Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/411,873

PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR CAPTURE OF CO2

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 12, 2024
Examiner
LAWRENCE JR, FRANK M
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
L'Air Liquide, Société Anonyme pour l'Etude et l'Exploitation des Procédés Georges Claude
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
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

§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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, lines 8-9, it appears that “R” should be changed to “10” to remain consistent with the rest of the application and drawings. Appropriate correction is required. 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(s) 1-3, 5, 6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3241165. CA ‘165 discloses a separation arrangement for a gaseous mixture containing CO2, hydrogen, water, methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen, comprising a compressor (P) for compressing the mixture, a TSA unit (TSA) for drying the compressed mixture, a cryogenic fractionator (C) for receiving the dried mixture and producing a liquid CO2 stream (9) and a residual gas including hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and methane, a first conduit (10) for sending the residual gas to a pressure swing unit (PSA1) that forms a carbon dioxide rich stream (5) and a carbon dioxide lean stream, a second conduit (6) for sending the lean stream to the TSA unit as regeneration gas, and a third conduit (15) for sending the wet regeneration gas to be used as fuel for a reformer (A) to generate process stream and preheat input material (see figure 1, paragraphs 35-39). One skilled in the art will understand that the TSA unit will inherently include at least two adsorbent bed vessels for continuous drying in at least one bed while another bed is regenerated. The instant claims differ from the disclosure of CA ‘165 in that a preferred temperature or pressure is used, that compression is used between the TSA unit and separation unit, and that the regeneration gas has a preferred methane concentration. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the temperature, pressure, and regeneration gas methane concentration are considered to be parameters that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to allow for optimal separation conditions without wasting energy, and to ensure the regeneration gas has adequate methane to be used as heating fuel. The use of a compressor such as the one upstream of the TSA unit in CA ‘165 at any other part of the process is considered to be an obvious modification to also achieve optimal separation process conditions without wasting excess energy. Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA ‘165 in view of Shah et al. (2007/0232706 A1). CA ‘165 discloses all of the limitations of the claims except that the wet regeneration gas is sent to burners or a fired heater (only a general heater is disclosed). Shah et al. ‘706 discloses a synthesis gas treatment system that uses a regeneration tail gas stream as part of a fuel for burners located within a radiant heat exchange section of a steam methane reformer (see paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the reformer heater of CA ‘165 by using burners or a fired heater in order to provide a heat source that can use fuel-containing waste gas. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose synthesis gas separation arrangements. 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

Jan 12, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
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