Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/257,897

METHOD OF PRODUCING ALKENYL PHOSPHORUS COMPOUND

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Jun 16, 2023
Examiner
WITHERSPOON, SIKARL A
Art Unit
1692
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Maruzen Petrochemical Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 8m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1403 granted / 1630 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -12% lift
Without
With
+-11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 8m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1666
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1630 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinami et al. (US 10,479,809). The claims are drawn to a method for producing an alkenyl phosphorus compound of formula (4) by reacting a compound of formula (1) with an alkynyl compound of formula (2) in the presence of a transition metal complex, a Lewis acid, and a low-polarity additive. Further limitations include the catalyst being a nickel complex, and the low-polarity additive being selected from toluene, tetralin, and methylnaphthalene. Kinami et al. teach a process for preparing an alkenyl phosphorus compound by reacting a compound formula (1) with an alkynyl compound of formula (2) to produce a compound of formula (3a) or (3b), wherein the reaction is conducted in the presence of a transition metal catalyst and a phosphorus oxo acid compound (abstract). Examples of the phosphorus compound of formula (1), the alkynyl compound of formula (2), and the product of formula (3a) or (3b) can be found at column 6, line 33 to column 9, line 32. The transition metal catalyst is preferably a low-valent nickel complex containing a trivalent phosphorus compound as ligand (col. 9, lines 35 to 62). The reaction conditions include a temperature from -20 to 120°C and pressures from 0.0001 to 5 Mpa. A solvent is not required, but the reaction may be carried out in a solvent including, inter alia, toluene or xylene (col. 14, lines 30 to 61). The reference does not expressly teach the use of a Lewis acid in the process; however, a phosphorus oxo acid having an intramolecular P-H bond is used in the reaction. Examples of such compounds include phosphinic acid, phenylphosphinic acid, and biphenylphosphinic acid (col. 11, lines 32-58). Such compounds can act as Lewis acids. Therefore, the instant claims are found to be obvious in view of the process taught by Kinami et al. 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 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 7-11 of copending Application No. 17/595,444 (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 for producing an alkenyl phosphorus compound by reacting a phosphorus compound of formula (1) with an alkynyl compound of formula (2) in the presence of a transition metal complex and a Lewis acid. The difference between the two set of claims is that the instant claims also recite the presence of a low-polarity additive, e.g., an aromatic, aliphatic, or alicyclic hydrocarbon. The reference application, while not expressly recited the presence of such a compound, does not preclude the presence of such a compound, as the reference application uses open-ending claim language. Accordingly, the examiner finds that the process recited in the claims of the reference application renders the instant claims obvious. 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

Jun 16, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595219
CONTINUOS FLOW SYNTHESIS OF CANNABIDIOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595222
CURCUMINOIDS, ANALOGS THEREOF, AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595221
HYDROFORMYLATION PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590049
METAL-FREE OXIDATION OF PYRENES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590198
PROCESS FOR THE DECOMPOSITION OF POLYURETHANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (-11.8%)
1y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1630 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