Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 18/878,564

NOVEL SARGASSUM-BASED POLYMER COMPOSITE FILAMENTS FOR 3D PRINTING AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Dec 23, 2024
Priority
Jun 24, 2022 — provisional 63/355,212 +1 more
Examiner
WILLIAMS, CEDRICK S
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
OA Round
2 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
12m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allowance Rate
318 granted / 529 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
566
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
65.9%
+25.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 529 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 07/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 have been amended. Claims 14-19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-13 are pending. 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 1-13 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claims 1, 10, The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation which includes a relative term: "about 10 to about 15 mL" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, when wetting the PLA pellets with isopropyl alcohol. What amount specific quantity is required to satisfy the limitation “about 10 mL”? 8 mL? As the written description does not provide guidance to ascertain the requisite degree of the term, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-9, 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon and because the fail to cure the deficiencies of claims 1, 10. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13 are allowed if the 112 rejections above, are overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record: Shi teaches a composition of algae and thermoplastic resin. However, the forming of the composition does not explicitly teach or reasonably suggest: “wetting an amount of PLA pellets in the range of >0 g to 150 g with an amount of isopropyl alcohol in the range of 10 - 15mL to obtain a mixture of wet PLA pellets; mixing an amount of the sargassum nanopowder particles to the mixture of wet PLA pellets to obtain one or more coated PLA pellets with at least >0 wt% of sargassum; and drying the coated PLA pellets” as claimed in independent claims 1 and 10. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000. /CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 20, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746778
Clamp Ring Assembly Including Removable Insert Rings For Use In Tire Fabrication
3y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12740591
VAPORIZER HAVING VAPORIZATION CAVITY AT INNER BOTTOM OF VAPORIZATION CORE
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12741487
TIRE REINFORCED BY METAL CORDS
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12730373
IMPRINTING APPARATUS, IMPRINTING METHOD, AND PRODUCT MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12700229
Pneumatic Tire and Vehicle
4y 5m to grant Granted Aug 04, 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
60%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+26.3%)
2y 9m (~12m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 529 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