Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/193,403

POLYMER COMPOSITE COMPRISING WHOLE GRAIN FLOUR OF CEREAL GRASSES

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 30, 2023
Examiner
KOLB, KATARZYNA I
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Coda Intellectual Property B.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
51%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 181 resolved
-22.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
73 currently pending
Career history
254
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
48.6%
+8.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 181 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Applicants claim priority to PCT application and NL application. None of the priority documents have been received by the office. 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. 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)(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, 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tangelder (US 2012/0135169). With respect to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 20, Tangelder discloses composition comprising one or more base flours, plasticizers and a polymer (claim 1). The polymer is biodegradable polymer such as PGA, PBAT, PBS, PHBV, PCL, PBSA, PHB and the like (claim 8). Flour utilized in Tangelder is made from seeds, grass and roots flour which includes plants used to make cereal such as triticale seeds, oats, corn, rice, barley [0067]. Plasticizers include low molecular weight polyols and sugars, oligosaccharides, esters of carboxylic acids and the like [0076], wherein low molecular weight polyols are solid at room temperatures with melting point above 70oC. Basic formulation comprises polymers in amount of 1-90 wt.%, 10-90 wt.% of one or more flours, 2.5-30 wt.% of plasticizers [0079], 0-20 wt.% of fillers. More preferred content of flours is 40-97.5 wt.%. More preferred content of polymer is 2.5-60 wt.%. With respect to claim 5 and 21, Tangelder teaches that one or more of the flour can be utilized as such combination is clearly envisaged and chosen from the list disclosed. Additionally, content of additional flours reciting “up to 100% by weight” does not recite lower limit as such content can also be zero. With respect to claim 11, filler can be selected from silica, aluminosilicates (mica or clays such as montmorillonite, smectite and hectorite), natural fibers such as pecan fibers and talc [0077]. With respect to claim 13, Tangelder discloses use of additives such as pigments, odorants (fragrances) and antioxidants [0078]. With respect to claim 14-18, the base formulation if first dried at a temperature of 0-60oC [0088]. The composition is obtained by blending one or more polymers with the previously dried base (dried base being the intermediate step). Compounding is performed using multiple screw extruders (shearing forces) at a temperature range of 100-180oC [0092]. The composition is molded into an article using various molding processes such as injection molding, compression molding, blow molding, thermoforming, heat welding and the like [0092]. As mention in rejection of instant claim 1 and 7, plasticizer has melting point of more than 70oC and during process the plasticizer will also melt, because Tangelder teaches melt blending. With respect to claim 19, Tangelder discloses first making pellets or granulates [0095] which are then utilized to make bioplastic articles such as packaging containers [0106] which are used for short time and disposed. Organic waste bags, biodegradable mulch foils, foil packaging (all read on single serve packaging) [0107]. 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. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tangelder (US 2012/0135169) in view of Wang (US 8,283,006). Discussion of Tangelder from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by references. As it was mentioned in paragraph 1, Tangelder discloses plasticizers polyols which are low molecular weight polyhydric alcohols, sugars, saccharides and esters of carboxylic acid [0076]. Tangelder clearly says that plasticizers used there in are understood to mean compounds that aid formability or shape ability of the mixtures. Tangelder also clearly states that plasticizers listed are examples, and therefore plasticizers are not limited to only those listed. Tangelder does not prohibit or does not exclude using other plasticizers which are functional equivalents of those listed. Wang discloses composition comprising biopolymers and starches that also utilizes plasticizers. Starting col. 4, line 22 Wang not only teaches the same plasticizers as Tangelder but also functional equivalents such as sorbitol and xylitol which are generically called sugars in Tangelder. In the light of the above disclosure it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filled to utilize sorbitol and/or xylitol of Wang in the teachings of Tangelder because sorbitol and xylitol are sugars clearly envisaged by Tangelder. USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971).Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp. 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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. /KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 August 7, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 30, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590202
ACETYL CITRATE-BASED PLASTICIZER COMPOSITION AND RESIN COMPOSITION COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584005
RESIN COMPOSITION FOR SLIDING MEMBER, AND SLIDING MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583968
FLUORINE-CONTAINING ETHER COMPOUND AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, COMPOUND AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, FLUORINE-CONTAINING ETHER COMPOSITION, COATING LIQUID, AND ARTICLE AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577370
Non-Dust Blend
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577410
RHEOLOGY CONTROL AGENTS FOR WATER-BASED RESINS AND WATER-BASED PAINT COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
42%
Grant Probability
51%
With Interview (+8.8%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 181 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