Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/755,547

METHOD FOR PRODUCING PULP SOFTENERS USING WASTE COOKING OIL

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Examiner
CALANDRA, ANTHONY J
Art Unit
1748
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Chengdu Huadian Rongyu Biotechnology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
638 granted / 1014 resolved
-2.1% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1076
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
39.9%
-0.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
Detailed Office Action The communication dated 6/26/2024 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-8 are pending. 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 . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The Examiner found multiple prior art references which could be designated as the closest prior art. GB 1,466,502 showed that oils can be reacted with sodium hydroxide to form fatty acid soaps (I) in the pulp and paper industry. This however did not suggest the process of making softeners from used oil. TW1773305B LAI taught taking waste cooking oil, filtering it, removing water from the filtered oil and then reacting with a NaOH aqueous solution at 75-85 degrees C which was lower than the claimed reaction temperature. The water to NaOH ratio was ~2:1 (10:4-10:5) which would be much lower than the 16.67:1 ratio of the claim. The reference further did not suggest the stirring time of 2-3 hours. KR102015526B1 discloses making a surfactant from used cooking oil by adding NaOH and water. However, the ratio of the prior art did not meet that of the instant claims. Furthermore, the time and temperature of stirring was not disclosed and neither was filtering/water removal. Drawings and specification The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1 step 4 the applicant claims a ratio in step (3) but then uses the percent sign. The applicant should remove the “%” signs and add that the ratio is a weight ratio. In Figure 1 step 5 “stop the stirring until a large amount” is unclear. It appears this should be “stop the stirring when a large amount” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The specification is objected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "liquid waste cooking oil" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant should state earlier that “a liquid waste cooking oil is obtained” step 1, preparation: collecting waste cooking oil, heating the waste cooking oil until it is completely melted into a liquid state to obtain a liquid waste cooking oil, preparing a filter mesh for filtering out solid matter from the liquid waste cooking oil, and preparing an oil-water separator for separating water from the liquid waste cooking oil Claim 1 line 9 recites “the waste cooking oil”. This should be “the preliminary purified waste cooking oil” to match what is produced in step 2. In step 4 the applicant claims a ratio but then uses the percent sign. The applicant should delete the % signs as this makes it unclear as a ratio is not a percent (the claim does not make sense using percent because it adds up over 100%). Further, the applicant should recite that this is a weight ratio. In claim 1 the applicant claims “stopping stirring until a large amount of the yellow”. This is not clear because at this period in time stirring is occurring. The claims should state “stopping stirring when until a large amount of yellow” alternatively the applicant could state “continuing The term “large amount” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “slowly stopping” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly stopping” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the filter screen" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the filter mesh”. Claim 4 line 2 recites “the process of water separation”. In step 3 of claim 1 this is recited as “oil-water separation”. Claim 4 line 3 recites “the separation”. In step 3 of claim 1 this is recited as “oil-water separation”. The term “slowly and evenly” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slowly and evenly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “moderate level” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “moderate level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “too intense or too gentle” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “too intense or too gentle” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 PM. 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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. ANTHONY J. CALANDRA Primary Examiner Art Unit 1748 /Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601114
A HIGH YIELD COOKING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601112
MATERIAL STORAGE APPARATUS, METHOD OF CONTROLLING MATERIAL STORAGE APPARATUS, AND SHEET MANUFACTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595627
MULTILAYER FILM COMPRISING HIGHLY REFINED CELLULOSE FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590411
PAPER PULP, A METHOD FOR PRODUCING PAPER PULP, AND PAPER PULP PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590414
PAPER AND PULP FOAM CONTROL AGENT
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
63%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+17.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 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