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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 8/21/2026 has been received and entered. The rejection in view of Yang, which taught the use of a bio-glycerin has been overcome. A new reference Ojala (US 2023/0020748) has been used to address the use of a bio-propylene.
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.
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) 1, 2 and4--9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109232329 (submitted by applicant) in view of EP 1191007 and Ojala (US 2023/0020748).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, CN ‘329 teaches a method of synthesizing sodium allyl sulfonate by reacting allyl chloride with sodium sulfite (0007). CN ‘329 differs in not specifically teaching that the allyl halide is at least partially renewable and non-fossil. EP ‘007 teaches that allyl chloride is produced from allyl alcohol and hydrogen chloride (0001). EP ‘007 fails to specify that the allyl alcohol is a bio product. Ojala teaches that allyl alcohol can be made from bio propylene (0294). Ojala teaches that the bio-propylene is virtually free of impurities, thus making it suitable for use in various processes (0291-0294). Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the process of Ojala for formation of allyl alcohol, given such benefit of low impurities in the bio-propylene. Given the teaching of Ojala that allyl alcohol can be formed from bio-propylene, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the formed bio-allyl alcohol in the process of EP ‘007, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming allyl chloride in the process of EP ‘007. Thus, since the formation of a bio-allyl alcohol would be obvious in view of EP ‘007 and Ojala, the use of such in forming the allyl sulfonate of CN ‘329 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing a bio-sourced allyl alcohol in the synthesis taught by CN ‘329. Furthermore, the use of bio-propylene as the starting material for the production of allyl alcohol would be obvious to try, given the teachings of Ojala (0294), since there would only be 3 choices, bio-propylene, non-bio-propylene or a mixture of both. Such method using the bio-propylene of Ojala, lacking in sulfur impurities (see 0368), would obviously limit the amount of sulfite residues compared to a fossil based method.
Regarding claim 2, CN ‘329 teaches methallyl chloride (0007).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘329 teaches sodium sulfite (0007).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, since 100% bio-sourced propylene can be used as the starting material (Ojala 0167), then the bio-sourced carbon content of the allyl halide and the allyl sulfonate salt can be 100%.
Regarding claim 8, In utilizing only a bio-sourced propylene as the initial starting material, the allyl halide would be segregated.
Regarding claim 9, Ojala teaches that recycling can be involved in the production process (see for example 0199).
Pertinent Prior Art
US 2019/0263737 teaches that bio-allyl alcohol and standard allyl alcohol behaves substantially the same, thus using either in synthesis processes would appear obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the current invention obtained unexpected results. The table provided for unexpected results contains values for C14 which is an extremely rare carbon species. It would be impossible for the allyl alcohol to contain between 30% and 100% of C14. The scope of what is being taught in the Table on page 7 of applicant’s response thus cannot be seen as relevant to applicant’s claims, since such relies on impossible data. Furthermore as noted above, Ojala teaches that the use of bio-propylene reduces the amount of impurities compared to fossil-polypropylene, and thus would result in fewer impurities in the final products produced.
Regarding applicant’s arguments about Yang, a new reference Ojala (US 2023/0020748) has been used to address the use of a bio-propylene. The rejection no longer relies on the bio-glycerin of Yang.
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 PHILIP C TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights