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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the CN 109232329 document does not teach a bio-sourced (meth)allyl halide used to make the (meth) allyl sulfonate salt. This is not found persuasive because as noted below, the prior art renders obvious the utility of a (meth)allyl halide in forming the (meth)allyl sulfonate salt.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 2 and 4-9 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.
Claims 1 and dependent claims are directed to a method but fails to teach any method steps. The claims are thus indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05 (q)).
Claim 4 is indefinite in citing “preferentially”, since it is not clear if the claim is limited to those species following, or to the whole group (see MPEP 2173.05 (d)).
Claim 5 is indefinite, since there is no antecedent basis for “the monomer”.
Claim 6 is indefinite since there is no antecedent basis for “the bio-sourced (meth)allylsulfonate alkali salt”.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109232329 (submitted by applicant) in view of EP 1191007 and Yang (WO 2022/035616).
Regarding claims 1, 3 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. Yang teaches that allyl alcohol can be made from bio glycerin or non-bio-glycerin (0038). Yang teaches that the process taught therein reduces or eliminates the formation of octene isomers, thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the process of Yang for formation of allyl alcohol, given such benefit. Given the teaching of Yang that allyl alcohol can be formed from bio-glycerin, 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 Yang, 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-glycerin as the starting material for the production of allyl alcohol would be obvious to try, given the teachings of Yang (0038), since there would only be 3 choices, bio-glycerin, non-bio-glycerin or a mixture of both.
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 glycerin can be used as the starting material (Yang 0038), 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 glycerin as the initial starting material, the allyl halide would be segregated.
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches that recycling can be involved in the production process (0064).
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.
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