Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/432,283

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELIMINATING FLARING IN AMINE SWEETENING

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 05, 2024
Examiner
SMITH, DUANE
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
82 granted / 165 resolved
-15.3% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
175
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.7%
+9.7% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 165 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 3 , 6,7 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 3 recites further separating a portion of the saturated liquid condensate stream prior to spearing the hydrocarbon stream into the saturated liquid condensate stream. It is unclear how a portion can be further separated prior to when the liquid condensate stream exists in the process. The liquid condensate stream does not exist until it is separated from the hydrocarbon stream. Claims 6,7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2,4-5, 8-11,12-20 are allowed over the prior art of record. Claims 3,6,7 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: None of the prior art for record teach nor disclose in combination A process for eliminating flaring in amine sweetening, as in claim 1 the process comprising: separating a hydrocarbon stream into a saturated liquid condensate stream and an acid gas stream; depressurizing the saturated liquid condensate stream to form a gas flaring stream and a liquid condensate stream; contacting the acid gas stream with a lean amine stream to form a sweet gas stream and a rich amine stream; sending the gas flaring stream to one or more sparge tubes in a flash drum; sparging the rich amine stream with the gas flaring stream in the flash drum to form a flashed rich amine stream and a flashed gas stream; and stripping the rich amine stream to form a stripped acid gas stream and the lean amine stream nor an apparatus system as in claim 12. The closest prior art of record to Freireich et al ( US 3770622) discloses separating hydrocarbon stream 101 into liquid condensate stream 26 and acid gas stream 108 in separator 25, depressurizing the condensates stream 26 into flare gas stream 34 and liquid streams 116 in 27 , contacting acid gas stream with sorbent to from a sweet gas stream and a rich stream in sorber 103, flashing the rich stream 108” to a gas stream 102 and semi -rich stream 111 and striping the rich stream 116 to form striped acid gas stream 28 and lean stream 29 in stripper 106. Freireich et al does not disclose sending the gas flaring stream to one or more sparge tubes in a flash drum; sparging the rich amine stream with the gas flaring stream in the flash drum to form a flashed rich amine stream and a flashed gas stream. None of the prior art of record teach this step or associated system structure for accomplishing this step. Thus claims 1 and 12 are deemed allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are allowable for at least the reasons of record that claims 1 and 12 are allowed. 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.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art cited on PTO-892 is considered of interest disclosing similar processes and systems for natural gas sweetening. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-1166. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday. 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. 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. DUANE SMITH Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1759 /DUANE SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 05, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599866
MEMBRANE-BASED DESORPTION COOLING METHOD FOR PASSIVE THERMAL MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576358
LIQUID BATH AIR FILTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546494
PORTABLE AIR PURIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539487
STORAGE AND DELIVERY VESSELS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12528060
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR THE TREATMENT OF BIOGAS AND WASTEWATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
50%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+28.2%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 165 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