Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/790,161

OXYGEN TRANSPORT MEMBRANE REACTORS FOR DECARBONIZATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jun 30, 2022
Examiner
IQBAL, SYED TAHA
Art Unit
1736
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Praxair Technology Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
659 granted / 823 resolved
+15.1% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
851
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
40.1%
+0.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.5%
-15.5% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 823 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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group III with Species I and Species a (Claims 5-11, 13 and 15) in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical feature is the use of one or more oxygen transport membrane (OTM) reactors to supply a portion of the heat required to sustain the endothermic reforming reaction. The OTM reactors combust about 90% to about 95% of the combustibles in the fuel gas, and the oxy-combustion products stream leaving the oxygen transport membrane reactors contains about 90% of the carbon provided to the feed of the reforming reactor. This is not found persuasive because the function of apparatus is not given patentable weight. The manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP §2114 II). Similarly the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims (MPEP §2115) . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 5-11, 13, 15 and 16 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. In claim 5 the term “derived from said syngas” is unclear. It is unclear whether a portion of syngas is just separated from the syngas to make this tail gas, or whether the syngas is processed or converted into this tail gas. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the feed" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the tail gas fuel stream" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the endothermic reforming reaction" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the combustion product stream" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-11, 13, 15 and 6 are rejected due to the virtue of their dependence on claim 5. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 6-11, 13, 15 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 requires “A method for decarbonizing a hydrogen production process that utilizes a steam methane reformer; wherein the feed to said reformer comprises natural gas, wherein said natural gas is converted into a syngas, and wherein a portion of the tail gas fuel stream derived from said syngas is combusted in one or more oxygen transport membrane reactors producing reaction heat, wherein a portion of the heat required to sustain the endothermic reforming reaction in said reformer is provided by said reaction heat via radiant heat transfer, followed by processing the combustion product stream exiting the oxygen transport membrane reactor to produce a concentrated CO2 stream containing from about 90%CO2 by volume to about 95%CO2 by volume.” Chakravarti et al. US 2016/0152469 discloses a system comprising an oxygen transport membrane 210 based reforming 200 system tailored for and integrated with a hydrogen production process (Figure 2, [0049]-[0053]. A portion of the heat transfer between the ceramic oxygen transport membrane tubes and the adjacent or juxtaposed reforming catalyst containing reformer tubes is through the radiation mode of heat transfer [0041 ]. Produced syngas stream 215 is cooled in 252 and injected in a Water gas shift reactor 410 [0051] further cooled and directed to a PSA unit 450 [0052]. A portion or all of the tail gas 454 is directed to the auxiliary oxygen transport membrane reactor 220 and mixed with a light hydrocarbon containing gas 224 to form part or all of the hydrogen containing stream 222. However, there is no teaching or suggestion from the reference regarding “…processing the combustion product stream exiting the oxygen transport membrane reactor to produce a concentrated CO2 stream containing from about 90%CO2 by volume to about 95%CO2 by volume.” Using the composition of the tail gas of the PSA from the Chakravarti et al. reference (i.e. 30% hydrogen, about 50% carbon dioxide and from about 10 to about 20% carbon monoxide and trace amounts of unreacted methane (<1 %)), it wouldn’t have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tail gas composition to increase either the CO or the CO2 amount such as to obtain after combusting a concentrated CO2 stream containing from about 90% CO2 by volume to about 95% CO2 by volume. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED TAHA IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5857. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7-5. 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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. /SYED T IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 30, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600645
Method for Rare Earths Extraction
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600641
AMMONIA SYNTHESIS CONVERTER AND METHOD FOR SMALL PRODUCTION UNITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589992
HYDROGEN STORAGE BY MEANS OF LIQUID ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577101
PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SYNTHESIS GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577647
FILM-FORMING MATERIAL, FILM-FORMING SLURRY, SPRAY COATED FILM, AND SPRAY COATED MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+22.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 823 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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