Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/609,558

CITRATE-BASED PLASTICIZER COMPOSITION AND RESIN COMPOSITION COMPRISING SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Nov 08, 2021
Examiner
CAI, WENWEN
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Chem, Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
509 granted / 850 resolved
-5.1% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
74 currently pending
Career history
924
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
43.6%
+3.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§112
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 850 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment of claims 1, 6-8, 15, 17, 20 are supported by the specification. Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 9/18/2025. Thus, the following action is properly made final. Claim Objections Claim 15 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 7-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 7-8 recites “an alkyl based citrate”, “a hybrid citrate” etc.. It is unclear how those citrates relate to the citrates in the claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 1, 6-8, 14-15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR20170020282) in view of Bohnen et al (US 2002/0198402) and evidenced by Encyclopedia (Falbe J et al; Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons; Alcohols, Aliphatic. Online Posting Date: Jun 15, 2000.) Kim teaches a plasticizer composition comprising compounds represented by the following formulas 2-7, R1 is isobutyl group, R2 is a branched or unbranched C6-C8 alkyl group [0050-0066]. One exemplary molar ratio of R1 alcohol : R2 alcohol is 4.05:5.68=42:58 [0167] (1000/528*3=5.68, 300/74=4.05). One exemplary BEHC is 253 [0168-0169]. PNG media_image1.png 400 309 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 390 299 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 399 300 media_image3.png Greyscale Kim does not teach n-heptanol is included in an amount of 50wt% or more. However, Bohnen discloses a citrate plasticizer composition and teaches n-heptanol is a preferred C7 alcohol for preparing citrate [0012].. Encyclopedia teaches 1-Heptanol's production and use as an intermediate in the manufacture of plasticizers (phthalates and adipates) and as solvents or solubilizers in the paint and printing ink industry and other sectors(1) may result in its release to the environment through various waste streams. Pure 1-heptanol has very little commercial value and is not used for these purposes but rather isomeric mixtures of C7 alcohols and C7-C11 alcohol mixtures. C7 alcohol isomers are either linear or branched. C7 alcohol isomers include 4-methyl hexanol and 5-methyl hexanol. As impurities, the content of isomer has to be less than 50 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize isomeric mixture of C7 alcohol for citrate preparation because it is recognized in the art it is suitable for citrate plasticizer preparation and the mixture has more commercial value. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the instant claims do not recite “C7 alcohol is 4-methyl hexanol or 5-methyl hexanol”, instead the claims recite ““C7 alcohol includes 4-methyl hexanol or 5-methyl hexanol”, even trace amount of 4-methyl hexanol or 5-methyl hexanol reads on the claims. In response to applicant's argument that Kim fails to disclose the claimed molar ratio of C4 to C7, the argument is not persuasive because of the exemplary ratio of Kim, one skilled in the art would recognize such a ratio is suitable for butanol and C7 alcohol. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WENWEN CAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2021
Application Filed
May 22, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 28, 2023
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 13, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 13, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 15, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 19, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 24, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 11, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 15, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600886
RESINS FOR ADHESIVE BONDING OF FABRICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590201
DEGRADATION PROMOTER FOR ALIPHATIC POLYESTER BIODEGRADABLE RESIN, BIODEGRADABLE RESIN COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR PROMOTING DEGRADATION OF ALIPHATIC POLYESTER BIODEGRADABLE RESIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12559592
BRANCHED AMORPHOUS POLYAMIDE (CO)POLYMERS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12552956
PHOTOPOLYMERIZABLE TYPE DENTAL SURFACE COATING COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534556
CURABLE COMPOSITION, CURED ARTICLE USING SAME, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CURED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
60%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+19.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 850 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month