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 without traverse of Gorup I, clams 1-8 in the reply filed on August 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 – 12, 14 – 16 and 23 – 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 11, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 16 and 23 – 27 are pending
Claims 9 – 12, 14 – 16 and 23 – 27 are withdrawn
Clams 1 – 8 are rejected.
Clams 13 and 17 – 22 are canceled.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the term “segregated” in line 2. The term lacks clarity and is vague at to the meaning of the technical feature to which the term refers. For this reason the claim is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al. (CN 111039793) in view of Moon Sang Jin et al. (KR 100552998) (Jin).
The rejected claim covers, inter alia, a method for obtaining diallyldialkylammonium halide comprising a reaction between an allyl halide and a dialkylamine, wherein one or both of the allyl halide and the dialkylamine is/are at least partially renewable and non-fossil, wherein (i) the ally! halide has a bio-sourced carbon content ranging between 5wt% and 100wt% relative to a total carbon weight in said allyl halide and/or (ii) the dialkylamine has a bio- sourced carbon content ranging between 5wt% and 100wt% relative to 3 total carbon weight in said dialkylamine, and wherein the bio-sourced carbon content is measured according to a standard ASTM D6866- 21 Method B.
Dependent claims 2,3, 5, 6, 7; and 8 further limit the reactant. Dependent claim 4 further limits the product.
However, Guan discloses a method for continuously synthesizing dimethyl diallyl ammonium chloride comprising reacting allyl chloride with a dialkylamine. (Abstract). Example 1 discloses a process for the synthesis of dimethyldiallylammonium chloride, 40% aqueous dimethylamine solution and 20% sodium hydroxide solution and chloropropene (ally chloride) were added simultaneously with a pump into the microreactor at a molar ratio of dimethylamine: sodium hydroxide: chloropropene of 1:1:2.1, in the microreactor for 5 minutes, and the temperature was controlled at 30°C. Then the reaction liquid was collected to separate and stratify it statically, the reaction liquid was separated into layers, and the upper layer was recovered; the lower aqueous phase was taken and the aqueous phase was adjusted to pH 5 with dilute hydrochloric acid and filtered to remove precipitated sodium chloride to give a clear liquid. The clear liquid was distilled under reduced pressure to remove impurities from the aqueous phase and filtered again to remove precipitated sodium chloride to give dimethyldiallylammonium chloride solution. The conversion of dimethylamine was calculated based on the content of dimethylamine in the mother liquor measured by gas chromatography. The conversion of dimethylamine can reach 95.3% and the product yield can be as high as 92.2%. (pp. 4 of English translation).
The difference between the instantly claimed invention and Guan is the origin of the ally halide and the dialkylamine, and wherein one or both are at least partially renewable and non-fossil.
However, with regard to the origin of the ally halide and the dialkylamine, and wherein one or both are at least partially renewable and non-fossil, the Examiner turns to Guan. The prior art of Guan’s silence with regard to the origin of the ally halide and the dialkylamine is not an indication that they originate form fossil resources. Further, from the discussion of the prior art in Guan, it was well known that impurities in the raw material (ally halide and the dialkylamine) were a problem for obtaining the desired dimethyldiallylammonium chloride having the desires uses. There is the mention of a process wherein purification of chloropropene before use in the reaction. (pp. 2). Considering, this difference in the origin of the raw material is the only distinguishing feature from Guan and the low threshold of non-fossil content makes it possible for the material of Guam to fall within the features of the claims. There is nothing in Applicant’s disclosure regarding the initial purty of the fossil-sourced and bio-sourced starting materials, their purification methods and the nature of the impurities present in both cases. From a strictly chemical point of view, dimethylamine will react the same whether it is obtained from fossil-sourced or bio-sourced. Thus, the claiming of unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additonally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to prepare dialyldialkylammonium halide by the reaction of chloroprene (allyl chloride) and dimethylamine according to the teaching of Guan and use raw materials (reactants) having reduced levels or no impurities to obtain a dialyldialkylammonium halide monomer useful in manufacturing. Motivation of for the use of reduced levels of impurities or no impurities, no matter the cause in found in the teaching of Guan and Jin. Guan discusses a process where chloropropene is washed with filter water before being reacted with dimethylamine. (pp. 2, para. 6). Further, Jin discloses a method of producing colorless, salt-free diallyldimethylammonium chloride that suppresses color-forming side reactions , increases yield, and has excellent physical properties. In Jin the allyldimethylamne intermediate is purified by distillation and the reacted with allyl chloride to make the diallyldimethylammonium chloride.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to prepare the invention as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Thus the claiming of unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights