Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 16, 2026
Application No. 17/533,432

ELECTROCHEMICAL DEHYDROGENATION OF ETHANE TO ETHYLENE USING SOLID OXIDE ELECTROLYZER

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 23, 2021
Priority
Jan 28, 2021 — provisional 63/142,615
Examiner
WONG, EDNA
Art Unit
1795
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
University of South Carolina
OA Round
7 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
8-9
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
39%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allowance Rate
618 granted / 1055 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -19% lift
Without
With
+-19.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
1090
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
38.1%
-1.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1055 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . This is in response to the Amendment dated June 12, 2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action. Response to Arguments Claim Objections Claims 1, 9, 19-22 and 25-26 have been objected to because of minor informalities. The objection of claims 1, 9, 19-22 and 25-26 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 24 has been 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. The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. Response to Amendment Claim Objections Claims 1, 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 15, please insert the word -- and -- after “H2;”. Claim 9 line 2, please amend “Ni-NixCu1-xNb1.33(Ti0.8Mn0.2)0.67O4-δ” to -- NixCu1-x-doped Nb1.33(Ti0.8Mn0.2)0.67O4-δ --. This is an instance where the article should be changed to be consistent with the specification terminology. Claim 19 line 19, please insert the word -- and -- after the word “selectivity;”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 I. Claims 19-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 19 lines 20-22, “Ni-NixCu1-x-doped Ni-NixCu1-x-Nb1.33(Ti0.8Mn0.2)0.67O4-δ (NTMO)” is new matter. Applicant’s specification discloses NixCu1-x-doped Nb1.33(Ti0.8Mn0.2)0.67O4-δ (NTMO) [page 17, [0064]]. II. Claim 24 is 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. Claim 24 lines 1-2, recite “wherein a redox-reversible ceramic electrode comprises NbTiO”. Claim 19, line 5, recites “at least one anode”. Claim 19, line 8, recites “at least one cathode”. It is unclear from the claim language how the claim limitation of claim 24 further limits the method recited in claim 19. Does the fuel cell further comprise a redox-reversible ceramic electrode? Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-4 and 8-9 define over the prior art of record because the prior art does not contain any language that teaches or suggests a method for forming an improved fuel cell comprising the steps of configuring, converting, electrochemical pumping and feeding as presently claimed, esp., at least one anode comprising at least one alloy nanoparticle exsolved onto at least one backbone to grow an embedded metal-oxide interface structure, wherein the embedded metal-oxide interface structure facilitates dehydrogenation of ethane to ethylene wherein the said at least one anode further comprises NbTiO. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to adopt the above conditions, and a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. Claims 1-4 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) set forth in this Office action. Citations The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2014/046794 is cited to teach that in a specific embodiment, the anolyte feed 102 may include ethane which may be oxidized to an oxidation product 110 including ethanol. On the cathode 109 side, CO2 115 may be reacted on a high surface area cathode 109 to produce, for example, sodium acetate and byproduct hydrogen (ρ [0019]). Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EDNA WONG whose telephone number is (571) 272-1349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM- 3:30 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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. /EDNA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 9 earlier events
Nov 21, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 20, 2024
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jun 12, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680177
METHOD OF PRODUCING GLUCARIC ACID AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SYNTHETIC RESIN RAW MATERIAL BY ELECTROCHEMICAL TREATMENT
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674243
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CHROMIUM OXIDE COATED TINPLATE
4y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12668885
METHOD FOR PRODUCING ALKALI METAL ALCOHOLATES IN AN ELECTROLYSIS CELL
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12668888
COMPOSITION FOR TIN OR TIN ALLOY ELECTROPLATING COMPRISING A PYRAZOLE-TYPE ANTIOXIDANT
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12655534
ANODE WITH METALLIC INTERLAYER FOR ELECTRODEPOSITION
1y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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

8-9
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
39%
With Interview (-19.2%)
3y 1m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1055 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