DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-4, 9-10, 12, 14-20, 22-27
Withdrawn claims: 2, 22, 26-27
Cancelled claims: 11, 13, 21
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12, 14-20, 23-25
Currently rejected claims: 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12, 14-20, 23-25
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12, 14-20, 23-25) in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions of Groups I and II are directed to the same type of invention as the pH limitation of claim 2 (i.e., a pH of at least 5 in the intermediate aqueous mixture) is another way of expressing the same chemistry reflected in claim 1. For this reason, Applicant argued that claims 1 and 2 belonging to Group I and Group II, respectively, share a special technical feature.
This is not found persuasive because the claim 1 does not expressly require a pH of at least 5 as recited by claim 2; and claim 2 does not expressly require the same total hydroxide to citrate molar ratio as recited by present claim 1. Therefore, it is not clear that there is a linkage between these features and as such, these features are not considered to represent a shared technical feature.
Applicant also argued that the Kwok reference does not justify separating Group I from Group II as Kwok uses “a ferrous source such as ferric chloride hexahydrate” while the present claims require the ferrous source to be Fe(II).
This argument is also not found to be persuasive because the term “ferrous source” in the present claims is being interpreted as meaning a compound which contains elements with which to produce ferrous iron similar to how “citrate source” in the claim is being interpreted as a compound which contains elements with which to produce citrate since citric acid as recited in dependent claim 10 is not citrate. Ferric iron salts such as the ferric chloride hexahydrate disclosed in Kwok may be used to produce ferrous iron, thereby fitting this interpretation.
The Examiner points out that in [0034] of the present specification, it reads “when ferrous sources (i.e., Fe(II)) are used”. In order for this citation to serve as a basis for defining a “ferrous source” as used in the present claims as asserted by the Applicant, this citation would mean that ferrous sources in the claims must only be Fe(II) since only Fe(II) is recited in the parentheses in the citation. However, dependent claim 9 recites ferrous sources that are not Fe(II), but ferrous salts, thereby indicating that a ferrous source is not only Fe(II).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of this examination, the term “citrate” is interpreted as encompassing citric acid and citrates.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because “wherein the solution is heated” should be read as “wherein the intermediate aqueous mixture is heated.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16, 18-20, and 23 are 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites that the concentration of Fe in the solution is at least 24,000 ppm. However, the claim does not provide a unit of measurement with the ppm (e.g., ppm based on volume; ppm based on weight). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the Fe concentration will be interpreted as being at least 24,000 ppm based on total weight of the solution.
Claim 18 recites a water content of 30-85%. However, the claim does not provide a unit of measurement with the percentage (e.g., wt.%, vol.%). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the percentage will be interpreted as being a weight percentage.
Claim 19 recites a relative concentration of an additional hydroxypolycarboxylic acid other than citrate of no more than 10%. However, the claim does not provide a unit of measurement with the percentage (e.g., wt.%, vol.%). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the percentage will be interpreted as being a weight percentage.
Claim 20 recites a relative concentration of an additional carboxylic acid other than citrate of no more than 10%. However, the claim does not provide a unit of measurement with the percentage (e.g., wt.%, vol.%). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the percentage will be interpreted as being a weight percentage.
Claim 23 recites that the iron citrate complex has a citrate ionization of 3.5-4.0. However, it is unclear as to how to calculate/determine citrate ionization. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as meaning that the iron citrate complex comprises iron(II) or iron(III); and a citrate provided by a citrate source selected from the group consisting of trisodium citrate, monosodium citrate, disodium citrate, monopotassium citrate, dipotassium citrate, tripotassium citrate, citric acid, monoammonium citrate, diammonium citrate, triammonium citrate, calcium citrate, magnesium citrate and mixtures thereof.
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 1, 3-4, 9-10, 12, 14-20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boon (US 6,800,263; IDS citation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 25, Boon teaches a method of making an aqueous anticaking agent solution (corresponding to a treatment solution and non-caking sodium chloride compositions) (column 1, lines 9-10; column 3, lines 8-11), the method comprising mixing a ferrous source (corresponding to a metal comprising di-valent or ferro-ions) (column 5, lines 8-10, 14-16), a citrate source (corresponding to citric acid as a hydroxypolycarboxylic acid) (column 7, line 1), water (column 2, lines 55-59; column 6, line 67), and a pH adjusting agent (column 2, lines 46-49) to form an intermediate aqueous mixture (column 5, lines 39-49). Boon teaches that the pH adjusting agent may be any conventional acid or base (column 2, lines 46-48); and discloses the acid HCl and the bases NaOH and NH4OH as a pH adjusting agents (column 6, lines 15-16; column 7, 65-66; column 8, lines 36-38). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected NaOH or NH4OH as the pH adjusting agent in the solution since Boon provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2143.I.E. Therefore, the inclusion of NaOH or NH4OH as the pH adjusting agent in the solution renders the claimed hydroxide source obvious.
