Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/918,284

CHEMICAL REACTOR

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 11, 2022
Examiner
LEUNG, JENNIFER A
Art Unit
1774
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
B4CHEM S.R.L.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
514 granted / 825 resolved
-2.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 825 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 . Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 1-10 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 “in particular of the batch type” (at line 1) is considered indefinite. Firstly, a broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP §2173.05(c). In this case, the claim recites the broad recitation “A chemical reactor” (at line 1), and the claim also recites “in particular [a chemical reactor] of the batch type” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Secondly, the addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05 (b), III, E. Also, the limitation “infeed conduits and expulsion conduits respectively for reagents and products from the said main body” (at lines 6-7) is unclear. It is suggested that --feeding-- be inserted before “reagents” and --removing-- be inserted before “products”. Also, the limitation “a plurality of discretizing elements… configured for discretizing the process operations into subspaces of said reaction space for releasing activation energy, each discretizing element being equipped with passive and/or active devices suitably distributed along said main direction of extension for manipulating the release of activation energy” (at lines 13-16) is considered indefinite. Firstly, it appears that the discretizing elements perform two different functions: 1) discretizing the process operations into subspaces of said reaction space, and 2) releasing activation energy. Therefore, it is suggested that --and-- be inserted after “reaction space” (at line 14). Secondly, the specification states that the discretizing elements are enabled to release activation energy when the discretizing elements are equipped with “active devices”; namely, micro-heaters, micro-coolers, and the like for releasing thermal energy, or devices that release microwave or ultrasound energy (see paragraphs [0063]-[0064]). However, the “passive devices”, which are “any type of reading sensors”, such as temperature or acid/basicity sensors, do not release activation energy (see paragraph [0062]). Therefore, the recitation of “passive and/or active devices” (in claim 1 and in subsequent dependent claims) is considered indefinite because it appears that each discretizing element must be equipped with “active devices” to enable the recited function of “releasing activation energy”. Also, the recitation of “the process operations” (at line 13) lacks proper positive antecedent basis, and it is unclear as to the relationship between the process operations and the “chemical processes” previously set forth in the claim (at line 3). Also, the limitation “passive and/or active devices suitably distributed along said main direction of extension for manipulating the release of activation energy” (at lines 15-16) is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what distribution of the passive and/or active devices would be considered “suitable”. Also, the limitation “said head element being movable in such a way as to form, using said discretizing elements, controlled mixing of the reactions and measurements” (at lines 17-19) is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what “way” of movement produces controlled mixing and measurements using the discretizing elements. Also, the limitation “controlled mixing of the reactions and measurements, preferably density measurements, of the solutions” (at lines 18-19) is considered indefinite. Firstly, the limitation “mixing of the reactions” is considered indefinite because while a material, such as the “reagents” (at line 9), can be mixed, it is unclear as to how “reactions” can be mixed. Secondly, the relationship between the “reactions” and the “chemical processes” previously set forth in the claim (at line 3) is unclear. Thirdly, the claim fails to set forth that each discretizing element includes measuring devices, such as density measuring devices, for performing the recited functions of obtaining “measurements” or “preferably density measurements”. As best understood from the disclosure, each discretizing element requires “passive devices”, which are described as “reading sensors” (at paragraph [0062]), to enable the recited function of obtaining “measurements”. However, the recitation of “passive and/or active devices” (at line 15) indicates that each discretizing element is not required to have passive devices. Fourthly, the claim recites the broad recitation “measurements”, and the claim also recites “preferably density measurements” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Fifthly, the recitation of “the solutions” (at line 19) lacks proper antecedent basis, and it is unclear as to the relationship between the solutions and the “reagents” previously set forth in the claim (at lines 6-7). Regarding claim 2, the relationship between “infeed and expulsion conduits” (at lines 2-3) and the same elements set forth in claim 1 (at line 6) is unclear. It is suggested that the word --the-- or --said-- be inserted before “infeed”. Also, the limitation “preferably said dynamic region being made in the form of a rotary disc” (at lines 4-5) is considered indefinite. In this case, the claim recites the broad recitation “a dynamic region”, and the claim also recites “preferably said dynamic region being made in the form of a rotary disc”, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. There is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claim 3, the relationship between the distribution “in such a way” (at line 2) and the distribution “in an orderly fashion” (at lines 4-5) is unclear. Also, the limitation “preferably each discretizing element, even more preferably each passive and/or active device” (at lines 5-7) is considered