Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/056,071

Use of dry mineral clay as a contact desiccant for the drying and mineralization of green wood chips

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 16, 2022
Examiner
PENNY, TABATHA L
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
260 granted / 566 resolved
-19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
596
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
59.8%
+19.8% vs TC avg
§102
7.6%
-32.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 566 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2025. 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 1-7 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. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiency. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the clay matrix" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be treated as “the dry clay mineral powder”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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)(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. Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Walter (US 5019170). Regarding Claim 1, Walter teaches a method for producing a wood chip-clay aggregate (abstract) comprising: coating green wood chips with a dry clay mineral powder (col. 1 ln. 30-35), allowing the chips to remain encased in the clay matrix until equilibrium with ambient conditions have been substantially reached (constant with regard to biological and meteorological influences, col. 1 ln. 65-col. 2 ln. 1), and subsequently separating into individualized aggregate particles (shipped in bulk and the aggregate will not alter for months, col. 2 ln. 23-26; free aggregate, Claim 1). Regarding Claims 2-3, Walter teaches the particle pores and cavities having moisture therein are closed, i.e. particles retain free water content (col. 2 ln. 50-53). Regarding Claim 4, Walter teaches treatment with aluminum sulfate prior to the dry mineral clay (col. 2 ln. 50-53). Regarding Claim 5-7, Walter teaches kaolin (i.e. a low-swelling clay, col. 3 ln. 8-16). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00. 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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. /TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 16, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112
Sep 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 10, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 10, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 09, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12580176
STRUCTURED COMPOSITE MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576429
METHOD OF WETTING LOW SURFACE ENERGY SUBSTRATE AND A SYSTEM THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576427
APPARATUS AND METHODS USING COATINGS FOR METAL APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570806
PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR DIRECT CRYSTALLIZATION OF POLYCONDESATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12534414
SLOTS AND PRE-WEAKENED REGION IN 3D WOVEN COMPONENTS
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
46%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+11.3%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 566 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