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. This communication is responsive to the claim set filed 04/10/2023 and Response to Restriction filed 02/20/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending. The elected Claims 1-8 are under consideration in this Office Action. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 are rejected for the reasons below. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 02/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 “ 1-hexanic ” should read -- 1-hexan o ic -- . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Colle et al. (US2010/0056681 A1). Regarding Claim s 1 -2 and 8 , Colle illustrates producing plasticizers of g lycerol triheptanoate (mixture of isomers) ([0051]). Colle further teaches that the starting olefin can be mixed pentene isomers ( Id .), therefore, the resulted plasticizers would be glycerol ester of hexanoic acid isomer s . Structure of g lycerol ester of hexanoic acid isomers meets the instant claimed Formula 1, wherein R4 and R5 are hydrogen. Colle further more teaches the plasticizers have overall branching levels of 0.05 to 0.8 ( Id .) . Regarding Claims 3-4 , Colle discloses that NMR analyses show, with the intermedi ate C7 oxo acid, typical isomers include n-heptanoic acid, 3-methyl hexanoic acid, 4-methyl hexanoic acid, and 2-methyl hexanoic acid ([0042]). Thus, one ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably infer that the typical isomers include n- hexanoic acid, 3- methylpentanoic acid, acid, 4- methylpentanoic acid, acid, and 2- methylpentanoic acid, with the intermediate C 6 oxo acid . 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, 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 5 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colle et al. (US2010/0056681 A1) , as applied to claim 1 above. The disclosure of Colle on Claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference. Regarding Claims 5 and 7 , Colle further teaches that C 6 linear alpha olefins subjected to a rhodium-based OXO process provide s a composition comprising about 75 wt. % to about 95% wt. % n-heptanoic acid and about 5 wt. % to about 25 wt. % 2-alkyl substituted C 7 acids . Therefore, using C5 linear alpha olefins as starting feed would provide a composition comprising about 75 wt. % to about 95% wt. % n-hexanoic acid and about 5 wt. % to about 25 wt. % 2-alkyl substituted C 6 acids , overlapping with the claimed 20 wt.% to 95 wt.% of a branch-type hexanoic acid and 80 wt.% or less of 1-hexanoic acid. Regarding Claim 6, Colle is prima facie obvious over the instant Claim 6 as the claim allows for 0 parts by weight of the cyclopentyl methanoic acid based on the claim language "30 parts by weight or less . " Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakka et al. ( US 20110098390 A1 ) in view of Hurwitz et al. (US2.975,152) and in further view of Colle et al. (US2010/0056681 A1). Regarding Claim s 1 -2 , Dakka teaches a plasticizer comprising a triglyceride according to the formula: , wherein R', R, and R are independently selected from a combination of C 3 to C 12 linear or branched alkyl groups and aryl groups ([0024]) , wherein the plasticizer is obtained by esterifying a mixture of linear and branched C4 to C13 acid and benzoic acid with glycerol ([0023]). Attention is drawn to Illustrative Example 8 wherein the plasticizer is obtained by reacting glycerol with benzoic acid, hexanoic acid and 2-methylvaleric acid . The difference between Dakka and instant Claim 1 is that Dakka is silent that benzoic acid can be replaced by a hexanoic acid isomer . However, Hurwitz teaches that a plasticizer is esterification products of pentaerythritol or dipentaerythritol with at least one acids (2:15-35). Hurwitz further teaches that c yclopentane carboxylic acid is a suitable acid in combination with other acids for producing a plasticizer (5:45-6 :15). Hurwitz further more teaches compositions comprising mixed esters containing cyclohexyl and cyclopentyl carboxylic acids as plasticizer have excellent electrical resistivity (13:45-60). Therefore, Hurwitz teaches cyclopentyl carboxylic acid is a suitable acid for making plasticizer product s of ester s of polyols. One ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of instant application to replace benzoic acid in Dakka by cyclopentyl carboxylic acid