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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/19/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 5/19/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because although there is overlap between the process and product, the product of instant Claim 10 has limitations that make it distinct and materially different from the process of Group I such that no dependent claims from Group I contain those distinct limitations of instant Claim 10’s product. The product of claim 10 could’ve been made by another, materially different, process that doesn’t use flakes or the specifically claimed pressure range.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashammer EP_1268378_B1.
1. Regarding Claim 1, Kashammer discloses a process for making neopentyl glycol (Claim 1) that includes forming flakes and pellets (paragraph 0013) and solidification (paragraph 0011). The Examiner respectfully submits that although not explicitly stated, the formation of pellets would inherently involve compacting/compressing to some degree. Kashammer discloses how a variety of containers (corresponds to claimed mold) can be used as part of its solidification process (paragraphs 0022, 0023). Kashammer further discloses that the choice of the type of finished product, be it flakes and/or pellets, and the selection of one of the processes it described for solidifying depends on the circumstances at the production site and on the wishes of the user (paragraph 0024). As such, the Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the compacting pressure based on what degree of solidification is desired in the end-product pellet. Applicants have not indicated how the instantly claimed pressure results in unexpected and surprising properties.
3. Claims 2, 3, and 5-7, Kashammer doesn’t disclose the claimed limitations. However, as the Examiner explained above, these are all specific to what is desired in the end-product. And as explained, Kashammer admits that these are up to the discretion of the maker (see paragraph 0024).
4. Regarding Claim 4, Kashammer discloses a thickness ranging from 1 to 1.5 mm (paragraphs 0021, 0030).
5. Regarding Claim 8, Kashammer discloses a temperature range of 5 to 35C (paragraph 0020).
6. Regarding Claim 9, Kashammer discloses using cooling water to cool (paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to use a water content needed for sufficient cooling. Applicants have not indicated how the instantly claimed pressure results in unexpected and surprising properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights