Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/7/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 1,4, and 5 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-20 are pending with claims 15-20 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In light of cancellation the 112(b) rejection towards claim 6 has been withdrawn.
In light of amendment the ODP rejection has been withdrawn
In light of amendment the rejections based upon BACKMAN and LIND as primary references have been withdrawn.
The Examiner maintains the BHATT rejections as the applicant failed to argue them and the amendments did not overcome the rejections.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
As for claim 14, claim 14 depends from claim 3 whi8ch has been canceled. For the purpose of examination the Examiner interprets the claim to depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 5,215,668 BHATTACHARYYA et al., hereinafter BHATT, as evidenced by Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists by SMOOK, hereinafter SMOOK.
As for claims 1, 4 and 8, BHATT discloses an aqueous mixture [col. 6 lines 52-55] comprising an aluminum salt [abstract] and a cationic polymer with anionic and cationic groups [abstract, col. 3 lines 50-60]. BHATT discloses acrylamide [col. 3 lines 64-65]. BHATT discloses 1-10% anionic units which can be acrylic [col. 3 lines 60-61 and table 2].
Alum when dissolved in water hydrolyzes to form aluminum hydroxide as evidenced by SMOOK [pg. 222 col. 2].
PNG
media_image1.png
56
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, there are more cationic units on the polymer of BHATT than anionic units [col. 3 lines 50-65].
As for claim 9, BHATT discloses acrylamide and APTAV and DMAEM.MCQ, DMAEA.MCQ, and DMAEM.MSQ [table 1 and col. 3 lines 64-65].
As for claim 11, BHATT discloses 10 to 50% cationic monomer units which falls within the claimed range [col. 3 lines 57-60]
As for claim 12, there is 0.2 to 10% parts aluminum sulfate octahydryate per part cationic polymer [claim 1]
0.2 to 10 parts Alum (Al2(SO4)3)⸱18 H2O * 1 mole Alum (Al2(SO4)3)⸱18 H2O/666.4 g * (2 moles Aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3)/ 1 mol Alum (Al2(SO4)3⸱18 H2O) * (78 g /1 mole Aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3)) = 0.09 parts -2.3 parts aluminum hydroxide per part polymer which falls within the claimed range.
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 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 5,215,668 BHATTACHARYYA et al., hereinafter BHATT.
As for claim 7, BHATT discloses about 8.6 [col. 7 line 61] which the Examiner interprets to fall within the range of about 6 to about 8.5 sufficient for anticipation. Alternatively BHATT discloses a pH of 8 to 9 which overlaps with the instant claimed range [col. 7 line 62] making a prima facie case of obviousness.
As for claim 13, BHATT discloses 1 to 10 % anionic units which overlaps with sufficient specificity to the instant claimed range or in the alternative makes a prima facie case of obviousness [col. 3 lines 60-61]. The anionic unit can be acrylic acid [Table 2] which comprises a carboxyl group.
Claims 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 5,215,668 BHATTACHARYYA et al., hereinafter BHATT, as evidenced by CN109355017A WANG et al., hereinafter WANG.
*The Examiner has attached the English Machine Translation of WANG.
As for claim 14, BHATT teaches PAMs as per above that are made by free radicals [col. 10 lines 5-15]. Free-radical made PAMS are linear as evidenced by WANG [polyacrylamide (PAM) is a water-soluble linear high molecular polymer formed by polymerization caused by free radical acrylamide (AM) monomer, according to the ion performance can be nonionic, anionic, cationic and amphoteric types]. In the alternative there are finite options for the polymer to be (linear, branched, cyclic). At the time of the invention it would be obvious to try from the limited number of possibilities (3) the structure of the polymer. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect for the same MW for the branched polymers to be more compact and less viscous than the bigger more viscous straight chain polymers. The person of ordinary skill in the art would also balance the as of formation of both polymers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 5,215,668 BHATTACHARYYA et al., hereinafter BHATT, in view of WALDMANN, hereinafter WALDMANN.
As for claim 5, BHATT teaches the features as per above including the polyacrylamide/polyacrylic polymer with cationic groups. It gives the viscosity of the polymers of [col. 5 lines 57-62] which is directly related to the MW. WALDMANN discloses detackifying amphoteric polyacrylamide polymers of 20,000-25,000,000 (20-25,000 kDa) [pg. 17 lines 15-pg. 18 line 2] which overlaps the instant claimed range. At the time of the invention it would be obvious to apply the known MW that polyacrylamide amphoteric polymers work in paint degasifying to the amphoteric polyacrylamide of BHATT. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect success as MW can vary over a large range and be effective.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. 5,215,668 BHATTACHARYYA et al., hereinafter BHATT, in view of WO2015/145479A1 ITO et al., hereinafter ITO.
*The Examiner has attached the English Machine Translation of ITO.
As for claim 10, BHATT discloses the cationic portion of the polymer can comprise multiple groups. BHATT discloses acrylamide and APTAV and DMAEM.MCQ, DMAEA.MCQ, and DMAEM.MSQ [table 1 and col. 3 lines 64-65]. BHATT does not disclose GPAM, PVAM, PEI or PAE.
Examples of paint non-sticking agents include sodium hydroxide, sodium silicate, sodium zincate, alumina sol, silica sol, sodium aluminate, polyaluminum chloride, aluminum sulfate, ferric chloride, polyferric sulfate, melamine-formaldehyde condensate, phenol-formaldehyde condensate, bentonite, sepiolite, higher alcohols or their derivatives, higher fatty acids or their derivatives, polyethylene wax or its derivatives, paraffin wax or its derivatives, polystyrene or its derivatives, polyvinyl alcohol or its derivatives, diallyldimethylammonium chloride-acrylamide copolymer, and the like. Among these, alumina sol, sodium aluminate, polyaluminum chloride, aluminum sulfate, melamine-formaldehyde condensate, phenol-formaldehyde condensate, higher fatty acids or their derivatives, and polyethylene wax or its derivatives are preferred for their effects in supplementing the anti-sticking and clarifying effects
.
Among these, polyacrylaminoethyltrimethylammonium chloride, dicyandiamide-formaldehyde condensate, dicyandiamide-diethylenetriamine condensate, dimethylamine-epichlorohydrin condensate, dimethylamine-epichlorohydrin-ammonia condensate, diallyldimethylammonium chloride polymer, diallyldimethylammonium chloride-acrylamide copolymer, diallyldimethylammonium chloride-sulfur dioxide copolymer, polyethyleneimine, and polyvinylamine are preferred due to their high cationic strength.
ITO in the same art of polymers for no-sticking agents for paints discloses that polyethyleneimine can be used as a preferred cationic group. At the time of the invention it would be prima facie obvious to substitute one known cationic monomer for another known cationic monomer intended for the same purpose as a non-stick (detackifier) agent [see e.g. MPEP 2144.06 (II)].
Conclusion
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 ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights