Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/578,243

MICRO SUPER CRITICAL WATER OXIDATION SOLIDS TREATMENT SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 10, 2024
Examiner
PRINCE JR, FREDDIE GARY
Art Unit
1779
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Georgia Tech Research Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
1062 granted / 1347 resolved
+13.8% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1379
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1347 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 180. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. Claim 16 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 16 recites the limitation "the combined concentrator and phase separator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be considered to recite "[[the]]a combined concentrator and phase separator." 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. Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel et al. (EP 3243801) in view of Zubov (RU 2632444). Per claim 11, Vogel et al. disclose a method for treatment of human waste (abstract, The present invention discloses a method for an oxidation of an organic sludge (4),… The treatment of the organic sludge, such as fecal matter, which may have also an inorganic content is accomplished by thermal decomposition and oxidation of the fecal matter into carbon dioxide, water and its mineral compounds in the high pressure reaction vessel.), the method comprising: receiving a slurry batch of feces (via feces tank 6; Fig. 1) into an injector (10); pressurizing the slurry batch with air (from compressed air tank 12); injecting the slurry batch into a reactor (16; Fig. 1); heating the slurry batch, within the reactor, to a temperature over a heating time, the temperature being over the temperature of the critical point of water into the super critical fluid phase ([0002] More specifically, the present invention resides in the field of oxidizing/mineralizing aqueous organic matter operated in a cyclic batch mode and at least partially at supercritical temperatures and pressures.); maintaining the slurry batch at a minimum temperature, within the reactor, for a predetermined treatment time to produce a treated output, wherein the minimum temperature is greater than the critical point of water ([0018] Due to these adjustments, the temperature in the reaction vessel does not drop under 200°C and the next portion of organic sludge already "sees" a temperature of at least 200°C after being injected. [0019] Reaction-wise, excellent conditions can be offered when the temperature and the pressure reached in the reaction vessel are greater than the critical temperature and the critical pressure of pure water, respectively. One of the advantages is that the heat needed to heat up the contents of the reactor is significantly less under supercritical conditions than it would be under atmospheric pressure (or in general at pressures below the critical pressure).; [0031] The mixture of organic sludge and air remains for a certain time in the reaction vessel 16, where the organic matter is oxidized to mainly CO.sub.2 and H.sub.2O.); ejecting the treated output into a phase separator (26; Fig. 1); separating the treated output into a solids volume, a liquid waste, and a gaseous effluent ([0032] The release tank 26 is used to separate the condensed water from the gases (mainly CO.sub.2, N.sub.2, O.sub.2), The minerals contained in the feed to the release tank 26 are also kept in the release tank 26, either dissolved in the water or as precipitated solids. The gases may then be released to the atmosphere or used elsewhere.). Vogel et al. do not disclose a solid ash volume or transporting the solid ash volume to a disposal bin for removal. Zubov et al., also directed to a method for treatment of human waste (page 1, The group of inventions refers to the field of water purification, as well as the field of energy, in particular to the processing of sewage sludge with the use of alternative independent sources of thermal and electric energy.), disclose separating a solid ash volume (page 5, /After the reactor, the treated precipitate enters the separation device (5), where it is separated into combustible gas (methane) and liquid ash (decomposed sediment).) and transporting the solid ash volume to a for removal/disposal (page 5, The dewatering unit is designed to remove excess moisture from liquid ash to 70-50% of humidity, after which it can be disposed of on solid waste (15) or additionally dried in a drying device (7) to a humidity of 5-20%. The dried sediment is discharged by the transporter and taken to the disposal sites (TBT 15) or reused.) in order to, for example, facilitate removal of waste materials from a treatment site. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to a use a disposal bin for the separated solid ash in order to, for example, isolate the solid ash until the ash is properly disposed of. Accordingly, it would have been readily obvious for the skilled artisan to modify the method of Vogel et al. such that it comprises a solid ash volume or transporting the solid ash volume to a disposal bin for removal in order to, for example, facilitate removal of waste materials from a treatment site and isolate the solid ash until the ash is properly disposed of. Per claim 12, Vogel et al. disclose wherein injecting the slurry batch into the reactor further comprises providing the reactor with an amount of oxygen for a subsequent wet oxidation ([0030] The compressed air is provided by an air compressor 14 to the compressed air storage tank 12. Once the slurry injector 10 is filled with a portion of the organic slurry 4, the portion of the organic slurry is conveyed by means of the compressed air as propellant agent into a reaction vessel 16 having an inlet valve 18 and an outlet (or relief) valve 20. In one variant, the inlet valve 18 acts as an injector valve for the portion of the organic sludge 4 to be oxidized in the reaction vessel 16.). Per claim 13, Vogel et al. disclose wherein the temperature is a temperature above the wet oxidation ignition temperature ([0018] Due to these adjustments, the temperature in the reaction vessel does not drop under 200°C and the next portion of organic sludge already "sees" a temperature of at least 200°C after being injected.; [0033] During the HTO reaction excess heat is produced that is used to sustain the necessary reaction temperature between ca. 300 and 500°C.). Per claim 14, Vogel et al. do not disclose the method further comprising receiving a liquid to be concentrated into a concentrator. