Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 17/781,254

ARRANGEMENT OF A LASER RADIATION FOR CATALYSIS IN COMPLEXATION REACTIONS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
May 31, 2022
Priority
Nov 29, 2019 — BR BR10 2019 0254181 +1 more
Examiner
ABRAHAM, IBRAHIME A
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
24%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
63%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 24% of cases
24%
Career Allowance Rate
86 granted / 360 resolved
-46.1% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
392
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 360 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 . Status of the Claims Claims 1-4 are pending in the current office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-4 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 1 has been amended to include the limitation, “a reactor of a subsea production system, the reactor configured to receive a scale removal solution and supply the scale removal solution to equipment of the subsea production system.” The specification provides support for the claimed reactor being configured to receive the scale removal solution as shown in figures 7-9 and corresponding sections of specification. However, the specification does not appear to provide support for the reactor being further configured to supply the scale removal solution to equipment of the subsea production system. The reactors in the specification such as those shown in figures 7-9, 11, 13, and 15 do not provide support for any configuration of the reactor to allow for it to supply the scale removal solution to equipment of the subsea production system. Note: No prior art rejections have been made in the current office action as the structure of the reactor being claimed regarding the supply of the scale removal solution could not be ascertained by a review of the application. 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 1-4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the limitation "sealing rings between the flange of the pen holder and the flange of the reactor cover, and on the reactor cover" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires that multiple rings be positioned between the flange of the pen holder and the reactor cover, or if a single ring is positioned between the flanges and another ring positioned between some other structure and the reactor cover. Figure 10 shows 4 sealing rings and it is unclear which rings and arrangement are intended to be claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 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 IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F. 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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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. /IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 31, 2022
Application Filed
May 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12419337
Cracking-Shelling Mechanism With Variable Excentric Adjustment For Shelled Fruits
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12389925
FOOD POSITIONING TRAY ACCESSORY FOR EDIBLE INK PRINTING DEVICE
3y 1m to grant Granted Aug 19, 2025
Patent 10068749
PREPARATION OF LAMELLAE FOR TEM VIEWING
5y 3m to grant Granted Sep 04, 2018
Patent 10060026
HIGH-POWER PULSE COATING METHOD
3y 7m to grant Granted Aug 28, 2018
Patent 10053773
METHOD OF CLEANING PLASMA PROCESSING APPARATUS
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 21, 2018
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
24%
Grant Probability
63%
With Interview (+38.8%)
3y 9m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 360 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