indefinite. In this case, the claim recites the broad recitation of “discretizing elements” (collectively, at line 2), and the claim also recites “preferably each discretizing element” and “even more preferably each passive and/or active device” which are narrower statements of the limitation. There is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “said passive and active devices” (at line 4) lacks proper positive antecedent basis. It is noted that “passive and/or active devices” were set forth in claim 1 (at line 15). Also, the limitation “an outer casing, preferably made of Pyrex, Teflon or steel” (at lines 4-5) is considered indefinite. The claim recites the broad recitation of “an outer casing”, and the claim also recites “preferably [an outer casing] made of Pyrex, Teflon or steel”, which is a narrower statement of the limitation. There is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Also, the limitation “made of Pyrex, Teflon or steel” (at line 5) is considered indefinite because a trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In this case, “Pyrex” and “Teflon” are used to identify/describe a material, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a first control unit for processing said data acquired and management of the discretizing elements as a function of said data acquired” is unclear. In particular, it is unclear as to whether “said data” merely includes the “data” acquired by the “analysis devices” of the supporting base (see claim 1, at lines 8-10), or whether “said data” also includes the “measurements” or “preferably density measurements” obtained by the discretizing elements (see claim 1, at lines 17-19). Regarding claim 8, the limitation “said supporting base may also be equipped with elements acting along the walls of the main body” (at lines 2-3) is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the recited feature is required (i.e., “may” does not indicate “must”). Also, the limitation “such as microwave or ultrasound emitters or optical elements for spectroscopy analysis” is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the recited elements are merely examples, and therefore not required, or whether the elements are required features of the claim. Regarding claim 9, the limitation “configured for anchoring the supporting base to the head element in such a way as to guarantee the correct positioning of the head element to the supporting base” is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to what positioning would be considered “correct positioning”. Regarding claim 10, the limitation “said discretizing elements are configured for releasing activation energy of the thermal, microwave or ultrasound type” is considered indefinite. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05 (b), III, E. The remaining claims are also rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gregory et al. (US 2003/0218014 A1) discloses a chemical reactor 10 (see FIG. 1-4) suitable for performing a batch chemical reaction, comprising: a main body (i.e., a reaction vessel 12; paragraph [0024]) defining a reaction space (i.e., an interior 22) for chemical processes; a head element (i.e., a head 18; paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) configured to hermetically seal said main body 12 (i.e., upon engaging a deformable seal 23) and to create a non-polluted work environment inside the main body, said head element 18 being equipped with infeed and expulsion conduits (i.e., one or more tubes 38 providing fluid communication with the interior 22 of the reaction vessel 12; see paragraph [0026]); and a supporting base (i.e., a vessel assembly 53 comprising a support base 52 and a reactor support bracket 51; see paragraph [0029]) configured to contain said main body 12; wherein the supporting base 53 is equipped with support structures (i.e., closure means 54, 54’ each comprising a drive cylinder 57, 57’ and a drive cylinder support shaft 59, 59’, the closure means 54, 54’ being securely fastened to the head 18; see paragraph [0030]) configured for anchoring the supporting base 53 to the head element 18 in such a way as to guarantee the correct positioning (i.e., accurate alignment) of the head element to the supporting base. The chemical reactor further comprises sensors for reading measurements relative to the reagents 24 introduced in the main body 12 (i.e., a plurality of different detectors at the end of a sensor shaft 44 which descends from the interior head surface 20 into the interior space 22 of the reaction vessel 12, the detectors monitoring characteristics of the reactants 24 during the reaction process, such as temperature, pH, levels of ions, etc.; see paragraph [0028]). Also, the chemical reactor further comprises an agitator assembly 26 anchored (i.e., via an agitator output shaft 28) to the head element 18 and extending inside the main body 12 according to a main direction of extension, wherein the agitator assembly 26 is configured to rotate to perform controlled mixing of the reactants 24 in the main body 12. Gregory et al., however, fails to disclose or suggest that the supporting base 53 is equipped with analysis devices for acquiring data relative to the reagents 24 introduced in the main body 12. Gregory et al. also fails to disclose or suggest that the chemical reactor comprises the claimed “plurality of discretizing elements” configured for discretizing the process operations into sub-spaces of the reaction space, releasing activation energy, and obtaining measurements; wherein the discretizing elements are anchored or can be anchored to the head element, so as to extend inside the main body according to a main direction of extension; and wherein the head element is configured to be movable, such that the movement of the head element itself causes the discretizing elements, which are anchored to the head element, to simultaneously move, and thereby perform controlled mixing and measurements of the reactants disposed in the main body. Li (CN 108636328 A) discloses a chemical reactor (see FIG. 1-3; translation) comprising: a main body (i.e., a shell 1) defining a reaction