Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/015,813

GAS-LIQUID SEPARATOR FOR GAS SENSOR

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jan 12, 2023
Examiner
BUI, DUNG H
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Japan Radio Co., LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
962 granted / 1227 resolved
+13.4% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
85 currently pending
Career history
1312
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.0%
+8.0% 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 §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 . 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first point”, “second point”, “third point”, “fourth point” and “opening” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 7-14 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 7 recites “first point” and “second point” in lines 5-6. Examiner has consulted the Applicant’s instant Specification and find no disclosure therein that evinces possession of “first point”, “second point”, “third point”, “fourth point” and “opening”. Claims 8-14 depend on claim 7; and hence are also rejected. 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (US 3993463) in view of Tomlinson (US 3670479) [or Baily (US 3360908) or Breslove (US 2487633)]. As regarding claim 1, Barr discloses the claimed invention for a gas-liquid separator for a gas sensor, comprising: a swirl structure (14) configured to cause a gas, which flows from upstream to downstream, to swirl about a flow axis extending from upstream to downstream, wherein the swirl structure comprises a swirling fin extending radially outward from an outer surface of the swirl structure in a first rotational direction about the flow axis; a separation structure (8) configured to release a liquid component contained in the gas having passed through the swirl structure, out of the separation structure; and a deflection structure disposed downstream of the swirl structure and configured to deflect the gas having passed through the swirl structure; wherein the deflection structure comprises: a narrowing core portion (fig. 2) having a three-dimensional tapered shape being tapered down toward a downstream end of the gas-liquid separator, and a deflecting fin (17) extending radially outward from an outer surface of the narrowing core portion in a second rotational direction about the flow axis, wherein the second rotational direction is opposite the first rotational direction, and wherein the deflecting fin is configured to deflect the gas in a direction opposite to a swirling direction established by the swirl structure (col 1 ln 47-65 and annotated fig. 6). PNG media_image1.png 348 589 media_image1.png Greyscale Alternatively, if Barr does not disclose wherein the second rotational direction is opposite the first rotational direction, Tomlinson (or Baily or Breslove) teaches wherein the second rotational direction is opposite the first rotational direction (fig. 1). 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 second rotational direction is opposite the first rotational direction as taught by Tomlinson (or Baily or Breslove) in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance. As regarding claim 2, Barr as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Barr as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the outer surface of the narrowing core portion comprises an inclination (fig. 2) with respect to a direction of the flow axis, and the inclination of the outer surface of the narrowing core portion measured at a location downstream of a predetermined point on the flow axis is smaller than the inclination of the outer surface of the narrowing core portion measured at a location upstream of the predetermined point. As regarding claim 3, Barr as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Barr as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein a downstream end of the narrowing core portion has a curved surface (Tomlinson – about 16 of fig. 1) protruding in a direction toward the downstream end of the gas-liquid separator (fig. 2). As regarding claim 4, Barr as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Barr as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the swirl structure comprises: an expanding core portion (fig. 2; no number) having a three-dimensional expanded shape being expanded from upstream to downstream; and a downstream end of the expanding core portion is connected to an upstream end of the narrowing core portion. As regarding claim 5, Barr as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Barr as modified discloses the claimed invention for a housing (19) designed to surround the narrowing core portion in a state of maintaining a space from the outer surface of the narrowing core portion; wherein the separation structure comprises: a hole/opening (8) defined at a position corresponding to an upstream end of the narrowing core portion, the hole penetrating through the housing from an inside to an outside thereof. Barr as modified does not disclose a protrusion arranged adjacent to the hole on a downstream side of the hole and protruding inwardly toward the flow axis. 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 protrusion arranged adjacent to the hole on a downstream side of the hole and protruding inwardly toward the flow axis in order to enhance cyclonic separator performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Rubow et al (US 20210129160; annotated fig. 2). PNG media_image2.png 468 400 media_image2.png Greyscale As regarding claim 6, Barr as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Barr as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein: the narrowing core portion is a rotationally symmetric body having a center axis defined by the flow axis, and the deflecting fin comprises a plurality of deflecting fins (17) arranged at equal angular intervals in a circumferential direction of the outer surface of the narrowing core portion about the flow axis. Claims 7-20 are likewise rejected for reasons analogous to those outlined with respect to claims 1-6 above. Examiner notes that the ‘opening’ corresponds to element 8 or 25 in fig. 1 of Breslove, or elements 6-7 in fig. 1 of Tomlinson. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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, Magali Slawski can be reached on (571) 270-3960. 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

Jan 12, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 18, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

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 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
Patent 12578060
HYDROGEN TANK PROVIDED WITH A GASEOUS HYDROGEN CAPTURE SYSTEM
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+15.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1227 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month