Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/567,407

Cement plastic mixture

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Dec 06, 2023
Priority
Jun 07, 2021 — SL PP 42-2021 +2 more
Examiner
WEISS, PAMELA HL
Art Unit
1732
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Terratico J S A
OA Round
2 (Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
553 granted / 1019 resolved
-10.7% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+46.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1066
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
67.9%
+27.9% vs TC avg
§102
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§112
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1019 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . The amendment to the Specification filed 5/4/2026 addresses and corrects the designation of trademarked products. This amendment does not add new matter and will be entered. Applicant has amended the claims overcoming the previous rejections under section 112. No new matter is added. Applicant has moved the limitations of claim 4 into the independent claim. The remarks filed in conjunction with the claim amendments of 5/4/2026 are persuasive The ARC fiber and amount thereof is not expressly taught by the cited prior art in combination. The amount set forth in the prior art is materially different that that of the instant claims and will result in a product with materially different properties/functionality. The rejections for obviousness double patenting are maintained. 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 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of co-pending Application No. 18567445 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-pending application has the same effective filing date is not a divisional application and recites and claims the same compositional components in the claimed ranges differing only by recites the components are mixed rendering the composition obvious and subject to obviousness double patenting. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm. 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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. /PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
May 04, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 05, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673893
COLOR CHANGING WALL COMPOUNDS AND METHODS OF USE
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12668542
AIR-BLOWN BITUMEN USING GRAFTED SILICA
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12662422
COLOR-ADJUSTABLE REPAIRING AGENT AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND CONCRETE CONTAINING REPAIRING AGENT
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12662423
CEMENTITIOUS COMPOSITION
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12662425
MARINE CONCRETE COMPOSITION USING DECHLORINATION MICROORGANISM, AND CONSTRUCTION METHOD OF MARINE CONCRETE STRUCTURE FOR THE SAME
2y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+46.7%)
2y 8m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1019 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