Boon teaches that a suitable Fe to citrate molar ratio in the intermediate aqueous mixture is 0.2-10, such as 1:1 (column 5, lines 21-28; column 7, lines 2-3), which falls within the claimed Fe to citrate molar ratio recited in presents claim 1 and 3. Boon teaches that the intermediate aqueous mixture may have a pH of 1-10, such as 6-10 (column 2, lines 1-11, 35-40), which falls within the pH recited in present claim 4. Since Boon discloses a Fe to citrate molar ratio within the range recited in present claim 1 and discloses a pH within the range recited in present claim 4, Boon at least suggests that the amount of hydroxide in the intermediate aqueous solution may be provided in an amount that allows for a total hydroxide to citrate molar ratio that falls within the range recited in present claims 1 and 25, thereby rendering the claimed total hydroxide to citrate molar ratio obvious recited in present claims 1 and 25.
Boon teaches that the ferrous source, the citrate source, and the hydroxide source are present in the intermediate mixture for a time sufficient to form a soluble iron citrate complex to provide an aqueous anticaking agent solution (corresponding to iron-citric acid and iron citrate complexes) (column 6, Table at line 50; column 2, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the ferrous source is ferrous sulfate (corresponding to ferro sulfate heptahydrate) (column 6, line 67-column 7, line 1).
Regarding claim 10, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the citrate source is citric acid (column 3, lines 39-40; column 7, line 1).
Regarding claim 12, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the hydroxide source is sodium hydroxide or ammonium hydroxide (corresponding to NaOH and NH4OH, respectively) (column 7, 65-66; column 8, lines 36-38).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that an intermediate mixture may be heated and cooled (column 6, lines 12-16). Heating and cooling of a solution followed by the removal of precipitates from a solution are typical steps performed with a reaction solution. It is known that heating a mixture speeds up the rate of the reaction, thereby providing motivation for a skilled practitioner to heat the intermediate aqueous mixture. Since heating a mixture increases the saturation point of the mixture and subsequent cooling of the mixture decreases the saturation point of the mixture, it would be obvious for the cooled mixture to form precipitates, thereby prompting a skilled practitioner seeking a non-turbid solution to remove precipitates. Therefore, the claimed heating of the intermediate aqueous mixture as recited in present claim 15; and the claimed cooling and removal of precipitates as recited in present claim 14 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that the total concentration of Fe present in a final salt formulation to which the anticaking solution has been added is less than 20 mg per kg of the final salt formulation (column 5, lines 30-33). This disclosure at least suggests that the amount of Fe present in the aqueous anticaking solution itself is greater 20 mg per kg of the solution, thereby providing a concentration which encompasses the claimed Fe concentration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 17, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that the ingredients in the aqueous anticaking solution may be thermally stable so that drying of the final salt composition comprising the aqueous anticaking solution may take place at 120°C for two hours (column 6, lines 1-2). Therefore, Boon at least suggests that embodiments of its aqueous anticaking solution may be stable at 23°C for at least an hour, thereby rendering claim 17 obvious. Further, the Office does not have laboratory facilities to test claim limitations drawn toward results of practicing the method as claimed. Accordingly, such stability does not serve to distinguish the claimed method or product produced by the claimed method from the prior art and is thus considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the anticaking agent solution may have a water content of 74 wt.% (corresponding to a 1000 kg solution comprising 734.8 kg water) (column 6, line 66- column 7, line 2), which falls within the claimed concentration.
Regarding claim 19, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the intermediate aqueous mixture may further comprise a hydroxypolycarboxylic acid species other than citric acid (corresponding to tartaric acid, saccharinic acid, ascorbic acid, saccharic acid, mucic acid, and isomers thereof) (column 4, lines 35-41). Boon also teaches that the iron hydroxypolycarboxylic acid complex may be iron-citric acid and iron citrate complexes (column 6, Table at line 50; column 2, lines 7-8). A skilled practitioner aiming to produce iron-citric acid and iron citrate complexes would be motivated to keep the concentration of hydroxypolycarboxylic acid species other than citric acid low so as to maximize the yield of the iron-citric acid and/or iron citrate complexes in the resulting anticaking agent solution, thereby at least suggesting a concentration of hydroxypolycarboxylic acid species other than citric acid, which overlap the claimed concentration. The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed concentration obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 20, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the anticaking agent solution may further comprise a carboxylic species other than citrate (corresponding to a pH buffer comprising carboxylic acid) (column 2, lines 60-63). Boon teaches that the carboxylic species other than citrate may be introduced as a solution (column 3, lines 4-6). A solution comprising the carboxylic species other than citrate may comprise the carboxylic species other than citrate in amounts of greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%. Therefore, when a solution comprising the carboxylic species other than citrate is added to the aqueous anticaking agent solution, the concentration of the carboxylic species other than citrate is greater than 0 wt.% to less than 100 wt.%, thereby providing concentrations of carboxylic species other than citrate which may encompass the claimed concentration. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed concentration obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 23, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the anticaking agent solution comprises an iron citrate complex of iron(II) or iron (III) (corresponding to iron-citric acid and iron citrate complexes) (column 6, Table at line 50; column 2, lines 7-8) produced from a citrate source comprising citric acid (column 3, lines 39-40; column 7, line 1). Therefore, the iron citrate complex is considered to have a citrate ionization which falls within the claimed range as interpreted according to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 24, Boon teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the anticaking agent solution is produced without the addition of tartaric acid or meso(tartaric) acid to the intermediate aqueous mixture (corresponding to the hydroxypolycarboxylic acid comprising any other acid besides tartaric acid) (column 3, lines 40-42). Therefore, the anticaking agent solution is free of meso-tartrate anions and/or meso-tartrate compounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights