Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/183,271

NAILABLE CONCRETE COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Mar 14, 2023
Examiner
USELDING, JOHN E
Art Unit
1763
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
671 granted / 1262 resolved
-11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
1331
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1262 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 and 5 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because the groups are independent and distinct for the reasons set forth in the restriction requirement of 12/4/2025. The composition of Group I is deemed useful in a final product that is not the article of Group II. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/5/2026. Claim Status The status identifiers of claim 6-15 and 20 must be changed to Withdrawn. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “chlorusulfonate polyethylene” is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-3 and 5 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 is indefinite for the following reasons: The limitation “about” in claims 1 and 2 is indefinite. The metes and bounds are unclear. The instant specification provides three different ranges for the term [0053]. The limitation “substantially free” is indefinite. The metes and bounds are unclear. The instant specification provides five different ranges for the term [0059]. Claims 3 is 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. Natural rubber and natural polyisoprene are the same rubber component. 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valente et al. (Journal of Cleaner Production 333 (2022) 130013). Regarding claim 1: Valente et al. teach a concrete composition comprising, based on dry weight: 63 wt% cement, 19 wt% rubber particles (RG), and 18 wt% fine aggregate (6 wt% RP and 12 wt% Admixtures); water in an amount of 29 wt% based on the water-to-cement ratio; and the composition is free of coarse aggregates (Table 1; RP25-RG75-OPC). Since the admixtures are in powder form (page 4), they are considered a fine aggregate, in addition to the RP. Valente et al. also teach another example that meets the claim. Valente et al. teach a concrete composition comprising, based on dry weight: 63 wt% cement, 13 wt% rubber particles (RG), and 12 wt% fine aggregate (RP); water in an amount of 31 wt% based on the water-to-cement ratio; and the composition is free of coarse aggregates (Table 1; RP50-R50-OPC). The amount of 13 wt% is about 15 wt%. "About" permits some tolerance. At least about 10% was held to be anticipated by a teaching of a content not to exceed about 8% In re Ayers, 154 F2d 182, 69 U.S.P.Q. 109 (C.C.P.A. 1946). Regarding claim 2: Valente et al. teach that the RG rubber particles have a particle size of 1-3 mm (0.04 to 0.12 inches) (page 4). Regarding claim 3: Valente et al. teach ground tire rubber, which is styrene-butadiene rubber (page 4). Regarding claim 5: Valente et al. teach a plasticizer in their Admixtures (page 4; Table 1). Relevant Prior Art Recycled tire rubber is known as styrene-butadiene rubber as taught by Sawyer et al. (2019/0203425) [0006], de Garennes et al (2017/0175343) [0022], and Varga (2016/0333906) [0011]. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600669
SELF-HEALING POLYMER-MODIFIED CEMENTS FOR AMBIENT TEMPERATURE APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600856
RESIN COMPOSITION, FORMED ARTICLE, AND, FORMED ARTICLE WITH HARD COAT LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600809
ETHYLENE-VINYL ALCOHOL COPOLYMER COMPOSITION, AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590214
INK-JET INK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583997
RESIN MOLDED BODY AND RESIN MOLDED BODY PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
53%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+17.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1262 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