Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 16/455,300

Production of Alkali Metal Hydroxide, Chloride and Sulfate via Electrodialysis and Subsequent Downstream Processing

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 27, 2019
Examiner
WITTENBERG, STEFANIE S
Art Unit
1795
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
361 granted / 667 resolved
-10.9% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
726
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
51.2%
+11.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 667 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Claims 2-12, 15-16, 18-19, 22 and 24-27 are pending. Claims 1, 13-14, 17, 20-21 and 23 are cancelled. 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 November 2025 has been entered. Examiner’s Note The following changes were made to the claims without appropriate markings to indicate an amendment was made: Claim 2: “process” the P is lowercase Claim 2: deleted comma after ‘12’ Claim 2: added “an” Claim 2: added “to” Claim 2: added “acid” Claim 3: added “acid” Claim 3: added “to” Claim 3 deleted hyphen Claims 4, 8, 12, 16: added hyphen to “acid-laden” Claim 6: a comma was added between acid and the Claim 6: salt was deleted Claims 12 and 16: the letters “a” “b” “c” do not include paratheses Claim 12: “so as” was added Claim 12: “or” was added Claim 15: “and” was added Claim 16: the hyphen was removed from tributyl Claim 16: “ionic” was changed from “ion” Claim 24: “P” in process is not capitalized Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0075] “amine comprising 18-36 carbon units” may be more appropriately written with “atoms” instead of “units”. [0077] appears to have a typo with “Typically” Appropriate correction is required. The amendment filed 12 November 2025 (and 6 December 2024) is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: [0045] “amines containing 18-36 carbon atoms” [0075] “amine comprising 18-36 carbon units” Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Claim Objections Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims do not have a period at the end. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 2-12, 15-16, 18-19, 22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 12 and 16, the phrase “with a solvent containing a long chain amine of 18-36 carbon atoms” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original specification includes the range of 18-24 carbon atoms. Although the specification includes the compounds tri-lauryl and tri-dodecyl amine which include 36 carbons, the specification does not provide support beyond the two compounds such that the range is fully supported. The claims may include the two examples in the original specification that are explicitly stated, however, the range is not fully supported. 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, 6-7, 16, 18-19, 22 and 25-27 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. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the acid" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term should be introduced in the claim without the use of “the”. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the amino acid lysine" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim can state “lysine” without the usage of “the”. Regarding claim 7, it appears that all of the compounds (e.g. tri-capryl amine, tri-octyl amine, etc.) are included as the solvent in the format that they are currently listed. The claim should be more clearly written such that a selection of one or the compounds is present. For example, “the solvent used comprises tri-capryl amine.. or ionic liquids”. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the purified alkali metal hydroxide solution" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The terms should be previously stated in the claim for example to produce a purified alkali metal hydroxide solution. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the salt" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 depends on claim 16. Claim 16 includes multiple salts and it is unclear which salt is being referred to. Claim 25 recites the limitation "the raffinate stream" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 25 depends on claim 12. Claim 12 refers to “a raffinate”. Claim 25 would be more appropriately presented without the term “stream”. Allowable Subject Matter The claims are free of the prior art. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered. On page 2 the phase “amines containing 18-36 carbon atoms” is discussed. The remarks state that since the examples “tri-capryl amine” and “tri-dodecyl amine” are in the original specification, that support is present for the range 18-38 carbon atoms. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The specification supports the two examples provided. The specification does not support the full range. The claims may include the two specific examples. On page 4 remarks are directed towards the rejection of claim 6 to “the amino acid lysine”. The claim may be amended to state “solvent is lysine”. On page 4 the remarks are directed to claim 7 and the term “comprises”. The Examiner acknowledges the use of “comprises”, however as currently stated it appears that all of the components are present. The phrasing does not include a term such as “or” to indicate that only one solvent is present. The phrase should more appropriately include the term “or” (e.g. the solvent used comprises tri-capryl amine…or ionic liquids”. On page 4 the remarks are directed towards claim 16 in regards to “the purified alkali metal hydroxide solution”. The rejection is based on lacking antecedent basis. To overcome the rejection the claim merely needs to previously state “a purified alkali metal hydroxide solution”. On page 4 the remarks are directed to claim 18. The term “the salt” should more appropriately identify which salt is being referred to. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 pm EST. 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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. /Stefanie S Wittenberg/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2019
Application Filed
May 22, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 15, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 15, 2022
Response Filed
Oct 11, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 11, 2022
Response Filed
Nov 04, 2022
Response Filed
Nov 04, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 01, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 01, 2022
Response Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Response Filed
Feb 15, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 03, 2023
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2023
Final Rejection — §112
Jun 20, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 20, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 29, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 11, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 29, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 05, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 06, 2023
Response Filed
Dec 13, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2024
Response Filed
May 24, 2024
Response Filed
May 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 12, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Response Filed
May 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601080
HIGH-SPEED 3D METAL PRINTING OF SEMICONDUCTOR METAL INTERCONNECTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595577
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THE ELECTROCHEMICAL CONVERSION OF A GASEOUS COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577699
METHOD OF LIQUID MANAGEMENT IN ANODE CHAMBER AND APPARATUS FOR PLATING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559853
DIFFERENTIAL CONTRAST PLATING FOR ADVANCED PACKAGING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546026
PLATING APPARATUS AND PLATING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+19.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 667 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month