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
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 15, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2009/0065736 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2011/0136704 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15; Johnson et al. discloses corrosion inhibitors formulations [0002] and methods (Examples 1-19) that include the use algal-produced oils [0042], comprising:
providing a corrosion inhibitor composition comprising an amidation reaction [0011] product of a serotonin [0066] and a triglyceride [0045];
contacting a metal surface [0002] with the corrosion inhibitor composition;
allowing the corrosion inhibitor composition [0002] to interact with the metal surface so as to inhibit
corrosion of the metal surface;
providing a serotonin [0066] and a triglyceride [0045];
interacting the serotonin [0066] with the triglyceride [0045] at a set of reaction conditions [0094-0097];
wherein a molar ratio of the serotonin to the triglyceride [0165-0167] is about 1:4 to about 4:1 [0144-0145];
obtaining an amidation reaction product [0094-0097]; and
an amidation reaction product of a serotonin [0066] and a triglyceride [0045].
Johnson et al. appears silent to disclose the use of dopamine.
Sharma et al. discloses a corrosion inhibitor that includes dopamine [0008 and 0037-0038] in order to increase the efficacy of the corrosion inhibitor in the treatment of well bores [0038]. 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 to add Sharma et al. dopamine to Johnson et al. composition/method in order to increase the efficacy of the corrosion inhibitor in the treatment of well bores.
Regarding claims 5-6, Johnson et al. discloses that the at least a portion of the triglyceride is derived from a vegetable oil [0043] that comprises a palm oil.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson et al. discloses that the set of reaction conditions comprises a reaction temperature of about 75°C to about 150°C [0094 and 0160] and a residence time of about 1 hour to about 5 hours.
Regarding claim 18, Johnson et al. discloses that the at least a portion of the triglyceride is derived from a vegetable oil [0043] that comprises a palm oil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 2-4, 7-8, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are the inclusions of the following: that dopamine is derived from a macroalga, Chlorophyta, and Ulvaria obscura; and that the amidation reactions product formulas. The closest prior art of record (Johnson et al. and Sharma et al.), and upon additional searches do not teach or fairly suggest including that the dopamine is derived from a macroalga, Chlorophyta, and Ulvaria obscura; and that the amidation reactions product formulas in the method and the compositions of claims 1-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00.
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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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.
/MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights