DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/13/2023 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 16-20 are new.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-6, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STEHR (US 20070128129 A1).
For claim 1, STEHR teaches a method of enzymatic bleaching to produce a solution with numerous uses [abstract]. The invention includes cationic (starch) saccharide [0326], betaine aldehyde [0053]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “A method for producing cationic saccharide comprising providing a mixture comprising betaine aldehyde and a saccharide; allowing the betaine aldehyde to react with the saccharide; and obtaining cationic saccharide”.
For claim 2, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. STEHR also teaches the betaine aldehyde is made from choline derivative oxidation [0053]. STEHR further teaches choline chloride as a choline oxidase [0439]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the betaine aldehyde is obtained from choline chloride by oxidation”.
For claim 3, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. STEHR teaches the betaine aldehyde is made from choline derivative oxidation [0053]. STEHR teaches a saccharide is added to the solution [0393]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the mixture comprising the betaine aldehyde and the saccharide is obtained by oxidizing choline chloride for producing a solution comprising betaine aldehyde; and adding a saccharide to the solution comprising the betaine aldehyde for producing a mixture comprising betaine aldehyde and saccharide”.
For claim 4, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 3, as above. STEHR teaches the use of a bleach catalyst [0181]. The examiner understands the bleach reaction to be synonymous with an oxidation reaction. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a catalyst is present in the oxidation”.
For claim 5, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. STEHR teaches the use of water in the bleaching system [0022]. The examiner understands water is a liquid a medium for reaction. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the reaction takes place in a liquid medium or a mixture of liquid mediums”.
For claim 6, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 5, as above. STEHR teaches the use of water in the bleaching system [0022]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the liquid medium is water, deep eutectic solvent (DES) system or a mixture thereof”.
For claim 9, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 1, as above. STEHR uses polysaccharide in solution [0325]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the saccharide comprises monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, polysaccharides or a mixture thereof”.
For claim 10, STEHR teaches a cationic (starch) saccharide [0326] mixed with betaine aldehyde [0053]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “A cationic saccharide comprising a saccharide derivatized with betaine aldehyde”.
For claim 11, STEHR teaches the cationic saccharide according to claim 10, as above. STEHR uses polysaccharide in solution [0325]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the saccharide comprises, monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, polysaccharides or a mixture thereof”.
For claim 12, STEHR teaches the cationic saccharide according to claim 10, as above. STEHR teaches a cationic (starch) saccharide [0326] mixed with betaine aldehyde [0053]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the cationic saccharide is starch derivatized with betaine aldehyde or cyclodextrin derivatized with betaine aldehyde”.
For claim 13, STEHR teaches the cationic saccharide according to claim 10, as above. STEHR teaches the method of claims 1-9, as above. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the cationic saccharide is produced with the method according to any one of claims 1-9”.
For claim 14, STEHR teaches a method of making a solution with cationic (starch) saccharide [0326] mixed with betaine aldehyde [0053]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “ method for producing cationic saccharide, said method comprising utilizing betaine aldehyde”.
For claim 15, STEHR teaches the bleaching system is used to bleach (treat) paper [0002]. This teaches the limitation of “A method for treating water, treating paper, or for anionic trash fixing,”. STEHR teaches the method of claim 1 as above and the use of the bleaching system in water [0022]. The examiner understands the addition into water as water treatment. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “said method comprising utilizing the cationic saccharide produced with the method according to claim 1 as a water treatment agent”.
For claim 17, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 2, as above. STEHR teaches a method of enzymatic bleaching to produce a solution with numerous uses [abstract]. The invention includes cationic (starch) saccharide [0326], betaine aldehyde [0053]. This teaches the limitation of the instant claim of “wherein the mixture comprising the betaine aldehyde and the saccharide is obtained by oxidizing choline chloride for producing a solution comprising betaine aldehyde; and adding a saccharide to the solution comprising the betaine aldehyde for producing a mixture comprising betaine aldehyde and saccharide”.
