Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/791,677

METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR DEWATERING SOLID PARTICLES IN A CONTAMINATED LIQUID MIXTURE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 01, 2024
Priority
Sep 10, 2015 — provisional 62/216,972 +2 more
Examiner
POPOVICS, ROBERT J
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
1934612 Ontario Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allowance Rate
414 granted / 750 resolved
-9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+22.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
774
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
44.8%
+4.8% vs TC avg
§102
6.2%
-33.8% vs TC avg
§112
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 750 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION First Page of Pre-Grant Publication PNG media_image1.png 1131 741 media_image1.png Greyscale Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 57-66 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,083,453 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 57-66 are fully encompassed by claims 1-6 of the ‘453 patent. PNG media_image2.png 1236 908 media_image2.png Greyscale 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 57-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of WOO (U.S. 2014/0116957 A1 and/or Korean Patent Publication No. 10-201-0082504) and GINN (U.S. 5,547,574 – 1996). The Office Action of the Korean Patent Office dated October 24, 2025 is adopted and incorporated by reference, as if set forth in full. This document was made of record by Applicant on February 24, 2026.The claims in the instant action are broader than those considered by the Korean Patent Office. For example, at least the limitations of dependent claims 63-66 are recited in independent claim 1 considered by the Korean patent Office. Instant claims 57-66, are seen to be obvious, mutatis mutandis, in view of the references as applied in the Korean Patent Office. WOO (U.S. 2014/0116957 A1) is a member of the patent family of Korean Patent Publication No. 10-201-0082504. PNG media_image3.png 37 637 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 775 604 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 774 612 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 1021 686 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 1097 952 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 817 946 media_image8.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM. 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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. /ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 01, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678716
REGENERATIVE MEDIA FILTER WITH FLOW DIFFUSER
3y 6m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678712
METHODS TO DRAWDOWN PIPE SECTIONS WITH THE USE OR REGULATION CONTROL OF FLARING AND CROSS-COMPRESSION TECHNIQUE
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673881
SURFACE WATER CLEANING SYSTEMS AND METHOD OF THEIR USE
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667799
In-Line Strainer
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12644272
STORM DRAIN GRATE AND FILTER APPARATUS AND METHOD
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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
55%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+22.9%)
3y 5m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 750 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