Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/028,353

CONVERTING BIOMASS TO LPG

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 31, 2023
Examiner
HINES, LATOSHA D
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Abundia Biomass-To-Liquids Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
478 granted / 944 resolved
-14.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
1017
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
62.0%
+22.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.2%
-24.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 944 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION This Office action is based on the 18/028353 application originally filed March 31, 2023. Amended claims 83-104, filed September 02, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1-82 have been canceled. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 02, 2025 has been entered. 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 83-104 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 83-104 of U.S. Patent No. 12,195,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of both applications are drawn to a process for forming a biomass derived hydrocarbon feedstock, including either a bio-derived naphtha fuel or LPG fuel. To further support the position of the Office as it relates to the double patenting rejection, Applicant is reminded that those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent. In re Vogel, 422 F. 2d 438, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). Wherein, the specification of the ‘672 application discloses in column 25 lines 1-5, as a result of the refining process, a small amount (<5 wt %) of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) was also formed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed September 02, 2025, with respect to claims 83-94 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under Feldmann et al. (WO 2018/065591 A1) hereinafter cited under US 2021/0285017 “Feldmann” in view of Resetec Patent Sarl Geneve (EP 2177590 A1) hereinafter “Resetec” of 83-94 has been withdrawn. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached on 571-272-6381. 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. /Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 31, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Dec 05, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §DP
Sep 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP
Apr 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584074
Briquettes
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575585
CRUMB CHOCOLATE FLAVOR COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577489
PROCESS FOR REDUCTION OF ASPHALTENES FROM MARINE FUELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577485
PROCESS FOR REDUCTION OF ASPHALTENES FROM MARINE FUELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570921
LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION, DIESEL ENGINE WITH MOUNTED SUPERCHARGER, AND USE METHOD FOR LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION
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
51%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+16.1%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 944 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