Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/280,520

EMULSION-TYPE EXPLOSIVES OF THE WATER-IN-OIL TYPE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Sep 06, 2023
Priority
Mar 08, 2021 — EU 21161191.8 +1 more
Examiner
FELTON, AILEEN BAKER
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Yara International ASA
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
68%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allowance Rate
233 granted / 449 resolved
-13.1% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 5m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
497
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
64.8%
+24.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 449 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alilovic (20040065396). Regarding claims 1-19 and 21, Alilovic discloses an emulsion explosive that includes a discontinuous oxidizer phase from 80-95 % of the total composition and includes ammonium nitrate and calcium nitrate or sodium nitrate (0064). The calcium nitrate may be from 0-20 % of the oxidizer (0056). Para. 0034 and 0060 discloses that there are ammonium ions in the oxidizer solution as is claimed. The continuous or fuel phase can be from 2-10 % of the total composition (0064) and includes oil such as diesel, corn, soybean and the like (0054) and emulsifier from .5-3 % of the total composition. Water is included from around 10-16 % (see table 1). The viscosity will be inherent to the composition since the same ingredients with amounts are used. As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, note the case law of In re Ludke, 169 USPQ 563; In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594; In re Best et al, 195 USPQ 430; and In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688. Regarding the term “renewable”, the oils disclosed are inherently renewable. Further, the term “renewable” is a method limitation since it does not describe the compound itself but rather how it is obtained. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the nitrate dissolved in the aqueous, this is not accurate. Para. 0034 and 0060 discloses that there are ammonium ions in the oxidizer solution as is claimed. Applicant argues that the SVO is not used when the ammonium is dissolved in the oxidizer solution but there is simply no evidence of this. See MPEP 2123 which recites: The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose calcium nitrate with ammonium nitrate. This is not the case since the prior art reference clearly discloses the use of 0 to 20% calcium nitrate to replace a portion of the ammonium nitrate oxidizer (0056). Further with respect to claim two applicant recites the percentages based on the oxidizer alone. The percentages and the prior art are based on the entire composition. When calculated based on just the oxidizer portion of the composition, the prior art meets the limitations of claim two. Applicant argues that the SVO is not disclosed but again the prior art recites that corn or soybean oil may be used as the oil. There is nothing prior to support applicant’s allegations that the composition only contains ammonium nitrate. Applicant provides articles of other patents that only include ammonium nitrate. The prior art that has been applied in this case clearly recites that calcium nitrate is used to replace a portion of the ammonium nitrate. Since the prior art recites that corn oil or soybean oil can be the oil that is present in the emulsion, the amounts recited as 2 to 10% would be the amount of those oils included in the composition. As outlined above the prior art does include the same ingredients as that which is claimed. Thus the properties would be inherent as indicated above. Applicant also argues that there are unexpected results based on the addition of calcium nitrate. Clearly the prior art discloses the calcium nitrate to be used. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AILEEN BAKER FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday 9-5:30, Thursday 11-3, Friday 9-5:30. 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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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. /AILEEN B FELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 10, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102
Sep 08, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12735368
Thruster Propellants
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12723009
PROPELLANT CHARGE
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12715821
METAL HYDRIDE NANOPARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12709586
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLABLE SYNTHESIS OF ENERGETIC NANOCOMPOSITES
1y 12m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12692208
REDUCED VAPOR-TOXICITY HYDRAZINE COMPOSITION
5y 1m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
68%
With Interview (+16.5%)
4y 5m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 449 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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