Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/496,878

METHOD OF AND APPARATUS FOR PROTECTING AND TRACKING CARBON MASS STORED IN WOOD MATERIALS CONTAINED IN PREFABRICATED WOOD-BUILDING ASSEMBLIES, FROM THE DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY OF FIRE AND RELEASING BACK INTO THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE FORM OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND/OR OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Oct 29, 2023
Examiner
TUROCY, DAVID P
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mighty Fire Breaker LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
415 granted / 888 resolved
-18.3% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
77 currently pending
Career history
965
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 888 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 1/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment, filed 1/11/2026, have been fully considered and entered by the examiner. The examiner notes the cancellation of claims 17-28 and claims 1-16 are pending. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Information Disclosure Statement Examiner notes the substantial number of cited references on the multitude of IDSs supplied by the applicant, including a significant number of citations that do not appear pertinent to the claimed invention. The examiner has reviewed the references as time allowed, but the shear number of references prevents the examiner from a comprehensive review. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in reviewing the supplied prior art references and highlighting any references that the applicant believes are particularly pertinent to the instant claims. Claim Objections Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 step “(f)” includes “shipping said fire protected . . . , to a remote location”; however, the “, to “ appears to include a misplaced comma. Claim 13 step “are registered on a network, and used as a carbon tax credit”; however, the “, and “ appears to include a misplaced comma. Dependent claims include the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11836807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11836807 teach each and every limitation of the instant claims and therefore anticipate and/or makes obvious the claims as drafted. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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. /DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 29, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588261
SELECTIVE DEPOSITION ON METALS USING POROUS LOW-K MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586789
RECYCLING METHOD OF TERNARY MATERIAL MICROPOWDER, AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584206
METHOD FOR COATING A PLUMBING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577658
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR TUNGSTEN GAP FILL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559838
SEALING STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
47%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+36.8%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 888 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