Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/277,885

OXYGEN ENRICHMENT DEVICE, CONTROL METHOD AND CONTROL PROGRAM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Aug 18, 2023
Examiner
LAWRENCE JR, FRANK M
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Teijin Pharma Limited
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1172 granted / 1399 resolved
+18.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1433
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1399 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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 17 of claim 1, “cylinder” should be changed to “cylinders.” Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the exhaust flow valve" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim 8 is 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. Amended claim 8 now recites a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a control program” which has no basis in the original disclosure. Drawings The drawings were received on January 30, 2026. These drawings are approved. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 3-6 are allowed. Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The examiner agrees with applicant’s characterization of how the amended claims distinguish over the prior art of record. All of the previous outstanding rejections have been overcome and are withdrawn. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 8, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been overcome but it is now rejected for failing to comply with the written disclosure requirement because the instant specification only recites that the control unit “is a processor such as a Micro Control Unit (MCU).” Additionally, the claim recites that the “control program indicates that a procedure of repeating the following procedures…” which is an abstract idea that can be a mental process. The application can be place in condition for allowance by cancelling claim 8 and overcoming the objection and rejection in paragraphs 2 and 4 above. 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 FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1161. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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. /FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 fl
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 18, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 11, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601073
H2 DRYER FOR POWER PLANT USING ELECTROLYZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594523
MEMBRANE CAPTURE OF CO2 FROM REFINERY EMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595960
ADSORBER, PURIFICATION SYSTEM, AND PURIFICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592404
HUMIDIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582940
MEMBRANE PRECONCENTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM EXHAUST GAS SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1399 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