Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/645,427

METHOD FOR STORING AND TRANSPORTING HYDRATE WITH HIGH NATURAL GAS STORAGE CAPACITY

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 25, 2024
Examiner
PO, MING CHEUNG
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Guangzhou Institute Of Energy Conversion Chinese Academy Of Sciences
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
38%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 2m
To Grant
52%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 38% of cases
38%
Career Allow Rate
263 granted / 696 resolved
-27.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
760
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
71.6%
+31.6% vs TC avg
§102
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§112
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 696 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Office Action Summary This is the initial office action for application 18645427 filed 04/25/2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been fully considered. 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 1-5 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is unclear if the phrase “in the case of” is meant to suggest an optional limitation. Claim 1 has been interpreted to comprise the steps of introducing a mixed hydrate reaction liquid into a reaction tank, introducing natural gas into the hydrate reaction liquid to form a mixture and heat the mixture to 273.65 K – 283.15 K to form hydrates and maintain the hydrates at a temperature of less than or equal to 298.15 K. The reaction tank is also taught to be a transportation tank. The transportation tank is also taught to be matched with a transportation vehicle. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (USPGPUB 2020/0339900) and METTLER et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0229178). LI teaches a hydrate formation promoter and its use in methane storage. The process is taught in paragraph 12 of LI, wherein the hydrate formation promoter is added to a reaction vessel (introducing a mixed hydrate reaction liquid into hydrate reaction tank), and methane is introduced into the reaction vessel (introducing natural gas) at a temperature of from 1 to 25 C (enabling the mixture to undergo a hydrate generation reaction at a temperature of 273.65 K – 283.15 K to obtain the hydrate). LI further teaches in paragraph 12 that the hydrate formed is stable at higher temperatures. The heating to form the hydrate are also at temperatures that overlap the temperatures in which the hydrates are stable. LI further teaches in paragraph 14, that the hydrate formation allows for the storage, and transportation of methane hydrates. (heating the hydrate to a temperature of less than or equal to 298.15K). METTLER et al. teach forming and sequestering CO2 clathrates. METTLER et al. teach in paragraph 8 that the formation of a CO2 clathrates may be done with a hydrate formation promoter such as cyclopentane. METTLER et al. further teach in paragraph 9 that it is known in the art to form the CO2 clathrate on the seagoing vessel while transporting to a deposition site where the CO2 clathrates and sequestered. The formation of the CO2 clathrates is taught in paragraph 46 to be produced in a hydrate formation reactor. It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art that the methane hydrates may be formed on a transportation vehicle such as a seagoing vessel. The reaction tank would then also be considered a transportation tank. LI further teaches in paragraph 53 that any other changes, modifications, substitutions, combinations, and simplifications without departing from the spirit and principle of the present invention shall be regarded as equivalent replacements and included in the scope of the present invention. Performing the methane hydrate formation in a tank on a transportation vehicle would be a modification without departing from the spirit. Doing so would also allow for improved efficiencies to perform the reaction during transportation. Regarding claim 2, LI teaches in paragraph 12 that the hydrate formation promoter is added at a temperature of 1 to 25 C which is 274 to 298K. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a temperature between 274.15 to 283.15K since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 3, LI teaches in reference claim 1 the hydrate formation promoter comprises cyclopentane in water. Regarding claim 4, LI teaches in reference claim 1 the hydrate formation promoter comprises cyclopentane. Regarding claim 5, LI teaches in reference claim 1 cyclopentane is present in water in an amount of 5 to 23.4%. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use about 5.6 vol% cyclopentane in water since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6. 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, PREM SINGH can be reached at 5712726381. 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. /MING CHEUNG PO/Examiner, Art Unit 1771 /ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583807
Pretreating Metal Oxide Catalysts for Alkane Dehydrogenation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577484
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR MARKING HYDROCARBON COMPOSITIONS WITH NON-MUTAGENIC DYES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570914
Fuel Composition Comprising Detergent and Quaternary Ammonium Salt Additive
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569834
UNIFORM-TYPE PLATINUM-LOADED ALUMINA CATALYST, METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME, AND METHOD OF USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565632
PROCESS AND SYSTEM FOR PRODUCING BIOFUELS WITH REDUCED CARBON INTENSITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
38%
Grant Probability
52%
With Interview (+14.0%)
4y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 696 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