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 Group I, claims 1-5 and 8-14 in the reply filed on July 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 3, 8-9, 12 and 17-20 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.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19-20, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8-9 are rejected because they are dependents of canceled claim 7.
Claims 17-18 are rejected because they are dependents of canceled claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002179712 (appears on the PTO-892).
JP teaches an emulsifier of the formula R1-O(AO)n-X wherein R1 is a C1-C36 alkyl, alkenyl, phenyl, or alkylphenyl; A is two or more groups selected from ethylene and propylene; X is an anionic hydrophile group and n is 2-200 (see abstract; para 0007 and 0023-0024).
JP teaches that more specifically X is SO3M (see para 0023-0024) and CH2COOM (para 0028) wherein M represents H, sodium and ammonium (see para 0030). JP meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
JP teaches general formulas of its compound, and the general formulas of JP encompass Formula I of the present invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the claimed substituents of R1, R2, z and X of the present invention because JP teaches that R1 may be a C1-C36 alkyl, alkenyl, phenyl, or alkylphenyl; A which is equivalent to present (CH2-CHR2-O), may be ethylene or propylene, n, which is equivalent to present “z”, may be 2-200 and X is SO3M or CH2COOM.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art teaches various alkoxylated compounds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18687037/20260919
Prosecution Insights