Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/008,171

PROCESS FOR DIRECT CONVERSION OF CRUDE OILS TO GASOLINE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 02, 2025
Examiner
DOYLE, BRANDI M
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Saudi Arabian Oil Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
304 granted / 486 resolved
-2.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
515
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
62.1%
+22.1% vs TC avg
§102
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 486 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is in response to the preliminary amendment filed 4/29/2026. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 13-24 are pending. 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 1-4, 7-8, and 13-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,651. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlapped in scope in terms of feed density (and thus API) and operating conditions, and boiling points of the feed. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 13-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,827,855. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope. The patent claims a crude feed having an API from 15-50 which encompasses the claimed feed of extra light crude oil having an API range of 35-45 and corresponding density. The patent claims overlapping reaction conditions and feed boiling ranges. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 13-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,012,554. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope. The patent claims a crude feed having an API from 15-40 which encompasses the claimed feed of extra light crude oil having an API range of 35-45 and corresponding density. The patent claims overlapping reaction conditions and feed boiling ranges. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached at (571)272-6381. 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. /BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703671
Process For Treating A Gas Stream From Plastic Pyrolisis And/Or Biomass Pyrolisis, And Installation For Integration Into A Steam Cracker
4y 1m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12686826
HYDROCONVERSION PROCESSES WITH EBULLATED BED REACTORS AND INTER-STAGE WATER ADDITION
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12680032
HALIDES REMOVAL WASHING SYSTEM FOR A HYDROCARBON STREAM
4y 4m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12637622
PRODUCTION OF HYDROCARBONS FROM RECYCLED OR RENEWABLE ORGANIC MATERIAL
5y 4m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637626
PROCESS FOR MIXING DILUTION STEAM WITH LIQUID HYDROCARBONS BEFORE STEAM CRACKING
2y 3m to grant Granted May 26, 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
63%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+11.8%)
3y 1m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 486 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