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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. JPS63108001A (Sugiyama).
Sugiyama teaches a cation-modified starch obtained by cationically modifying starch or a modified starch with an acrylamide derivative of formula I or II (wherein R1 and R2 are each methyl or ethyl, R3 is methyl, ethyl, hydroxyethyl, 2-hydroxypropyl, allyl or benzyl, X- is an anion and n is 2 or 3). See Abstract.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examples of the compounds of formulas I and II include dimethylaminopropylacrylamide and its quaternary ammonium salts.
Sugiyama teaches that the pH may not be suitable for the reaction. In that case, add the necessary alkali. As the alkali, caustic alkalis such as sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide, salts such as sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate, and amines that do not directly react with the cationizing agent of the invention such as trimethylamine and triethylamine can be used. Sugiyama teaches that the starches can be reacted with a cationizing agent, heated or gelatinized with caustic alkali, or in a slurry state. Sugiyama teaches that the temperature during the cationization reaction can range from 40°C to 100°C, but preferably from 50°C to 80°C.
The cation-modified starch of Sugiyama is embraced by a grafted polysaccharide of instant formula I, wherein RO is a deprotonated starch group; A is -(CH2)nNR1R2 or -(CH2)nNR1R2R3X-; and A is H. Regarding claim 17, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Thus, claims 1 and 16-17 are anticipated.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. JPS63108001A (Sugiyama) as applied to claims 1 and 16-17 above.
Sugiyama teaches a cation-modified starch obtained by cationically modifying starch or a modified starch with an acrylamide derivative of formula I or II (wherein R1 and R2 are each methyl or ethyl, R3 is methyl, ethyl, hydroxyethyl, 2-hydroxypropyl, allyl or benzyl, X- is an anion and n is 2 or 3). See Abstract.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examples of the compounds of formulas I and II include dimethylaminopropylacrylamide and its quaternary ammonium salts.
Sugiyama teaches that the pH may not be suitable for the reaction. In that case, add the necessary alkali. As the alkali, caustic alkalis such as sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide, salts such as sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate, and amines that do not directly react with the cationizing agent of the invention such as trimethylamine and triethylamine can be used. Sugiyama teaches that the starches can be reacted with a cationizing agent, heated or gelatinized with caustic alkali, or in a slurry state. Sugiyama teaches that the temperature during the cationization reaction can range from 40°C to 100°C, but preferably from 50°C to 80°C.
In Example 1, 53.3 g of corn starch (10% moisture) and 197 g of water were placed in a 500 ml separable flask equipped with a stirrer to make a uniform slurry. Dimedylaminopropylacrylamide (hereinafter abbreviated as DPA) was added while stirring. Sugiyama teaches to dissolve 6g (110 mol%) of tin in 20g of water, add to the slurry, and add 5.3g of sodium hydroxide to 20g of water. The reaction is carried out for 5 hours while maintaining the reaction temperature at the indicated temperature using a hot bath. After reacting for 5 hours, 3 times the volume of 90% methanol aqueous solution was added to the reaction mixture, stirring was performed using a mixer, and washing was repeated 5 times at room temperature. Sugiyama teaches to dry under reduced pressure for a period of time, then take a portion and measure the solid content concentration.
The method of Sugiyama is embraced by the instantly claimed method. Thus, claims 4-5, 7, and 9 are anticipated.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. JPS63108001A (Sugiyama) as applied to claims 4-5, 7, and 9 above.
Sugiyama differs from the instantly claimed invention in that Sugiyama does not explicitly teach 1) a method wherein the weight ratio of total water content to polysaccharide is from 0.5 to 3 g/g, 2) a method wherein the molar ratio of the base to anhydroglucose unit of the deprotonated polysaccharide is from 0.1 to 1.5, 3) a method wherein the deprotonation reaction is carried out at a temperature of 0 to 80 °C for a duration of 0.5 to 3 hours, 4) a method wherein he molar ratio of the functionalization agent of formula II to the anhydroglucose unit of the deprotonated polysaccharide is from 0.05 to 3, 5) a method wherein the deprotonated polysaccharide is reacted with the functionalization agent of formula II at a temperature of 50 °C to 80 °C for a duration of 2 to 48 hours, and 6) a method wherein the weight ratio of total water content to polysaccharide is from 0.5 to 2 g/g.; however, these deficiencies would have been obvious.
In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Generally, differences in molar or weight ratio(s), temperature, and/or reaction duration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such molar or weight ratio(s), temperature, and/or reaction duration is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, claims 8, 10-13, and 18 would have been obvious based upon the preponderance of evidence.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-13, and 16-18 are rejected. Claims 2-3, 6, and 14-15 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. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK T LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0655. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 AM to 4 PM EST (Maxi Flex).
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571) 272-8394. 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.
/PATRICK T LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/PL/
