Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/198,809

Branched Aldehyde Production

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
May 17, 2023
Priority
Jun 05, 2020 — provisional 63/035,073 +1 more
Examiner
WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
Art Unit
1692
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Scion Holdings LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
1417 granted / 1645 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -20% lift
Without
With
+-20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1672
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
61.3%
+21.3% vs TC avg
§102
8.2%
-31.8% vs TC avg
§112
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1645 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 22, 2026 has been entered. 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 1-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 17/921,098 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to a process, wherein a linear alpha olefin is isomerized at a first pressure to produce an isomerized olefin; followed by hydroformylation of the isomerized olefin at a second pressure that is different from the first pressure. The difference is that the instant claims specifically recite a first pressure from 0.1 bar(g) to 10 bar(g), and a second pressure of 5 bar(b) to 400 bar(g), while the claims of the reference application generally recites that the second pressure is higher than the first pressure. The broader recitation in the reference application encompasses the limitation of the instant claims, since the second pressure recited in the instant claims is indeed higher than the recitation of the first pressure. The instant claims also recite temperature ranges for the isomerization and hydroformylation reactions that are not recited in the claims of the reference application. Although the reference application is silent with regard to temperature, standard isomerization/hydroformylation conditions are assumed. Such conditions would include the temperature(s) recited in the instant claims. Therefore, the instant claims are rendered obvious by the claims of the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is (571)272-0649. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-9pm IFP. 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 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. /SIKARL A WITHERSPOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 3 earlier events
Feb 01, 2025
Response Filed
May 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 20, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Dec 07, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 22, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637402
CRESOL PREPARATION METHOD FOR INHIBITING PRODUCTION OF BYPRODUCT
2y 11m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12629661
PHOTO CATALYTIC DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUS PROCESS FOR CO-CONVERSION OF CO2+H2O TO C1-OXYGENATES IN SUNLIGHT
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12630491
PRODUCTION OF 2,2,4,4-TETRAMETHYLCYCLOBUTANE-1,3-DIOL FROM SECONDARY ALCOHOLS AND 2,2,4,4-TETRAMETHYLCYCLOBUTANEDIONE USING HOMOGENEOUS CATALYSTS
3y 0m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12623986
SYNERGISTIC USE OF PHENOL PURIFICATION TRAIN IN PHENOL PRODUCTION UNIT FOR PROCESSING PHENOLIC WATER FROM BISPHENOL-A PRODUCTION UNIT
3y 1m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12623998
PROCESS FOR PREPARING A POLYISOCYANATE, POLYISOCYANATE, ITS USE AND POLYADDITION PRODUCTS PREPARED THEREFROM
2y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-20.4%)
1y 8m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1645 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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