Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/825,531

DEEP SEA SUB-SEDIMENT SLURRY INJECTION FOR CARBON REMOVAL

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 05, 2024
Examiner
OLSON, LARS A
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Sinkco Labs Pbc
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1555 granted / 1896 resolved
+30.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1930
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.1%
-9.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1896 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . A response to restriction requirement was filed by the applicant on October 13, 2025. Election/Restrictions Claims 21-22 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 13, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 and 23-26 in the reply filed on October 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings were received on September 5, 2024. These drawings are acceptable. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 17, 2025 and October 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. 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 1-20 and 23-26 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 term “deep-sea” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sea floor" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the overall injection process" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-20 and 23-26 depend from independent claim 1, and are thus also rendered indefinite. Claims 2, 4, 18 and 20 are not disclosed in the form of a single complete sentence. All claim language disclosed after the first period “.” in each claim is considered to be indefinite. Regarding claims 2, 5, 8, 10 and 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “very low capital” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the port" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the injection area" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “high pump pressure” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “short-term” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the energy considerations" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the injection operation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the injection process" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the operational parameters" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “deep-sea” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the zone of injection" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the injection location" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the injection location" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “high-efficiency” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “similar types” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. On line 11 of claim 20, the phrase “(see detailed description for further embodiments)” is disclosed in parentheses, and is thus rendered indefinite. The use of parentheses in the claims is reserved for reference characters only. On line 15 of claim 20, the phrase “(see detailed description for further elaboration)” is disclosed in parentheses, and is thus rendered indefinite. The term “deep-sea” in claims 23-25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “large-scale” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 26 recites the limitation "the primary medium" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asai (US 5,293,751) discloses a method and system for throwing carbon dioxide into the deep sea. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm. 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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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. November 26, 2025 /LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600444
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING THE TRIM OF A TRANSPORT SHIP WITHOUT SEAWATER BALLAST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600441
THRUSTER CONDUIT ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589835
BUOYANCY SUPPLEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583559
Watercraft Portage Apparatus and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583556
SELF-DRAINING SCUPPER
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
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1896 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