Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/453,178

BIOPLASTIC MATERIALS OBTAINED FROM BIOLOGICAL MATTER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 21, 2023
Priority
Aug 24, 2022 — provisional 63/373,437
Examiner
MCDONOUGH, JAMES E
Art Unit
1734
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
1020 granted / 1428 resolved
+6.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1476
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1428 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 1-6, 8-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavoisier et al. (WO-2017046356-A1, google patents used for translation). Regarding claims 1, 3 and 9 Lavoisier discloses a method of mixing algae powders with plasticizers and polymers (Example 7). Lavoisier discloses a bioplastic composition comprising the algae powder and other components such as a plasticizer or a natural polymer (claims 14-15). Lavoisier discloses a thermo formed product (claim 21). It is noted that such a thermos formed product would necessarily require applying a pressing force and heat to the mixed composition for a time. With respect to the physical properties of the bioplastic being different than one or more of the physical properties of the mixed composition, it is noted that a bioplastic would be physically different than the algae powder used as the starting material, as it would no longer be a powder, i.e., it would have a different physical property. Regarding claim 2 Lavoisier discloses the use of algae from the Ulva genus (claim 11). Regarding claim 4 Lavoisier discloses the use of 10 wt % plasticizer based on the algae powder or on the bioplastic (approx. para 0043). Regarding claims 5-6 Lavoisier discloses the use of biodegradable polymers such as poly(lactic acid) (PLA) (approx. para 0045). Regarding claim 8 Lavoisier discloses injection molding (claim 19). Regarding claims 12-17 The density, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, and biodegradability are all properties of the composition, and as Lavoisier directly discloses the composition and method used to make the composition, it would be expected to have the same properties, and when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02. Regarding claims 18-20 Lavoisier discloses that the composition comprises between 10 and 60 wt % of the algae powder, and disclosers the use of 40 to 90 wt % of at least one other component which may be a polymer (claim 16). 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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoisier et al. (WO-2017046356-A1, google patents used for translation), as applied to claims 1-6, 8-9 and 12-20 above. Regarding claims 10-11 Lavoisier discloses that the composition comprises between 10 and 60 wt % of the algae powder (Claim 16). As the amounts of the reference overlap the claimed amount, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest the time, temperature or force limitations of this claim in combination with the limitations of the base claim from which it depends. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10. 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 5712721177. 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 E. MCDONOUGH Examiner Art Unit 1734 /JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 21, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603189
DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR CLOSURE OF DEEP GEOLOGICAL NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL REPOSITORY
3y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600672
DECARBONIZED CEMENT BLENDS
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590007
ZEOLITE NANOTUBES AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USE THEREOF
3y 1m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576482
POROUS COATED ABRASIVE ARTICLE AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
3y 4m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577160
AIR-DRY SCULPTURAL AND MODELING CLAY
3y 3m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
71%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+11.0%)
3y 2m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1428 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