Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/199,411

Apparatus and Method for Carbon Dioxide Recovery

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 19, 2023
Examiner
BUI, DUNG H
Art Unit
1773
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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

§102 §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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 08/01/25 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maehara (WO 2021/079875; English equivalent US 2022242770). As regarding claim 1, Maehara discloses the claimed invention for a method of recovering carbon dioxide (CO2) from a flue gas output from a furnace (70 of figs. 3 and 8) being operated to melt glass, comprising: feeding (72 and gas line 81) the flue gas to a CO2 capture unit (63) after the flue gas is treated via at least one process gas treatment element (PGTE) ([0154] – condenser removes water and acid gas) positioned between the furnace and the CO2 capture unit; treating a first portion of the flue gas with at least one alkaline reagent (NaOH solution in tank 62) within the CO2 capture unit (63) so that CO2 of the first portion of the flue gas reacts with the alkaline reagent to form at least one carbonate material ([0098]-[0100] and [0109]-[0112]); feeding (64 to 69 of fig. 3) at least a portion of the carbonate material from the CO2 capture unit (63) to the furnace (70) for mixing with other feed material for forming molten glass ([0090] and [0122]-[0130]) in the furnace. As regarding claim 2, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one alkaline reagent includes XOH, wherein the X is Na or K ([0098]-[0100] and [0109]-[0112]). As regarding claim 3, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention for wherein the at least one alkaline reagent includes: calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) ([0098]-[0100] and [0109]-[0112]) or potassium hydroxide (KOH). As regarding claim 4, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention for wherein the carbonate material includes limestone (CaCO3), soda ash (Na2CO3) ([0111]-[0112]) or potassium carbonate (K2CO3). 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) 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehara (WO 2021/079875; English equivalent US 2022242770). As regarding claim 5, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one PGTE includes a candle filter or a high-temperature filter device. 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 at least one PGTE includes a candle filter or a high-temperature filter device in order to enhance apparatus performance, since it was known in the art as shown in JP 2012001392 (hereinafter JP ‘392; [0012] – dust collector). As regarding claim 6, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one PGTE includes a SO2 removal unit and an electrostatic precipitator that is positioned between the SO2 removal unit and the CO2 capture unit. 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 at least one PGTE includes a SO2 removal unit and an electrostatic precipitator that is positioned between the SO2 removal unit and the CO2 capture unit in order to enhance apparatus performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Solis-Martinez (US 20040060490; [0087]). As regarding claim 7, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention except for passing the flue gas through at least one heat exchanger to heat at least one of a flow of fuel and an oxidant flow before the first portion of the flue gas is fed to the CO2 capture unit and after the first portion of the flue gas is output from the at least one PGTE. 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 passing the flue gas through at least one heat exchanger to heat at least one of a flow of fuel and an oxidant flow before the first portion of the flue gas is fed to the CO2 capture unit and after the first portion of the flue gas is output from the at least one PGTE in order to enhance apparatus performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. As regarding claim 8, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention except for feeding a first portion of the carbonate material output from the CO2 capture unit to the furnace and regenerating a second portion of the carbonate material output from the CO2 capture unit to form the at least one alkaline reagent from the second portion of the carbonate material. 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 feeding a first portion of the carbonate material output from the CO2 capture unit to the furnace and regenerating a second portion of the carbonate material output from the CO2 capture unit to form the at least one alkaline reagent from the second portion of the carbonate material in order to enhance apparatus performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Lu et al (US 20200346165; [0091]). As regarding claim 9, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention except for feeding a second portion of the flue gas output from the at least one PGTE to a CO2 liquefaction system to liquefy CO2 within the second portion of the flue gas. 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 feeding a second portion of the flue gas output from the at least one PGTE to a CO2 liquefaction system to liquefy CO2 within the second portion of the flue gas in order to enhance apparatus performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Lu et al (US 20200346165; [0119]). As regarding claim 10, Maehara discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Maehara discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one PGTE is fed at least one alkaline reagent to treat the flue gas upstream of the CO2 capture unit. 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 at least one PGTE is fed at least one alkaline reagent to treat the flue gas upstream of the CO2 capture unit in order to enhance apparatus performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Conclusion 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 at (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

May 19, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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