Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/839,618

GAS SEPARATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 19, 2024
Priority
Mar 11, 2022 — provisional 63/319,180 +2 more
Examiner
LETTMAN, BRYAN MATTHEW
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
W. L. Gore & Associates Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% of resolved cases
65%
Career Allowance Rate
628 granted / 968 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +52% interview lift
Without
With
+51.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
996
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 968 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . 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. Claim 26 is 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 “approximately 95%” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. It is unclear how close to 95% is approximately 95%. The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that what is meant is --substantially 95%--. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 23, 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0265139 to Bryan. Referring to claim 23, Bryan discloses a method for trapping and releasing a volume of gas bubbles within a gas separation device (1), the gas separation device (1) having a housing defining a fluid flow path having an outer surface and an inner surface, the housing having an inlet (3) in fluid communication with the fluid flow path and an outlet (6) in fluid communication with the fluid flow path (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0047]- [0054]), the method comprising: delivering a fluid through the flow path in a forward direction such that the fluid flows through the gas separation device (1) from the inlet (3) to the outlet (6); trapping the volume of the gas within the gas separation device wherein at least a portion of at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface of the housing is translucent such that the volume of gas can be observed; stopping the delivery of the fluid through the fluid flow path; and delivering the fluid through the fluid flow path in a reverse direction such that fluid flows from the outlet (6) to the inlet (3) to remove at least a portion of the volume of the gas bubbles from the gas separation device (1) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0047]- [0054]). Referring to claim 24, Bryan discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 23, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein: the fluid flow path includes an inlet portion (opening if 3 into 2) arranged to receive fluid from the inlet (3) during fluid flow in the forward direction through the housing, a diffuser portion (bottom portion of 2) arranged to receive fluid from the inlet (3) portion during forward flow through the housing, the diffuser portion defining a diffuser portion volume, a recombination portion (upper portion of 2) arranged to receive fluid from the diffuser portion (lower portion of 2) during forward flow through the housing, and an outlet portion (opening of 6 at top of 2) arranged to receive fluid from the recombination portion during forward flow through the gas separation device (1) (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0047]- [0054]). Referring to claim 26, Bryan discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 23, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein: the step of reversing the flow occurs once a volume of the gas bubbles approaches a maximum gas bubble volume defined by substantially 95% of the diffuser portion volume (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0047]- [0054]). Referring to claim 27, Bryan discloses a method comprising all the limitations of claim 23, as detailed above, and further discloses a method wherein: after the portion of the volume of the gas bubbles has exited the gas separation device (1), the method further includes delivering fluid through the fluid flow path in the forward direction from the inlet (3) to the outlet (6) of the housing (Figures 1 and 2; paragraphs [0047]- [0054]). Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent 12,239,773 to Forde. Referring to claim 32, Forde discloses a gas separation device, comprising: an outer housing (202); an inlet (204) coupled with the outer housing (202); an inner component (402) arranged within the outer housing (202) and defining a diffuser surface and a core, the diffuser surface having a generally domed longitudinal profile; a collector (space under 402) arranged below the inner component (402); a plurality of outlets (206, 212) fluidly coupled with the collector (space under 402); a fluid flow path defined by the inlet, (204) a spacing between the inner component (402) and the outer housing (202), the collector (space under 402), and the plurality of outlets (206, 212); and wherein a portion of the outer housing (202) arranged laterally aligned with and vertically above the diffuser surface is translucent or transparent (Fig. 9; col. 11 lines 51-56 and col. 19 line 49 - col. 20 line 60). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14 and 16-18 are allowable. Claim 28 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach a gas separation device comprising all the limitations of claim 1, 16, or 23 and 28, but more specifically wherein the gas separation device is configured to exhibit an air trapping effectiveness ratio (ATER) that is between 0.001 mL-1 and 0.51 mL-1 during fluid flow in the forward direction through the housing. The Examiner notes that the specification as filed clearly defines what is meant by an ATER. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm. 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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. /BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 19, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12723576
ROTARY SWASH PLATE HYDRAULIC PUMP
1y 3m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12723578
APPARATUS AND METHOD OF OPERATING A GAS PUMP
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12662999
DOWNHOLE SUCKER ROD PUMP
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12644440
Positive Displacement Pump
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12631175
METHOD FOR HEAT RECOVERY IN A COMPRESSOR AND A COMPRESSOR
2y 4m to grant Granted May 19, 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
65%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+51.8%)
3y 2m (~1y 0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 968 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