Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/320,727

PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR HEAT EXCHANGE PROCESS

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 19, 2023
Examiner
SCHERMERHORN, JON
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The University Of Akron
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
253 granted / 446 resolved
-13.3% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 446 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claim 26 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-10 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/158639 A1 (herein “Malta”). Regarding claim 1. Malta discloses (Figs. 2 and 7) a heat exchange process comprising: gaining heat using a working fluid in a first zone (at 4)), wherein the working fluid is provided within a pumped loop (20); wherein the working fluid comprises a mixture of two or more supercritical fluids ([0063] super critical carbon dioxide and argon) within the pumped loop; and wherein the mixture is adapted to meet requirements of a heat dissipation temperature from extremely low to very high temperatures (carbon dioxide and argon is adapted as such) ([0085]); and dissipating the heat from the working fluid to ambient in a second zone ([0106] heat dissipated by heat radiators). Regarding claim 2. Malta discloses providing the two supercritical fluids in a supercritical gaseous state ([0063]). Regarding claim 3. Malta discloses providing the two supercritical fluids having a critical temperature below about 25 C (carbon dioxide and argon). Regarding claim 4. Malta discloses that the two supercritical fluids comprise carbon dioxide and argon. Regarding claim 5, Malta discloses that the two or more supercritical fluids comprise carbon dioxide and argon. Regarding claim 6. Malta discloses that the two supercritical fluids comprise carbon dioxide and argon. Regarding claim 8. Malta discloses that the two supercritical fluids comprise carbon dioxide and nitrogen ([0126). Regarding claim 9. Malta discloses that the two or more supercritical fluid are above a critical pressure, a critical temperature, a cricondenbar, and a cricondentherm of the fluids (the supercritical state range overlaps with the claimed ranges). Regarding claim 10. A supercritical carbon dioxide and argon mixture is adapted as claimed. Regarding claim 21. Malta discloses dissipating heat as a wave (radiation) at the second zone ([0106] at the radiator). Regarding claim 22. Malta discloses dissipating heat as a wave (radiation) at a heat dissipater (the radiator) in the second zone ([0106] at the radiator). Regarding claim 23. Malta discloses radiating heat as a wave (via the radiator) in the second zone ([0106] at the radiator). Regarding claim 24. Malta discloses radiating heat as a wave at a radiator in the second zone ([0106] at the radiator). Regarding claim 25. Malta discloses extracting heat as radiator ([0106] at the radiator). 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malta in view of – Experimental study on transcritical Rankine cycle (TRC) using CO2/R134a mixtures with various composition ratios for waste heat recovery from diesel engines (herein “Study”). Regarding claim 7. Malta does not disclose using a combination of supercritical carbon dioxide and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R134). However, Study discloses investigating carbon dioxide based mixtures to improve system performance (abstract) including mixtures of CO2 and R134a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the supercritical fluids of Malta with the teachings of Study in an attempt to improve system performance. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm. 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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. /JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 19, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 20, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593424
HEAT DISSIPATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590767
Counterflow Rotary Cooler
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590765
HEAT EXCHANGER DIMPLE CONFIGURATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568608
NON-POWER COOLING DEVICE FOR UNDERWATER DATACENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560107
GLAND CONDENSER SKID SYSTEMS BY SHELL & PLATES TECHNOLOGY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 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
57%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+23.9%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 446 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