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of design choice to modify the method such that it includes the method further comprising receiving a liquid to be concentrated into a concentrator in order to, for example, subsequently utilize nutrients in the liquid for a specific purpose such as a soil amendment, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result. Per claim 15, wherein receiving a slurry batch of feces further comprises homogenizing (8) the slurry batch prior to receiving the slurry batch into the injector (Fig. 1; [0030] The organic sludge 4 is ground/homogenized in a grinder/homogenizer unit 8 and then portion-wise conveyed by gravitation into a slurry injector 10.). Per claim 16, further comprising discharging off-gasses and liquid waste from [[the]]a combined concentrator and phase separator (26; ([0032] The release tank 26 is used to separate the condensed water from the gases (mainly CO.sub.2, N.sub.2, O.sub.2), The minerals contained in the feed to the release tank 26 are also kept in the release tank 26, either dissolved in the water or as precipitated solids. The gases may then be released to the atmosphere or used elsewhere.). Per claim 17, the minimum temperature for treatment in the reactor ranges from about 350°C to about 450°C ([0033] During the HTO reaction excess heat is produced that is used to sustain the necessary reaction temperature between ca. 300 and 500°C.). Per claim 18, Vogel et al. do not disclose wherein the predetermined treatment time is about 150 s. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process optimization to have the predetermined treatment time be about 150 s, depending on the anticipated contaminants in the feces and the results desired, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the predetermined time be about 150 s. Per claim 19, Vogel et al. disclose wherein maintaining the slurry batch at the minimum temperature comprises maintaining a pressure within the reactor for the predetermined treatment time ([0023] Since the oxidation reaction is - once being started - maintained by the appropriate pressure and temperature level, only the initial heating up has to be provided externally.; [0039] The mixture heats up quickly and ignites. It reaches peak temperatures between ca. 415°C and 425°C. The pressure reaches peak values of ca. 290-310 bar; e) After a predetermined (desired) reaction time, in this scenario 10 s, opening the outlet valve 20: the reacted mixture is suddenly released into the release tank 26, here filled with cold water. The pressure in the reaction vessel 16 drops to almost ambient but the reaction vessel 16 remains hot (i.e. above 380°C);). Per claim 20, Vogel et al. disclose that the critical point should be between 300 and 500oC ([0033] During the HTO reaction excess heat is produced that is used to sustain the necessary reaction temperature between ca. 300 and 500°C.) . Vogel et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the critical point of water is 374°C. It is submitted that it would have been a routine matter of process optimization to have the critical point of water be 374°C, depending on the anticipated contaminants in the feces and the results desired, absent a proper showing of any new and unexpected result. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not provided for the record a proper showing of any new and unexpected result obtained by having the critical point of water be 374oC. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Per claim 1, while it is known in the art to provide a system for treatment of fecal waste, comprising: an injector vessel; a reactor configured to receive an injection of a slurry batch from the injector vessel and an input of compressed air to be heated to a temperature over a heating time, the temperature being at or above the critical point of water into the super critical fluid phase, a combined concentrator and phase separator comprising: a concentrator vessel configured to receive and contain a liquid to be concentrated; and a separator being configured to receive a treated output from the reactor (see, for example, EP 3243801 to Vogel et al.), in the examiner’s opinion the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the method further comprising the separator being configured to separate solid ash volume from liquid and gaseous effluent; and a drying tunnel configured to receive and dry the solid ash volume. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)272-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 0900-1730. 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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. /FRED PRINCE/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1779
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600937
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BIOMASS GROWTH AND PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600653
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR COOPERATIVELY TREATING AQUACULTURE TAIL WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595672
Pool Skimmer Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590466
POOL FILTER PROTECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582979
MAINTAINING METHOD FOR COOLING SYSTEM
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
79%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.8%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1347 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