Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/563,504

REACTOR PLANT AND METHOD TO CONTROL PERFORMANCE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner
HOBBS, MICHAEL L
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Electrochaea GmbH
OA Round
4 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
785 granted / 1144 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
1175
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1144 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 . Applicant’s amendment has been considered and entered for the record. Election/Restrictions Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/15/2024. 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 1-7 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. For claim 1,it is unclear what steps or processes are included in the term “continuous minimum load foreseen assessment”. It is unclear what parameters or inputs are used to make this determination and how the operation is adjusted based on this calculation/assessment/process. Moreover, the specification does not provide a discussion of this process and how it is implemented by the control and regulation unit. Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b since the claims depend upon and incorporate all the limitations of claim 1. Clarification and appropriate corrective action is required. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole a reactor plant that includes a control and regulation unit that is configured to control the operation load of the two or more reactors that during operation of the reactor plant with a reduced operation load, the two or more reactors are configured by the control and regulation unit to periodically continuously permutate their respective operation loads within periodically repeating a time intervals, dependent on the metabolic characteristics of the biocatalyst, wherein the control and regulation unit are configured to continuously adjust the operation load of the two or more reactors depending on a continuous minimum load foreseen assessment, and wherein the load encompasses energy and substrate(s) together and/or in singularity needed for the maintenance and reaction of the biocatalyst. Claims 2-7 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. The closes prior art is Madore et al. (US 2015/0104782 A1) discloses a reactor plant that is used for CO2 capture, but Madore does not teach or fairly suggest the step where a control unit that employs the step of continuously adjusting the operation load of the two or more reactors depending on a continuous minimum load foreseen assessment, and wherein the load encompasses energy and substrate(s) together and/or in singularity needed for the maintenance and reaction of the biocatalyst. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Castillo Castillo et al. (US 2019/0332101 A1) discloses batch processes that is employed in several sectors such as pharmaceutical, biochemical, food and biological sectors. 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 MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F. 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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. /MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 26, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Sep 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 29, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 28, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600932
BIOPROCESSING PERFUSION SYSTEM HAVING A PLURALITY OF FILTERS AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595449
INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR 3D TISSUE CULTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590282
CELL CULTURE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590279
SUBSTRATE OF CELL CULTURE CONTAINER, AND CELL CULTURE CONTAINER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584089
SENSING VESSELS FOR CELL CULTURES
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+28.8%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1144 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