Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/913,238

PYROLYSIS GAS PURIFICATION/COOLING DEVICE, PYROLYSIS GAS PURIFICATION/COOLING METHOD, ORGANIC SUBSTANCE PRODUCTION DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ORGANIC SUBSTANCE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 21, 2022
Examiner
BUI, DUNG H
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
962 granted / 1227 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+24.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
1312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1227 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H1121565 (JP ‘565) in view of Olson et al (US 20170100692; hereinafter Olson). As regarding claim 1, JP ‘565 discloses the claimed invention for a thermally decomposed gas purification/cooling device comprising: a gasification furnace (2) that gasifies waste to generate a thermally decomposed gas; a cyclone (3) through which the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace is passed to recover a dust component in the thermally decomposed gas; and a heat exchanger ([0003] and [0016]) through which the thermally decomposed gas that has passed through the cyclone is passed to be cooled. JP ‘565 does not disclose a filtration-type dust collector and a scrubber, wherein the filtration-type dust collector and the scrubber are disposed in a post-stage of the heat exchanger. Olson teaches a filtration-type dust collector and a scrubber, wherein the filtration-type dust collector and the scrubber are disposed in a post-stage of the heat exchanger {[0082] – “…particulate separator 140 may comprise one or more fabric filters, one or more electrostatic precipitators (hereinafter “ESP”), one or more scrubbers, or other particulate removal devices as are known in the art. It should be further noted that more than one particulate separator 140 may exist, sequentially or in parallel, and that injection point 116 and 119 may be at a location upstream and/or downstream of 140 when parallel, sequential, or combinations thereof exist…”}. Both JP ‘565 and Olson are directed to a gasification system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a filtration-type dust collector and a scrubber, wherein the filtration-type dust collector and the scrubber are disposed in a post-stage of the heat exchanger as taught by Olson in order to enhance gasification system performance. As regarding claim 2, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein a temperature of the thermally decomposed gas to be supplied to the cyclone is 500oC or higher and 1,100oC or lower ([0015] – “the combustible gas generated in the gasification furnace and having a temperature of about 700 to 800oC was introduced into a cyclone 3”). As regarding claim 3, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the thermally decomposed gas is cooled to a temperature of 30°C or higher and 300°C or lower in the heat exchanger ([0015]). As regarding claim 4, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a reforming furnace that is disposed in a post-stage of the cyclone and reforms the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a reforming furnace that is disposed in a post-stage of the cyclone and reforms the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP 2009209300 (hereinafter JP ‘300; reforming furnace 4 of fig. 1). As regarding claim 5, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a reforming furnace that is disposed in a pre-stage of the cyclone and reforms the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a reforming furnace that is disposed in a pre-stage of the cyclone and reforms the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP 6595073 (hereinafter JP ‘073; reforming furnace 12 and cyclone 14). As regarding claim 6, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the dust component recovered in the cyclone is supplied to the gasification furnace. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the dust component recovered in the cyclone is supplied to the gasification furnace in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Shinada et al (US 20080163548; hereinafter Shinada; [0033]). As regarding claim 7, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a gas cooling tower which is disposed in a post-stage of the heat exchanger and through which the thermally decomposed gas cooled in the heat exchanger is passed through to be cooled by water spray. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a gas cooling tower which is disposed in a post-stage of the heat exchanger and through which the thermally decomposed gas cooled in the heat exchanger is passed through to be cooled by water spray in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Kaneko (US 20190032917; [0082]). As regarding claim 8, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the thermally decomposed gas cooled in the heat exchanger ([0003]) is passed through filtration-type dust collector. As regarding claim 9, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the thermally decomposed gas cooled in the heat exchanger is passed through the scrubber (5). As regarding claim 10, JP ‘565 discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 discloses the claimed invention for wherein the filtration-type dust collector and the scrubber are disposed in parallel in the post-stage of the heat exchanger (Olson - [0082]). As regarding claim 11, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a differential pressure-measuring device that measures a differential pressure between a pre-stage and a post-stage of the filtration-type dust collector. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a differential pressure-measuring device that measures a differential pressure between a pre-stage and a post-stage of the filtration-type dust collector in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Chandran et al (US 20180290094; hereinafter Chandran; [0457]). As regarding claim 12, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a concentration-measuring device that measures a concentration of at least any selected from the group consisting of a phase-transitable impurity and a solid impurity in the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a concentration-measuring device that measures a concentration of at least any selected from the group consisting of a phase-transitable impurity and a solid impurity in the thermally decomposed gas discharged from the gasification furnace in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Ishii et al (US 20170247618; hereinafter Ishii; [0048]). As regarding claim 13, JP ‘565 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. JP ‘565 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a flow path-switching portion that selectively switches a supply destination to the filtration-type dust collector or the scrubber through which the thermally decomposed gas is passed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a flow path-switching portion that selectively switches a supply destination to the filtration-type dust collector or the scrubber through which the thermally decomposed gas is passed in order to enhance device performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP 2009209300 (hereinafter JP ‘300; switching valve 4). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. 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 DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET. 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, Bobbly Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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. /DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 21, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601509
MULTI-STAGE DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM FOR LOCAL AREA DEHUMIDIFICATION OF DRY ROOM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599248
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR ELIMINATING AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594516
FRAME FOR COLLAPSIBLE AND FOLDABLE PLEATED DISPOSABLE AIR FILTER WITH DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE SENSOR AND COMMUNICATION CAPABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594510
REINFORCED MEMBRANE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594561
A MODULAR CENTRIFUGAL SEPARATOR FOR CLEANING GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1227 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