Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/381,837

FUNCTIONALIZED LIGNOCELLULOSE COMPOUND AND USES THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Oct 19, 2023
Examiner
GOLOBOY, JAMES C
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Prairiechar Inc. D/B/A Prairie Food
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
846 granted / 1335 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
72 currently pending
Career history
1407
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.5%
+13.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1335 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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 2/9/26 is acknowledged. 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 1-4 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. In claim 1 and its dependent claims, it is not clear what is meant by “using for substrate a porous structure”, as it is not properly grammatical English, and it is not clear whether the porous structure is a separate material upon which the functional lignocellulose is mounted, or whether the functional lignocellulose catalytic particle is itself a porous structure, as seems to be indicated in paragraph 34-35 of the current specification. Applicant should amend the claims to use proper English and to clarity whether the functional lignocellulose catalytic particle is itself a porous structure. For the purposes of examination, a porous structure derived from lignocellulose is considered to meet the limitations of the substrate. More generally, the term “functional lignocellulose catalytic particle (FLCP)” is indefinite. The term is not generally used in the art, and while the specification refers to FLCP on numerous occasions, and makes broad statements about FLCP (“FLCPs can take multiple form factors, including solid, liquid, gel”, paragraph 59), but never clearly defines the term. It is unclear, for example, whether “functional” is meant to indicate that the lignocellulose material is functionalized, in the standard sense of having a functional group introduced, or whether it simply means that the lignocellulosic catalytic particle has a function of some sort. Claims 2-3 and dependent claim 4 require the substrate to be constituted by functionalized aggregates of organic and inorganic material. However, an aggregate typically refers to a material formed from a plurality of particles, so it is unclear what it means for the functional lignocellulose catalytic particle (which contains the substrate) to be constituted by an aggregate. For the purposes of examination, the claim is considered to be met by particulate materials comprising both organic and inorganic components, whether those components are discrete components or the result of surface modifications. In claims 2-4, the term “such as” renders the claims indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally, in claims 2-4, the numbers following “such as claim” have been deleted in the claim set filed 2/9/26, apparently inadvertently since the claims have a status of “original” and applicant’s remarks do not mention an amendment. If applicant actual wishes for claims 2-4 to be dependent claims, the examiner recommends that “A functional lignocellulose catalytic particle such as claim” be replaced by “The functional lignocellulose catalytic particle of claim” and then insert a claim number. For the purposes of examination, claim 2 has been considered to depend on claim 1 and claims 3-4 have been considered to depend on claim 2, as in the claims filed 10/19/23. In claims 3-4, it is not clear how one would determine whether the functional lignocellulose catalytic particles are “intended” to catalyze a reaction or sorb a fluid component. The examiner recommends that the claims instead that the functional lignocellulose catalytic particles are capable of catalyzing a reaction or sorbing a fluid component. Applicant should also take care to ensure that claims 2-4 are differentiated from each other. 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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kastner (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0312008). In paragraph 99 and the example that follows, Kastner discloses the development of carbon-supported porous acid catalysts using biochar generated from lignocellulosics. In paragraph 105 Kastner discloses that the porous carbon support is functionalized with an -SO3H group, and in paragraph 54 discloses acidic functional groups more broadly. The catalysts of Kastner, containing a functional group and a porous support derived from lignocellulosic material, therefore meets the limitations of the functional lignocellulose catalytic particle of claim 1. Additionally, since the catalysts of Kastner comprise both organic matter (the biochar) and inorganic matter (the acid groups), they meet the limitations of the functionalized aggregate materials of claims 2-4 which can catalyze a reaction. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malyala (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2017/0197192). In paragraph 6 Malyala discloses a method for producing biochar aggregate particles. In paragraph 90 Malyala discloses that the biochar can be prepared from various lignocellulosic sources. In paragraphs 88, 95-104, 170-175, and throughout the disclosure and figures, Malyala discloses that the biochar is porous. In paragraph 7 Malyala discloses that the biochar aggregate particles can contain a mixture of biochar with binders, fillers, and various other additives. In paragraphs 197, 210-213, and 346-350 Malyala indicates that the binders and additives can be both organic and inorganic compounds, and the aggregate materials of Malyala can therefore be aggregates of organic and inorganic materials as recited in claims 2-4. In paragraph 315 Malyala discloses that the biochar can be inoculated with microbes, also forming an aggregate. In paragraph 398 Malyala discloses that the biochar can absorb ammonia, meeting the limitations of claims 3-4 regarding sorbing a fluid component. While Malyala does not specifically disclose that the biochar aggregate particles are “catalytic”, since they meet the compositional limitations of the claims and contain a porous structure derived from a lignocellulosic material, they will be capable of acting as a catalytic particle. Claims 1-4 are therefore anticipated by Malyala. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mikova (RU 2393111 C1). An English-language machine translation of Mikova, which is attached, has been used in setting forth this rejection, and the pages and paragraphs referred to herein are those of the translation. In the first paragraph of the “Description” section on the first page of the reference, Mikova discloses the production of porous carbon materials from lignocellulosic raw materials, which can be used as sorbents for gases as well as for catalysis tasks. In the second-to-last paragraph of the sixth page of the reference, Mikova further teaches that the materials are useful for the preparation of catalysts and as adsorbents with a wide spectrum of action. The porous carbon materials of Mikova therefore meet the limitations of the claimed functional lignocellulose catalytic particles of claim 1, since they are lignocellulose-derived particles having a porous structure, and are useful in catalysis and as sorbents for fluid components such as gases. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C GOLOBOY whose telephone number is (571)272-2476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, usually about 10:00-6:30. 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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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. /JAMES C GOLOBOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 19, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600918
LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600919
LUBRICATING COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12584075
REDESIGNED LUBRICANT MAIN CHAIN REPEAT UNIT FOR ENHANCED THERMAL STABILITY AND TAILORED PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577492
SUCCINIMIDE DISPERSANTS POST-TREATED WITH AROMATIC GLYCIDYL ETHERS THAT EXHIBIT GOOD SOOT HANDLING PERFORMANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577494
Method of Lubricating an Automotive or Industrial Gear
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
63%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+8.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1335 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