Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/598,220

POLYGENERATION SCHEME WITH ZERO CARBON EMISSION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
6m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
817 granted / 1102 resolved
+14.1% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1139
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.0%
-16.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1102 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 . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillier et. al (US 2024/0109774 A1) in view of Reilly (US 2011/0041740 A1). With respect to claim 1 Hillier discloses a circular economy polygeneration system comprising: an electrolyzer [reference character 800] operable to provide hydrogen [reference character 820] and oxygen [reference character 810] based on water; a hydrogen firing furnace [reference character 501] operable to burn hydrogen provided by the electrolyzer and produce a first flue gas [reference character 542] comprising water and nitrogen; an oxy-firing furnace [reference character 100] operable to burn a hydrocarbon fuel with oxygen provided by the electrolyzer to produce a second flue gas [reference character 142] comprising water and carbon dioxide; a first condenser [reference character 710] configured to produce nitrogen and a first stream of water [reference character 722] based on the first flue gas; a second condenser1 [reference character 200] configured to produce carbon dioxide, wherein the first stream of water is used by the electrolyzer to provide the hydrogen and oxygen [see Fig. 5]; and a carbon capture system2 [see paragraph 0038] operable to capture carbon dioxide produced by the second condenser. Hillier does not disclose that the condenser produces a second stream of water based on the second flue gas and that the second stream of water is returned to and used by the electrolyzer Reilly discloses a recuperative combustion system that includes a fossil fuel power plant [see Fig. 4] which receives oxygen from an electrolyzer [see Fig. 4] and discharges a flue gas to a “downstream section”, understood to be a downstream industrial process. Reilly further discloses that all of the water from the downstream section is returned to the electrolyzer [see Figs 4 and 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Hillier by returning the condensed water from the carbon capture unit to the electrolyzer, as taught by Reilly in order to provide an additional source of hydrogen for use in the hydrogen furnace or for sales to the global hydrogen market [see Fig. 2 of Reilly]. With respect to claim 2 Hillier does not disclose that an air separation unit (ASU) that provides oxygen to the oxy-firing furnace based on air, wherein the oxy-firing furnace burns pure oxygen. Reilly discloses that the oxy-fuel power plant is provided with oxygen by an air separation unit [see Fig. 1 and reference character 1-5] and that the furnace burns pure oxygen (either from the ASU or the electrolyzer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Hillier by including an air separation unit to supply oxygen to the oxy-firing furnace and to operate the furnace on pure oxygen, as taught by Reilly, in order to ensure that sufficient oxygen is available to the furnace regardless of methane or hydrocarbon flow rate and eliminate nitrogen oxides from the flue gas, resulting in a less complex carbon capture and sequestration process. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-20 are allowed. Claims 3-12 are 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM. 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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. /VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 1 Hillier discloses “carbon dioxide condensation” [see paragraph 0037]. 2 Hillier discloses “[i]n additional aspects, the CO2 product stream 210 can be sent to sequestration…” [paragraph 0038].
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12702253
COOKING DEVICE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
5y 6m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12704255
SYSTEMS, APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCTS FOR SEGREGATION OF FLARING AND VENTING VOLUMES USING MACHINE LEARNING APPROACHES
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12704257
FURNACE FOR IMPLEMENTING AN ENDOTHERMIC PROCESS
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12704253
BURNER FOR AN AIRCRAFT GAS TURBINE ENGINE
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12691609
Heating Apparatus and Anti-ignition Re-useable Bladder
4y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.1%)
2y 11m (~6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1102 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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