For claim 18, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 17, as above. STEHR teaches the use of a bleach catalyst [0181]. The examiner understands the bleach reaction to be synonymous with an oxidation reaction. This teaches the limitation of “wherein a catalyst is present in the oxidation”.
For claim 19, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 2, as above. STEHR teaches the use of water in the bleaching system [0022]. The examiner understands water is a liquid a medium for reaction. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the reaction takes place in a liquid medium or a mixture of liquid mediums”.
For claim 20, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 3, as above. STEHR teaches the use of water in the bleaching system [0022]. The examiner understands water is a liquid a medium for reaction. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the reaction takes place in a liquid medium or a mixture of liquid mediums”.
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 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEHR (US 20070128129 A1) in view of SUN (CN 113115982 A).
For claim 7, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 5, as above. STEHR teaches the betaine aldehyde is made from choline derivative oxidation [0053]. STEHR further teaches choline chloride as a choline oxidase [0439]. STEHR is silent to the use of eutectic solvent. SUN teaches the method to treat paper (cigarette filter) [n0030] with choline chloride [n0008] like STEHR. SUN also teaches the filters use a choline chloride as a natural deep eutectic solvent [0008]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the eutectic solvent (DES) system comprises betaine based DES system, choline chloride based DES system or a mixture thereof”. SUN teaches the advantage of eutectic solvent is the good solubility, biodegradability and low toxicity [n0014]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the use of choline chloride as a solvent into the system of STEHR to produce a well soluble bleach. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of the choline chloride deep eutectic solvent as taught by SUN.
For claim 8, STEHR teaches the method according to claim 6, as above. STEHR teaches the betaine aldehyde is made from choline derivative oxidation [0053]. STEHR further teaches choline chloride as a choline oxidase [0439]. STEHR is silent to the use of eutectic solvent. SUN teaches the method to treat paper (cigarette filter) [n0030] with betaine [n0008] like STEHR. SUN also teaches the filters use a betaine as a natural deep eutectic solvent [n0008] with glycerol [n0011]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the deep eutectic solvent (DES) system comprises betaine DES with 1,3-dimethylurea, betaine DES with 1,3-dimethylurea and water, betaine DES with N-methyl urea, betaine DES with N- methyl urea and water, betaine DES with glycerol, choline chloride DES with 1,3- dimethylurea, choline chloride DES with 1,3-dimethylurea and water, choline chloride DES with N-methyl urea, choline chloride DES with N-methyl urea and water, choline chloride DES with isosorbide, betaine hydrochloride with 1-methylurea, chlorotoluene chloride with 1-methylurea or a mixture thereof”. SUN teaches the advantage of eutectic solvent is the good solubility, biodegradability and low toxicity [n0014]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the use of choline chloride as a solvent into the system of STEHR to produce a well soluble bleach. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of the choline chloride deep eutectic solvent as taught by SUN.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STEHR (US 20070128129 A1) in view of TSAI (US 4719272).
For claim 16, STEHR teaches the method of claim 15, as above. STEHR uses polysaccharide in solution [0325]. STEHR is silent to the polysaccharide use as a flocculant. TSAI teaches a method of paper treatment with saccharides similar to STEHR [column 2 line 7]. TSAI teaches the polysaccharide is used as flocculant [column 2 line 33]. TSAI teaches the advantage of the invention is the improved drainage as taught by TSAI [column 20 line 9]. This teaches the limitation of “wherein the cationic saccharide acts as a flocculant in water treatment, in paper treatment, as a retention agent, in anionic trash fixing as a fixative”. It would be obvious to one skilled in the arts at the time of invention to substitute the use of polysaccharide as a flocculant into the system of STEHR to produce a paper treatment. One would be motivated to combine the art based on the added benefit of improved draining as taught by TSAI.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN M RUSSELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 to 4:30 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, 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.
/S.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748