Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/434,154

FOAMABLE CELLULOSE ACETATE COMPOSITIONS, FOAMS AND FOAM ARTICLES FORMED THEREFROM

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Feb 06, 2024
Priority
Jul 19, 2021 — provisional 63/203,345 +2 more
Examiner
FERGUSON, LAWRENCE D
Art Unit
1781
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Eastman Chemical Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
779 granted / 995 resolved
+13.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1020
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
84.1%
+44.1% vs TC avg
§102
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
§112
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 995 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting 1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 2. Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 7-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/580352. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending Application No. 18/580352 encompasses all the limitations of the instantly claimed invention. All of the remaining instant claims recite similar subject matter as claims 2-3 and 7-20 of copending '352. Conclusion 3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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). /LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 06, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12637548
FIBER COMPOSITE STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A FIBER COMPOSITE STRUCTURE
3y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12630457
GLASS ELEMENT WITH CUT EDGE AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME
2y 6m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12628297
WINDOW MEMBER AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12623953
GLASS COMPOSITION, GLASS ARTICLE AND USE THEREOF
2y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12617966
COMPOSITION
3y 0m to grant Granted May 05, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.5%)
2y 10m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 995 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