Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,251

LOW-COST NOVEL ADSORBENT WITH HIGH CHLORIDE REMOVAL CAPACITY

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jul 26, 2023
Examiner
SHERMAN, ERIC SCOTT
Art Unit
1736
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sud Chemie India Pvt Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
57 granted / 79 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
113
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
§112
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 79 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-18 are pending in this application, of which claims 8-14, 16, and 18 have been withdrawn. 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 Election/Restrictions Claims 8-14, 16, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/26. 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 1-7, 15, and 17 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 phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 3, the phrase "like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. Regarding claim 6, the claim recites sodium carbonate in a range of 30-50 wt% and also recites sodium bicarbonate in the range of 1-20%, but does not use the words “and” or “or” between the two. As such, it is unclear whether claim 6 requires both sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate, or whether the claim only requires one. Paragraph [0023] of the specification filed 12/12/23 states that the absorbent comprises “an alkali metal in the form of carbonate or bicarbonate” (emphasis added). Further, none of the examples provided in the specification contain both sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate. For this reason, claim 6 is interpreted as requiring only one of the two sodium salts. Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation "the absorbent bed" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims each ultimately depend from claim 1 and/or claim 6, and inherit the indefiniteness based on their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claims 1-6, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20060148642 (“Ryu”). Regarding claim 1, Ryu teaches an absorbent comprising an alkali metal carbonate, a support, and a binder for imparting mechanical stability (see e.g. paragraphs [0023]-[0025]). Although Ryu does not expressly state that the alkali metal carbonate or bicarbonate is capable of removing halogen containing contaminants, the alkali metal carbonate of Ryu is the same alkali metal carbonate as in the instant application, and as such, would also be capable of adsorption of halogen containing contaminants. Regarding claim 2, Ryu teaches that the active metal component can be sodium in carbonate form (see e.g. Example 1 in paragraph [0054]). Regarding claim 3, Ryu teaches that the binder can be attapulgite (see e.g. Claim 5). Regarding claim 4, Ryu teaches that the attapulgite is the mineral palygorskite (see e.g. Claim 5). Regarding claim 5, Ryu teaches multiple embodiments with the carrier being between 30-50% of the total mass of the composition (see e.g. alumina carrier in sorbents F and G in Table 3). Regarding claim 6, Ryu teaches specific embodiments that have sodium carbonate in the range of 30-50% (see e.g. sorbents A, B, D, and F in Tables 1-3). Regarding claim 15, Ryu does not teach the specific ability to remove hydrogen chloride from a gas stream under the specified conditions. However, the material taught by Ryu an alkali metal carbonate, such as sodium carbonate, a support, and a binder, such as palygorskite, for imparting mechanical stability (see e.g. paragraphs [0023]-[0025]). These are the same materials in the same proportions as described in the instant specification. As such, the composition of Ryu would be expected to have the same hydrogen chloride picking ability as the claimed invention. Regarding claim 17, Ryu teaches that the composition has a high mechanical strength (see e.g. paragraph [0025]), and Ryu does not appear to require disintegration and powdering after treatment with water and steam. Claims 1-4, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070253879 (“Sakurai”) Regarding claim 1, Sakurai teaches an absorbent for removing a halogen containing gas contaminant (see e.g. paragraph [0011]). The absorbent comprises an active metal component for removal of the halogen containing gas (see e.g. paragraph [0011] and a carrier or binder that would provide mechanical stability (see e.g. paragraph [0040]). Regarding claim 2, Sakurai teaches that the active metal component can be sodium carbonate (see e.g. paragraph [0019]). Regarding claims 3-4, Sakurai teaches that the carrier can be palygorskite, which is the same mineral as attapulgite (see e.g. paragraph [0035]). Regarding claim 7, Sakurai specifically teaches that the active metal component can be sodium carbonate monohydrate (see e.g. paragraph [0023]). Regrading claim 17, Sakurai does not appear to teach the need for disintegration and powdering after treatment with water and steam (see e.g. method of making the composition in paragraphs [0053]-[0054]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, 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. /E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603188
METHOD FOR DEHALOGENATION AND VITRIFICATION OF RADIOACTIVE METAL HALIDE WASTES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590010
TITANIUM OXIDE POWDER AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590257
TREATMENT OF HEAVY PYROLYSIS PRODUCTS BY PARTIAL OXIDATION GASIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576392
A MOLDING COMPRISING A MIXED OXIDE COMPRISING OXYGEN, LANTHANUM, ALUMINUM, AND COBALT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564830
POROUS METAL ORGANIC FRAMEWORK-POLYMER COMPOSITES FOR USE IN DETOXIFYING CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
72%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+8.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 79 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