Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/296,721

METHOD FOR CATALYZING REACTION OF EPOXIDE COMPOUND AND CARBON DIOXIDE WITH CATALYST

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
QIAN, YUN
Art Unit
1738
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shenzhen Capchem Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
588 granted / 1081 resolved
-10.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
1141
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.8%
-23.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1081 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . 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. Response to Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. Per conversation with applicant’s representative Mrs. Amanda M. Canfield on 12/23/2025, applicant further elected the species as recited in claim 5 having the structure as shown below: PNG media_image1.png 120 144 media_image1.png Greyscale Ass such, the B recited in formula (1) of claim 1 is nitrogen. Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are readable on the elected species. Claims 6-11 and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected Group and non-elected species. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed recitation of a use (in the case an “for catalyzing a reaction …with a catalyst”), without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2173.05(q)/2173.05(p)(II); see also, Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). “Use” claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)(“one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101”). In Ex parteDunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967), the Board held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: “The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.” In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the district court held the following claim was definite, but that it was not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101: “The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid.” Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In rePrater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim. 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 1-5 and 12-14 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as being raising an issue of indefiniteness. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, a claim which read: “[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon” was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parteErlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). All other claims 2-14 depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUN QIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm. 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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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. YUN . QIAN Examiner Art Unit 1732 /YUN QIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Dec 24, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600906
RED-LUMINESCENT PHOSPHOR WITH LONG AFTERGLOW AND FABRICATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595171
Co-production of Hydrogen and Sulfuric Acid by Partial Oxidation of Sulfur
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592423
PROCESS AND ITS PRODUCTS FOR SPENT LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589383
Spherical Titanium Silicalite Molecular Sieve Catalyst and Preparation Method Therefor
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577126
METHOD FOR PRODUCING NICKEL PARTICLES, METHOD FOR PRODUCING NICKEL SULFATE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR SECONDARY BATTERIES
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+20.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1081 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