to make modified plasticizer because alicycle ring could provide better flexibility, lower glass transition temperature than aromatic ester, leading to superior low temperature performance . A dditionally, as discussed at para. 8 above, Colle teaches plasticizers of reaction product of glycerol and hexanoic acid isomers . Colle further teaches triglycerides having branching levels of 0.05 to 0.8 achieved desired compatibility with PVC ([0051]). The branching degree of cyclopentyl carboxylic acid is 0. Thus, the resulted triester plasticizer could have lower branching levels where reacting glycerol with cyclopentyl carboxylic acid, hexanoic acid and 2-methylvaleric acid . Because the branching degrees of cyclopentyl carboxylic acid and hexanoic acid are 0 and the branching degree of 2-methylvaleric acid is 1, therefore, the branching degree of cyclopentyl carboxylic acid , hexanoic acid and 2-methylvaleric acid mixture is less than 1. Regarding Claims 3-4, as discussed in Claim 1, the modified plasticizers was obtained by reacting glycerol and cyclopentyl carboxylic acid, hexanoic acid and 2-methylvaleric acid. Regarding Claims 5-7, the Illustrative Example 8 of Dakka reacts glycerol with benzoic acid (87.12 g), hexanoic acid (359.4g) and 2-methylvaleric acid (193 g). where benzoic acid is replaced by cyclopentyl carboxylic acid , the hexanoic acid isomer mixture has cyclopentyl carboxylic acid (87.12 g), hexanoic acid (359.4g ) and 2-methylvaleric acid (193 g). Thus, 100 parts by weight of the hexanoic acid isomer mixture contain about 30 parts 2-methylvaleric acid , 14 parts cyclopentyl carboxylic acid and 56 parts hexanoic acid . Regarding Claim 8, the backbone of glycerol where R4 and R5 positions are hydrogen. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1, 3 -6 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over the allowed claims 1, 3 -8 of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 18/030,484 (‘484) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of ‘484 claim s a triester -based plasticizer composition, comprising: one or more triesters of Formula 1. The Formula 1 has the same structure of the instant Formula 1. C laim 1 of ‘484 further claims R1 to R3 are each independently an n-pentyl group, a branch-type pentyl group, or a cyclopentyl group, and R4 and Rs are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group of 1 to 4 c arbon atoms ; these limitations are the same as the corresponding parts of the instant Claim 1. Claim 1 of ‘484 further more claims R1 to R3 of Formula 1 are derived from a carboxylic acid composition comprising a hexanoic acid isomer mixture and benzoic acid, and wherein the hexanoic acid isomer mixture comprises cyclopentyl methanoic acid . It is noted that a hexanoic acid isomer mixture contains more than three molecules , therefore, one ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage the embodiments that R1 to R3 are derived from cyclopentyl methanoic acid and two other hexanoic acid isomer s. The fact that Claim 1 of ‘484 claims R1 to R3 are each independently an n-pentyl group, a branch-type pentyl group, a cyclopentyl group, or a phenyl group indicates that benzoic acid is not a mandatory limitation. Branching levels of the hexanoic acid isomer mixture is less than 2 because the branching degree of cyclopentyl methanoic acid is 0. Additionally, C laim 3 of ‘484 claims the hexanoic acid isomer mixture has a degree of branching of 2.0 or less. Regarding claims 3-4, claims 4-5 of ‘484 claim the corresponding limitations. Regarding Claim 5, claim 6 of ‘484 claims the hexanoic acid isomer mixture comprises 20 to 95 parts by weight of a branch-type hexanoic acid, with respect to total 100 parts by weight of the mixture. Regarding Claim 6, claim 7 of ‘484 claims the hexanoic acid isomer mixture comprises 30 parts by weight or less of cyclopentyl methanoic acid, with respect to total 100 parts by weight of the mixture. Regarding Claim 8, claim 8 of ‘484 claims R4 and R 5 are hydrogen. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8315 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM - 5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joseph Del Sole can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 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. /HUIHONG QIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763