Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/630,625

PROCESS FOR IN-LINE MINERALISATION AND CARBONATION OF DEMINERALISED WATER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 09, 2024
Examiner
PERRIN, CLARE M
Art Unit
1779
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Flamingo Holding SA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
492 granted / 733 resolved
+2.1% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+42.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
777
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 733 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 Status Claims 1-17 are pending. 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. Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collenot et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0362379) in view of Borchert et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0107899), hereinafter “Collenot” and “Borchert”. With respect to claims 1, 8, 10, 11, and 17, Collenot teaches a process for re-mineralizing water and a re-mineralization system comprising a pipe for circulating water from source 102 (“inlet”) and output 134 (”outlet”) (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0048, 0072]), comprising purifying a flow of feedwater with reverse osmosis 106 to produce a demineralized water (Paragraphs [0048, 0049]); injecting carbon dioxide into the demineralized water via injector (“means for introducing carbon dioxide into water”) to produce carbon dioxide-enriched water (Paragraphs [0014, 0015, 0027, 0053, 0054, 0066]), and passing the carbon dioxide-enriched water through a re-mineralizer 124 comprising dolomite to produce a re-mineralized water (Paragraph [0024, 0027, 0057, 0068]), wherein dolomite is anhydrous carbonate mineral composed of calcium magnesium carbonate (Paragraph [0025]). Collenot does not specifically teach that carbon dioxide is introduced within a chamber comprising hollow fibers onto which carbonic anhydrases are immobilized. Borchert teaches a bioreactor module (“chamber”) comprising polypropylene hollow fibers onto which carbonic anhydrase has been immobilized (Example 13 within Paragraphs [0199-0203], “means for introducing carbon dioxide into water”), into which carbon dioxide is injected and exits the bioreactor module (“inlet and outlet”) (Paragraphs [0179, 0202]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the bioreactor chamber comprising the polypropylene hollow fiber membranes with immobilized carbonic anhydrase of Borchert (“means for introducing CO2”) to replace the carbon dioxide injected by the method/injector 116 of Collenot, such that the carbon dioxide is injected into the bioreactor chamber of Borchert because Collenot teaches that it is desirable to obtain bicarbonate in the water (Paragraphs [0014, 0015, 0074]), and further that the re-mineralized water is bottled for consumption (Paragraph [0038]), and because Borchert teaches that the carbonic anhydrase catalyzes the reaction of water and carbon dioxide to obtain bicarbonates (Paragraphs [0053, 0058]), that the hollow fibers facilitate carbonation (Paragraph [0179]), and that the membranes are easy to scale-up to industrial scale and have been used in industry for beverage carbonation (Paragraph [0179]). With respect to claim 2, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches that the dolomite (calcium magnesium carbonate) are introduced after formation of the bicarbonates, as the above modification replaces the carbon dioxide injection site of Collenot with the bioreactor chamber of Borchert, wherein the carbon dioxide injection point of Collenot (116 in Fig. 1) is upstream of re-mineralizer 124 (see Collenot: Fig. 1). With respect to claim 3, 11, and 17, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches that the polypropylene hollow fiber membranes are permeable to carbon dioxide (Paragraphs [0060, 0199] of Borchert); see also claims 11 and 17 wherein polypropylene meets claim 17 as a membrane permeable to carbon dioxide. With respect to claims 4, 5, 13, and 14, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches that a carrier solvent comprising the carbonic anhydrase is passed through the lumens of the hollow fiber membranes (inner surfaces), prior to entry of carbon dioxide gas from the feed (outer) side (Paragraph [0179]). The same procedure was followed to introduce the carbonic anhydrase in embodiment where carbonic anhydrase is immobilized on the hollow fibers in Paragraph [0199-0203]), therefore, It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the carbonic anhydrase is immobilized on the lumens (inner surfaces) of the hollow fibers as the carrier liquid containing the carbonic anhydrase is within the lumen and carbon dioxide is introduced and permeates the hollow fiber as discussed in Paragraphs [0060, 0199] of Borchert. With respect to claims 6 and 15, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches CO2 injection (“pressure”) applied to the feed (outer) side of the hollow fiber membranes (see Paragraph [0179] of Borchert). With respect to claim 7, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches a servo-operated proportion dosing valve 120 for dosing carbon dioxide from source 118 to the CO2 injector 116 (see Collenot: Paragraph [0053], wherein the injector is replaced by the bioreactor chamber of Borchert). Although Collenot does not specifically teach a pressure ranging from 1 to 6 bar, although a CO2 pressure is applied in a controller manner via valve 120. There is no evidence indicating such CO2 pressures are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). With respect to claim 16, the re-mineralization system of Collenot in view of Borchert is capable of the recited CO2 pressures (see controlled injection of carbon dioxide from supply 118 to CO2 injector via valve 120: Paragraph [0053] of Collenot and Fig. 1). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collenot et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0362379) in view of Borchert et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0107899) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Forchhammer et al. (U.S. Patent # 8263153), hereinafter “Collenot”, “Borchert”, and “Forchhammer”. With respect to claim 9, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches circulating the re-mineralized water through a fine-particulate filter placed downstream of the carbonic anhydrase chamber (see Collenot: Paragraph [0037]), but does not specifically teach that the filter is selective for organic substances. Forchhammer teaches a filter for removing polyphenols and proteins (“organic substances”) (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the filter of Forchhammer to the method of Collenot in view of Borchert because Collenot teaches that the re-mineralized water is bottled for consumption (Paragraph [0038]), and because Forchhammer teaches that beverages are subject to microbial contamination including carbonated beverages that are removed by the disclosed filter, as well as haze-forming organic substances including polyphenols and proteins (see Column 6, lines 1-29). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collenot et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2018/0362379) in view of Borchert et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2012/0107899) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Osborn et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0304820), hereinafter “Collenot”, “Borchert”, and “Osborn”. With respect to claim 12, Collenot in view of Borchert teaches a servo-operated proportion dosing valve 120 for dosing carbon dioxide from source 118 to the CO2 injector 116 (see Collenot: Paragraph [0053], wherein the injector is replaced by the bioreactor chamber of Borchert and valve 120 adjusts the pressure of CO2 inside the bioreactor chamber), but does not specifically teach that an outlet valve. Osborn teaches a carbonation chamber comprising inlet and outlet valves (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the outlet valve of Osborn to the bioreactor chamber of Collenot in view of Borchert because Collenot teaches that it is desirable to obtain a water enriched in carbon dioxide and further that the re-mineralized water is bottled for consumption (Paragraphs [0024, 0038]), and because Osborne teaches that the outlet valve allows for control of the desired volume of CO2/volume of beverage (Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST 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, Bob 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. /CLARE M. PERRIN/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1779 /CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 30 October 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 09, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600656
HIGH RATE THICKENER AND EDUCTORS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589378
MODIFIED NANOSCALE ZERO-VALENT IRON (NZVI) AND PREPARATION METHOD AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582948
SUBMERSIBLE SYSTEM FOR PRODUCTION OF A STABILIZED GAS FLUX
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583772
SUSTAINABLE HYBRID COMPOSITE MADE FROM BIODEGRADABLE POLYMER REINFORCED WITH EXTRACTED POWDER COMPOUND FROM REJECT BRINE (EPC-RB)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570554
METHOD OF REMOVING A URANIUM SOURCE FROM A WATER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 733 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