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 with traverse of invention group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 08/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is a technical feature among all invention groups. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature is known in art and thus there is no unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/12/2026.
Claims 1-13 are pending, claims 1-10 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledge is made that this is the U.S. national phase of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/082797, filed November 22, 2022, which claims the benefit of International Patent Application No. PCT/CN2021/134796, filed December 1, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (GB1214714, cited in IDS).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Greenwood teaches a method to make mono sodium alpha sulpho-carboxylic acid (page 1, right column, line 50-85). Greenwood teaches the reaction of stearic acid (50 lb) and sulphur trioxide (18.9lb) to make crude alpha sulpho-stearic acid (page 3, right column, line 75-92). The crude alpha sulpho-stearic acid mixture is added to an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH in 750 lb water), adjust pH to 3 (or 2.5-4.5) by addition of an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution; then heat the slurry by steam to 190ºF; then cool down to 100ºF (or 100ºF to 90 ºF) by any convenient way, filtration with vacuum filter, wash with cold water (1000 lb) to have 130 lb of cake (65 lb of solid after dry) (page 3, left column, line 30-50; page 3, right column, line 93-125). The possible impurity in the crude product is sodium sulfate (page 2, left column, line 30-50). The amount of water used for washing is as little as is effective in removing color and odor impurity, and the volume of water about double the volume of filtrate is suitable (page 3, left column, line 60-65 to page 3, right column, line 66-75).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Greenwood is that Greenwood is not specific enough for anticipation.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the instant invention.
Regarding claim 1, Greenwood teaches a method of purifying a crude alpha-sulfo stearic acid salt from a reaction of stearic acid and sulfur oxide, by adding the crude alpha-sulfo stearic acid to aqueous solution of NaOH and adjust pH to 3, this meets the limitation of step a); Greenwood teaches the recrystallizing step by heating to 190ºF, it is within skill of one artisan in the art to dissolve (solubilize) all the crude product in the mother liquid since this is standard process of recrystallization process, this meet the limitation of step b); Greenwood then teaches colling down to 100ºF to 90 ºF (38ºC-32ºC), it is standard practice to cool slowly (gradually) make sure to have less impurity in the formed crystalline, silent about room temperature, it is also obvious to cool down to room temperature since one artisan in the art would optimize the temperature through routing experimentation, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2144.05. This teacher the limitation of step c); Greenwood then teaches filtering the crystals to remove the mother liquid, this teaches step d); Greenwood then teaches washing a filter cake with cold water and silent about acid aqueous solution, it is a standard practice the use the same liquid solution as mother liquid (for recrystallization) to wash the filter crystalline, since the mother liquid is aqueous solution of about pH 3, it is within skill of one artisan in the art to use aqueous solution of about pH 3 to wash the filter cake to obtain purified alpha-sulfo stearic acid (fatty acid), this teaches the limitation of step e).
Regarding claim 2, Greenwood teaches stearic acid (50 lb) and sulphur trioxide (18.9lb) and water (750 lb). Assumed the crude product including all stearic acid and sulphur trioxide, the crude product has about 68.9 lb, the ratio is 68.9:750= about 1:11, inside claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Greenwood teaches water.
Regarding claim 4, Greenwood teaches NaOH and silent about HCl for adjusting pH, and it is with skill of one artisan in the art to common acid HCl and or common base NaOH to adjust to desired pH, and there is no inventive step to choose HCl to adjust pH to 3.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed for claim 1, it is standard practice to cool slowly (gradually) make sure to have less impurity in the formed crystal, thus, one artisan in the art would have been motivated to adjust cooling temperature and manner through routing experimentation to have cool to 40-60ºC and maintain for at lest 1h.
Regarding claims 7-9, Greenwood teaches the amount of water used for washing is as little as is effective in removing color and odor impurity, and the volume of water about double the volume of filtrate is suitable. It is with skill of one artisan in the art to adjust acid washing amount to alpha-sulfo fatty acid salt, and frequency of washing (commonly 2-3 times) and amount of each washing acid aqueous solution through routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Greenwood teaches sodium sulfate as impurity.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (GB1214714, cited in IDS), as applied for the above 103 rejection for claims 1-5 and 7-10, in view of Welzig et al. (CN101754958. Machine translation)
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Greenwood teaching has already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and is incorporated herein by reference.
Welzig et al. teaches a process for the preparation of highly pure 2,4'-dimethyl-3-piperidine-propiophenone (toperone)(abstract). Citric acid is used to wash the obtained compound crystal precipitated after filtration ([0084]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Greenwood is that Greenwood do not expressly teach citric acid. This deficiency in Greenwood is cured by the teachings of Welzig et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Greenwood, as suggested by Welzig et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use citric acid to rinse filtered crude product because citric acid is a suitable acidic aqueous solvent for rinsing crude product. MPEP 2144.7. Under guidance from Greenwood teaching acidic aqueous solution for rinsing crude product, and Welzig et al. teaching citric acid aqueous solution for rising crude product, it is obvious to use citric acid aqueous solution to rinse crude product to produce instant claimed inventio with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, it is within skill of one artisan in the art to choose suitable concentration of citric acid aqueous solution so that the pH of citric acid aqueous solution is between 2.5-4.5, for example, 0.1% of citric acid has pH about 2.8.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
