, the tables all read as having a “white oil untreated” group and “Embodiment 1”.
These tables should have the “white oil untreated” group and “Embodiment 1” for table 1; “Embodiment 2” for table 2; “Embodiment 3” for Table 3, etc.
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 1-10 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.
The claims as drafted are a bit confusing and clarity is respectfully requested.
Claim 1 provides “A purification method for sucralose-6-ethyl ester, with white oil used as an extractant in the chlorination section of the sucralose-6-ethyl ester preparation process, wherein the method comprises”. It is confusing as there is no recitation of a prior chlorination section, for example. The claim would be better read as: “A purification method for sucralose-6-ethyl ester, where white oil was used as an extractant in the chlorination section of the sucralose-6-ethyl ester preparation process, wherein the method comprises”.
Likewise, the claim is confusing in the portions reading:
“a secondary water boiling step: taking..”;
“a phase separating extraction step: standing…”;
“a recrystallizing purification step: evaporating…”; and
“and a recycling step: separating…” wherein the claims would be better written as:
“performing a secondary water boiling step: comprising taking”;
“performing a phase separating extraction step: comprising standing…”;
“performing a recrystallizing purification step: comprising evaporating…”; and
“and performing a recycling step: comprising separating”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "standing the secondary water boiling mother liquor" in the phase separating extraction step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should read “standing the secondary water boiled mother liquor”.
All claims which depend from an indefinite claim are also indefinite. Ex parte Cordova, 10 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1949, 1952 (P.T.O. Bd. App. 1989).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 109180748A is drawn to similar methods herein but do not disclose the secondary water boiling step and forming the secondary water-boiled mother liquor for subsequent phase separation. Further, applicants have shown in embodiments 1-8 that the methods performed with the secondary boiling as claimed herein all show drastic reduction of the white oil content in the products produced compared to methods with only one water boiling step. This extra step, which is not suggested in the prior art, improves the purity of the final product due to the dramatic reduction in white oil content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III whose telephone number is (571)272-0657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM EST.
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 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.
/TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693