Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/953,839

Eco Barrier System

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 20, 2024
Examiner
KIM, CRAIG SANG
Art Unit
3741
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
667 granted / 775 resolved
+16.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
801
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
33.9%
-6.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 775 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This is a final rejection in response to amendment filed 11/4/25. Claims 13-17 are currently pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam et al. (US 2015/0252724) in view of Blaies et al. (US 2024/0271779) and Zhu et al. (US 2024/0368773) and further in view of Tsangaris et al. (US 2014/0332724). Regarding independent claim 13, Allam teaches a process for operation of a system configured as a prime mover for dispatchable power generation, comprising: providing a flow of fuel to a combustion chamber, wherein said fuel consists essentially of a natural gas; providing a flow of compressed oxygen to said combustion chamber, wherein said fuel and said compressed oxygen gas are ignited to generate a high temperature, high pressure gas flow which is sent to operate a driver, thereby producing a shaft work output [0005]; recovering from said driver a stream of exhaust gases consisting essentially of CO2 and water vapor, and residual gases, said residual gases comprising SO2 gas, NOx gas and other particulates [0026]. Allam is silent to providing a flow of fuel to a combustion chamber, wherein said fuel consists essentially of a natural gas blended with a hydrogen gas; introducing said exhaust gases to a heat recovery steam generator, wherein heat energy in said exhaust gas is converted to steam, a first portion of said steam being used to power a steam turbine; introducing a second portion of steam from said heat recovery steam generator to a first electrolyzer, wherein electrolysis converts said second portion of steam to a hydrogen gas and an oxygen gas, sending said hydrogen gas to a gas processing module and sending said oxygen gas to be compressed; introducing said heat recovery steam generator exhaust gases to a membrane separation technology system wherein said heat recovery steam generator exhaust gases are separated into a first stream of SO2 gas, NOx gas, and other particulates, and a second stream of CO2 and water vapor; introducing said second stream to a second electrolyzer wherein said second stream undergoes co-electrolysis, thereby producing carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases; and introducing said carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases from said second electrolyzer into a gas monitoring system. Blaies teaches providing a flow of fuel to a combustion chamber, wherein said fuel consists essentially of a natural gas blended with a hydrogen gas [0055]. Blaies also teaches introducing said exhaust gases to a heat recovery steam generator, wherein heat energy in said exhaust gas is converted to steam, a first portion of said steam being used to power a steam turbine [0049] and a second portion of steam from said heat recovery steam generator to a first electrolyzer, wherein electrolysis converts said second portion of steam to a hydrogen gas and an oxygen gas, sending said hydrogen gas to a gas processing module and sending said oxygen gas to be compressed [0075]. Blaies further teaches introducing said heat recovery steam generator exhaust gases to a membrane separation technology system wherein said heat recovery steam generator exhaust gases are separated into a first stream of SO2 gas, NOx gas, and other particulates, and a second stream of CO2 and water vapor [0020]. In this case, the membranes of Blaies would be used to separate the different flows identified in Allam [0118]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Allam with the HRSG and mixed fuel as taught by Blaies. Blaies teaches such a combination will reduce CO2 emissions [0063]. Allam in view of Blaies is silent to introducing said second stream to a second electrolyzer wherein said second stream undergoes co-electrolysis, thereby producing carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases; and introducing said carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases from said second electrolyzer into a gas monitoring system. Zhu teaches introducing said second stream to a second electrolyzer wherein said second stream undergoes co-electrolysis, thereby producing carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases [0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Allam in view of Blaies with the second stream as taught by Zhu, as Zhu teaches SAF production with reduced greenhouse impact [0002]. Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu is silent to introducing said carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases from said second electrolyzer into a gas monitoring system. Tsangaris teaches it was known to have a controller with a gas monitoring system [0246]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu with the control system with the gas monitoring system of Tsangaris as Tsangaris teaches a it ensures efficient and complete conversion of the fuel [0025]. Regarding dependent claim 14, Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris teaches the invention as claimed. Allam further teaches further comprising said shaft work output drives a power generator [0196], wherein a flow of electricity is produced, said flow of electricity is thereafter provided to an export system for transmission to either grid networks or a distribution network [0190]. Regarding dependent claim 16, Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris teaches the invention as claimed. Tsangaris further teaches further comprising providing data from said gas monitoring system to a distributed control system for the prime mover system, said distributed control system monitoring and optimizing efficiency of the operation thereof [0246]. Regarding dependent claim 17, Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris teaches the invention as claimed. Zhu further teaches wherein operation of said prime mover system utilizes the carbon chain to mitigate the atmospheric release of carbon dioxide by converting carbon dioxide into liquid and gaseous fuel products [0041]. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and Tsangaris and further in view of Carlson (US 2024/0044264). Regarding dependent claim 15, Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris teaches the invention as claimed. Zhu further teaches further comprising: providing said carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases to a production system, wherein a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process converts said carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases to synthetic crude [0031-0032]. Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris is silent to providing said synthetic crude to a product upgrading system for conversion to liquid and gaseous fuel products; and providing said liquid and gaseous fuel products to a storage and offloading system, for distribution of said liquid and gaseous fuel products to other locations. Carlson teaches providing said synthetic crude to a product upgrading system for conversion to liquid and gaseous fuel products; and providing said liquid and gaseous fuel products to a storage and offloading system, for distribution of said liquid and gaseous fuel products to other locations [0038-0039]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris with the storage and distribution as taught by Carlson. It is noted that the use of a known technique (in this case the use of a storage and distribution as taught by Carlson), to improve a similar devices (in this case providing storage and distribution to the plant of Allam in view of Blaies and Zhu and further in view of Tsangaris, in order to provide flexibility as well as distribution buffering) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III C. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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. /CRAIG KIM/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12560326
MAIN MIXER IN AN AXIAL STAGED COMBUSTOR FOR A GAS TURBINE ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560118
GAS TURBINE ENGINE HAVING A HEAT EXCHANGER LOCATED IN AN ANNULAR DUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12560121
REVERSE FLOW GAS TURBINE ENGINE HAVING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12533538
FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL SYSTEM FOR RECHARGEABLE BATTERY CABIN OF SHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529341
IGNITION SYSTEM AND METHOD OF OPERATING A COMBUSTION ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 775 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month