Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/313,523

METHODS FOR REMOVING DEICING SALT IONS FROM WATER RUNOFF

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
May 08, 2023
Examiner
PATEL, PRANAV N
Art Unit
1777
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
VIRGINIA TECH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
433 granted / 637 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
682
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 637 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-18 in the reply filed on 08/12/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/12/2025. 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. Claim 17 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 17 recites the limitation "the absorbent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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)(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) 12-13, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alhooshani et al. (US 2022/0118420A1). Regarding claims 12-13, 15 and 18, Alhooshani teaches a device comprising ionic binding material present in a porous casing, wherein the ionic binding material comprises a zeolite , wherein the porous housing comprises polypropylene (refer abstract). Claim(s) 12-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Athanasiandis (US 2011/0309024A1). Regarding claims 12-13 and 18, Athanasiandis teaches a device (310) comprising ionic binding material present in a porous casing (layers 311, 312, and 313), wherein the ionic binding material comprises a zeolite ([0115] discloses layer 312 contains clinoptilolite which is a zeolite). Regarding claims 16-17, It appears that claim 17 is intended to be dependent of claim 16 since claim 16 recites that the device comprises an adsorbent in the housing. For this reason, Examiner has interpreted claim 17 to be dependent of claim 16. Athanasiandis teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Athanasiandis further teaches that the device further comprises an adsorbent in the housing, hwerein the adsorbent comprises polypropylene flakes (refer [0115] disclosing layer 311 comprising polypropylene flakes). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athanasiandis (US 2011/0309024A1), in view of Ray (US 2024/0228327A). Regarding claim 14, Athanasiandis teaches limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Athanasiandis does not teach that the ionic binding material comprises biochar alone or in combination with hemp powder, hemp hurd, hemp bast fiber, or a combination thereof. Ray teaches biochar produced from spent coffee ground is useful in removing contaminants from an aqueous solution (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the ionic binding material of Athanasiandis to include biochar because Ray discloses that biochar has capacity for high trace contaminant removal in water, Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV N PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 5712720579. 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. /PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 15, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600689
Organic Material Liquid Dehydration Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582923
Annular Centrifugal Extractor with Solid Separation Part to Separate Solid Particles Present in Solvent Extraction Fluid and a Process for the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577104
CONCENTRATION OF SULFURIC ACID
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570937
MASH FILTER MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570537
PROCESSES FOR RECOVERING LITHIUM VALUES FROM LITHIUM-CONTAINING BRINES
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
68%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 637 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