space for a chemical process (i.e., a process for preparing an aqueous polyurethan adhesive); a head element (i.e., a top cover 2) configured to hermetically seal the main body and create a non-polluted work environment inside the main body; and a plurality of discretizing elements (i.e., a plurality of stirring metal tubes 6), anchored or which can be anchored to the head element (i.e., by way of a fixing plate 5, a rotary rod 3, and a connection sleeve 7) and extending inside the main body according to a main direction of extension (i.e., along the vertical direction); the discretizing elements 6 being configured for discretizing the process operations into sub-spaces of the reaction space (i.e., the reaction space is divided into a plurality of sub-spaces or zones about each one of the stirring metal tubes 6) and releasing activation energy (i.e., heat, as thermal activation energy), each discretizing element 6 being equipped with an active device (i.e., an electric heater comprising a heating wire) along the main direction of extension for manipulating the release of the activation energy; wherein the discretizing elements 6 are configured to rotate within the reaction space (i.e., when driven by a motor 4 connected to the rotary rod 3) to perform controlled mixing of the reagents in the main body 1. However, Li, at the minimum, fails to disclose or suggest that the head element 2 is configured to be movable, such that the movement of the head element 2 itself causes the discretizing elements 6, which are anchored to the head element 2, to simultaneously move, and thereby perform controlled mixing of the reactants disposed in the main body. Song et al. (CN 104383866 A) discloses a chemical reactor (see Figures; translation), such as a batch type reactor (see paragraph [0032]), comprising: a main body (i.e., a reactor main body 91, see FIG. 3-4) defining a reaction space for a chemical process; a head element (i.e., a lid (shown) of the reactor main body 91, see FIG. 3-4) configured to seal the main body; and at least one discretizing element (i.e., one or more coaxial slot antennas 8, see FIG. 2), such as a plurality of (two or more) discretizing elements 8 (see FIG. 7-10, 12), anchored to the head element and extending inside the main body according to a main direction of extension (i.e., along the vertical direction), configured for discretizing the process operations into sub-spaces of the reaction space (i.e., the reaction space is divided into a plurality of sub-spaces or zones about each one of the coaxial slot antennas 8; see FIG. 7-10, 12) and for releasing activation energy (i.e., activation energy in the form of microwave energy, generated by a microwave power source 1 and transmitted through a waveguide into each coaxial slot antenna 8; see FIG. 1, 3). However, Song et al., at the minimum, fails to disclose or suggest that the head element is configured to be movable, such that the movement of the head element itself causes the discretizing elements 8, which are anchored to the head element, to simultaneoulsy move, and thereby perform controlled mixing of the reactants disposed in the main body 91. Lie et al. (WO 2010-068112 A1) discloses a stirring rod for heating or cooling liquids, such as food and beverages, e.g., baby food, comprising: an outer casing defining an inner core (i.e., a hollow cylindrical body 1 defining an inner chamber); wherein the inner core is equipped with active device(s) for releasing activation energy in the form of thermal energy. For instance, the stirring rod may be equipped with an active device comprising an electrical resistance element R for transforming electrical energy into heat (see FIG. 6 and 9, where the flow of heat is indicated by short, horizontal arrows; see page 11, line 25, to page 12, line 2). The stirring rod may also be equipped with active devices comprising Peltier elements 15 for producing heating on a hot side and cooling on a cold side, wherein the hot and cold sides are determined by the polarity over the elements 15 (see FIG. 7, 8, 10, and 11, where the flow of heat is indicated by short, horizontal arrows; see page 12, lines 6-20). The stirring rod can also be equipped with a passive device comprising a reading sensor (i.e., a simple sensor (not shown in the figures), which can be connected to an alarm device to communicate when the desired temperature has been achieved; see page 4, line 28, to page 5, line 2). However, Lie et al., at the minimum, fails to disclose or suggest a chemical reactor comprising a plurality of discretizing elements, wherein each discretizing element is configured as said stirring rod. The prior art references to Fryers et al. (WO 2019/239131 A1), Colombo et al. (WO 2009/069161 A1), Downs (US 1,790,369 A), and De Wit (EP 0879637 A2) are also cited to further illustrate chemical reactors representing the state of the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-1449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST. 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, CLAIRE X WANG can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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. /JENNIFER A LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 11, 2022
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599886
Reactor for the Conversion of Hydrocarbons and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12565427
APPARATUS AND PROCESS FOR CONVERSION OF AMMONIA INTO OXIDES OF NITROGEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558664
METHOD OF CREATING PARAMETRIC RESONANCE OF ENERGIES IN THE ATOMS OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS IN A SUBSTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12528028
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MAKING RESIN SOLUTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12528700
Process For Producing Methanol And Ammonia
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
62%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+12.5%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 825 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