Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 06, 2026
Application No. 18/744,441

Biocementation Method and System

Final Rejection §112§DP
Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Priority
Oct 05, 2017 — provisional 62/568,533 +5 more
Examiner
FRONDA, CHRISTIAN L
Art Unit
1652
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Biomason Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
1118 granted / 1354 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1392
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§102
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§112
38.8%
-1.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1354 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-11 are pending and under consideration in this Office Action. In view of the claim amendment and arguments filed 06/28/2026 the previous claim rejections rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph; and 35 U.S.C. 103. 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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11008591 (05/18/2021; PTO 892). The arguments filed 06/28/2026 did not address this rejection. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. The claims and/or the specification of the patent teach a method comprising: decomposing calcium carbonate to form calcium chloride and carbon dioxide, which react to form calcium dioxide; reacting calcium dioxide with ammonium in a process to form urea; and reacting calcium chloride with urea to form biocement. Thus, the teachings anticipate the claimed invention. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 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 extension fee 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 Christian L Fronda whose telephone number is (571)272 0929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternate Fridays between 9:00AM-5:00PM. 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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on (408)918-7584. 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. /CHRISTIAN L FRONDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP
Jun 28, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12698516
PRODUCTION OF CANNABINOIDS/PHYTOCANNABINOIDS WITH A PLANT EXTRACT
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12692519
ENGINEERED AUTOTROPHIC BACTERIA FOR CO2 CONVERSION TO ORGANIC MATERIALS
4y 3m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12692506
RECOMBINANT STRAIN PRODUCING L-LYSINE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12692484
PUMA1 POLYMERASES AND USES THEREOF
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12680114
Cyclopropane-containing compounds useful as fuel
4y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 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
83%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+14.0%)
2y 5m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1354 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