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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claims 1 – 14 and 16, submitted January16, 2026 is acknowledge and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to objection of claims 2 - 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendment. The objection of claims 2 - 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 - 12, filed January 16, 2026, with respect the rejection of claims 1 – 16 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendment, cancellation of claim 15 and arguments presented. The rejection of claims 1 – 16 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1 – 14 ad 16, is made in view of 35 USC 112(b), necessitated by the claim amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the cancellation of claim 15. The rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed January 16, 2026, with respect to rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 112(b)/101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the cancellation of claim 18. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 USC 112(b)/101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12 - 14, filed January 16, 2026, with respect the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendment and arguments presented. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 16 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2, line 2 “-relative” needs dash removed; claim 6 line 1 has “is” listed twice; and claim 10 line 5 “-between” needs dash removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an amount from 10 to 75 wt.% water” in line 7 of the claim. Additonally, in line 8 is recited “distilled water or condensed water”. There is nothing in the disclosure to indicate that “water” is any different from distilled water or condensed water. As such, the claim is merely including the same limitation twice. For this reason the claim is indefinite and lack clarity.
Claim 2 recites: “…relative to a mass of solvent or mixture of solvents,…, in the presence of one or more components selected from the group consisting of organic acid catalyst, or mineral acid catalyst, glycol, glycerine, and residues from industrial processes of recycling of waste oils”. Included in the claim are limitations for the solvent and the solvent mixture. Also, next to the limitations for the solvent and the solvent mixture are components which include the acid catalyst and solvents. However, the disclosure at paragraph [0051] identify the preferred solvents as; DEG-type glycols (diethyleneglycol) and glycerine, alcohols selected from 1-octanol, or 2-octanol or 2-ethyl-hexanol, mineral or vegetable oils and industrial waste from the recycling and regeneration of used mineral and vegetable oils. The use of these listed solvents is support by the Examples set out in the disclosure. The claim as presented seemingly implies that the acid catalysts are a solvent. For this reason the claim lacks clarity.
In reviewing the Examples, the Examiner notes that when the organic material and/or waste is added to a reaction container, the container already has the solvent and/or mixture of solvents along with the acid catalyst therein. With the solvent or solvent mixture being DEG-type glycols (diethyleneglycol) and glycerine, alcohols selected from 1-octanol, or 2-octanol or 2-ethyl-hexanol, mineral or vegetable oils and industrial waste from the recycling and regeneration of used mineral and vegetable oils; or a combination thereof.
Claim 7 recites; “…wherein the solvent or mixture of solvents is distilled with water…” there is nothing in claims 1 or 2 to indicate in which of the phases the solvent is being distilled off with water. In the Examples an aqueous fraction and an organ phase are subjected to distillation. For this reason the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2 – 14 and 16 are rejected for being dependent upon rejected base claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692