Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/026,274

DEEP EUTECTIC SOLVENTS, USES THEREOF, AND METHOD FOR PREPARING A LIGNIN PREPOLYMER BASED ON THE DEEP EUTECTIC SOLVENTS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 14, 2023
Examiner
QIAO, HUIHONG
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 109 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
153
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 109 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . This communication is responsive to the claim set and Response to Restriction requirement filed 11/14/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending. Elected claims 1-10 are under consideration in this Office Action. Non-elected claims 11-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10 are rejected for the reasons set forth below. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Benvenutti et al. (Journal of Molecular Liquids 315 (2020) 113761). Regarding Claim 1, Benvenutti teaches preparation of natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES). One of the NADES is a mixture of citric acid, glucose and water (ab.). citric acid is a carboxylic acid comprising three carboxylic acid functional groups. Glucose is a C6 compound having five -OH groups. Benvenutti further teaches the NADES has citric acid, glucose and water at 1:1:3 mol ratio (Table 1). Calculated, the water content of the NADES is 12.7 wt.%, falling within the claimed 10 to 50 wt.% of the total weight of the deep eutectic solvent. Regarding Claims 2-5, citric acid has 6 carbon atoms and three carboxylic acid functional groups and is a saturated aliphatic carboxylic acid. Regarding Claims 6 and 9, Benvenutti teaches the NADES can be synthesized from natural compounds and the purpose of the research was to use natural food ingredients as substitutes for synthetics additives (Introduction). Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that one ordinary skilled artisan would use 100% biobased compounds. Regarding Claims 7, glucose has 6 carbon atoms and five alcohol groups. Regarding Claim 10, the NADES has citric acid : glucose at 1: 1 molar ratio, falling within the claimed 1:1 molar ratio. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 1-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR102276980B1). Regarding Claims 1-5 and 7-8, Lee teaches deep eutectic solvents made from naturally-derived compounds (ab.). Attention is drawn to Table 2, where Lee discloses that deep eutectic solvents comprising a mixture of citric acid and 1,3-propandiol. citric acid is one of the instant claimed carboxylic acids and 1,3-propandiol is one of the instant claimed alcohols. Lee further teaches when one of the preferred deep eutectic solvents is added water to 50% content, the extraction capacity reaches maximum (lns418-420) and antioxidant activity of the extraction is highest (lns485-487). In view of such benefits, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled artisan in the field, before the effective filing date of instant application, to make a modified deep eutectic solvent containing carboxylic acids, 1,3-propandiol and 50% of water. Regarding Claims 6 and 9, Lee teaches the deep eutectic solvents made from naturally-derived compounds (ab.). Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches the molar ratio of citric acid to 1,3-propandiol being 1: 1. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benvenutti, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (KR102276980B1). Benvenutti teaches a natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES) being a mixture of citric acid, glucose and water (table 1). The difference between Benvenutti and instant Claim 8 is that the NADES does not contain one of the claimed alcohol. However, Lee teaches that 1, 3-propanediol is a hydrogen bond donor and can form a deep eutectic solvent with citric acid (Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of instant application, to replace glucose with 1, 3-propanediol to obtain a modified deep eutectic solvent because both glucose and 1, 3-propanediol are hydrogen bond donors for citric acid; replacing glucose with 1, 3-propanediol is just a simple substitution of a known compound with another known compound that has the same function for the same purpose. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUIHONG QIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8315. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM. 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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. /HUIHONG QIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /CATHERINE S BRANCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595406
LIQUID CHLORIDE SALT-BASED POLYMER SUSPENSION FLUIDS WITH POLYETHYLENE GLYCOL DISPERSANTS AND APPLICATION TO DRAG REDUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12570842
THERMOPLASTIC ELASTOMER COMPOSITION AND SHAPED ARTICLE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570837
POLYCARBONATE RESIN COMPOSITION AND MOLDED ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552958
NOVEL TWO-COMPONENT OUTER COATING CONTAINING POLYASPARTIC ACID ESTERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534547
RESIN PARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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
71%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 109 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