Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/481,807

SULFUR-RESISTANT PROTECTION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 05, 2023
Examiner
FORD, GISELE D
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
594 granted / 851 resolved
+17.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
897
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 851 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Claims 9-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/05/2026. 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 2-7 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. Regarding claim 2, antecedent basis for calcium aluminate cement has been previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 3, antecedent basis for Portland cement has been previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 4, antecedent basis for gypsum has been previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 5, antecedent basis for gypsum has been previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 6, antecedent basis for slag has been previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 7, antecedent basis for calcium aluminate cement, Portland cement, gypsum, and slag has been previously established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canstantinou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0035328. Regarding claim 1, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising: about 15 wt% to about 75 wt% of calcium aluminate cement (paragraph 36), about 5 wt% to about 40 wt% of Portland cement (paragraph 35), about 10 wt% to about 50 wt% of gypsum (paragraph 37; paragraph 21), and about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% of slag (paragraph 39). Regarding claim 2, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of calcium aluminate cement (paragraph 36). Regarding claim 3, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% of Portland cement (paragraph 35). Regarding claim 4, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 25 wt% to about 50 wt% of gypsum (paragraph 37). Regarding claim 5, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 25 wt% to about 40 wt% of gypsum (paragraph 37). Regarding claim 6, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 2 wt% to about 20 wt% of slag (paragraph 39). Regarding claim 7, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising at least about 90 wt% of a total amount of calcium aluminate cement, Portland cement, gypsum, and slag (paragraphs 34-39). 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. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canstantinou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0035328 in view of Tsirigotis et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0018047. Regarding claim 8, Canstantinou discloses a cementitious mixture but does not specifically disclose it is further comprising about 1 L/m3 to about 5 L/m3 of a superplasticizer. Tsirigotis teaches a mixture comprised of calcium aluminate cement, Portland cement, calcium sulfate/gypsum, and slag (paragraph 54) having a superplasticizer additive (paragraph 71). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to utilize a superplasticizer depending on the application of the concrete for a more durable concrete with increased strength. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the concrete with a superplasticizer additive within the given range depending on the strength desired and the application for which it is to be used, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm. 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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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. GISELE D. FORD Examiner Art Unit 3633 /GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595381
METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF STEEL COMPONENTS WITH FIRE RESISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582053
MODULAR RAISED GARDEN BED SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584312
Wall Element, Wall and Building as Well as Method for Construction
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577787
Decorative Panel, in Particular a Wall, Ceiling or Floor Panel, and a Covering Constructed by a Multitude of Such Panels
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577796
SINGLE-OPENING WALL CRACK INTELLIGENT GROUTING MACHINE AND CONSTRUCTION METHOD
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
70%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+13.4%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 851 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