Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/335,615

ENHANCED FOAM FRACTIONATION OF OIL PHASE FROM AQUEOUS/OIL MIXED PHASE VIA INCREASED VISCOELASTICITY

Final Rejection §103§DP
Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, PRANAV N
Art Unit
1777
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ecolab Usa Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
433 granted / 637 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
682
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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. Claims 1-5 are is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11718540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of US’540 does not recite removing oily particles, however, it is implied because claim 8 recite obtaining clean water from a mixed phase solution. Claim 2 is substantially same claim 9 of US’540. Claim 3 is substantially same claim 10 of US’540. Claim 4 is substantially same claim 11 of US’540. Claim 5 is substantially same claim 12 of US’540. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to rejection of claim 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticiped by Liu et al. (US 2014/0144815), and claims 4-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2014/0144815) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The above cited rejections have been withdrawn. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM. 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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. /PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 15, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Nov 07, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600689
Organic Material Liquid Dehydration Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582923
Annular Centrifugal Extractor with Solid Separation Part to Separate Solid Particles Present in Solvent Extraction Fluid and a Process for the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577104
CONCENTRATION OF SULFURIC ACID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570937
MASH FILTER MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570537
PROCESSES FOR RECOVERING LITHIUM VALUES FROM LITHIUM-CONTAINING BRINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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