Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/036,669

Systems and Methods for Conditioning a Gas

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 24, 2025
Examiner
RO, YONG-SUK
Art Unit
3676
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Profrac Services LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1272 resolved
+33.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
1297
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§102
35.0%
-5.0% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1272 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third flowpath must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 21-36 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. Claims 21 and 30 recite limitation directed to “a third flowpath” that is unclear what it refers to. The specification, as originally filed, did not include any description of this. Instant specification only describes a first flowpath 120 (fig. 1) and a second flowpath 130 (fig. 1). Claims 22-29 and 31-36 are rejected as being respectively dependent on claims 21 and 30. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 21-25, 29-31 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demong (20110198080) in view of Yong et al. (20130153042 – Young). Demong discloses a system, comprising: Re claim 1 (as best understood – 112 issue) (method claim 30 is pertinent because when put the system is put in operation, it will result in the steps as called for in the method claim): an inlet configured to receive gas from a gas source (i.e., fig. 1, pgh. 19, line 16 from wellbore 13); an inlet valve 20 (i.e., fig. 1, pgh. 19, “inlet control valve”) downstream from the inlet and configured to actuate between: a first position, in which the inlet valve permits flow from the inlet, and a second position, in which the inlet valve prevents flow from the inlet; a first flowpath 1 downstream from the inlet valve; a second flowpath 2 downstream from the inlet valve and parallel to the first flowpath; one or more flowpath valves V1, V2, V3, V4 downstream from the inlet valve and configured to control an amount of the gas (i.e., pgh. 25, claim 6, “oil”, “gas”) that flows from the inlet valve 20 into the first flowpath 1 and the second flowpath 2; a third flowpath (i.e., see attached figure - 3rd) configured to receive the gas from the first flowpath 1 and the second flowpath 2; wherein the inlet valve is configured to actuate between the first and second positions responsive to the energy content (i.e., “oil”, “gas”). PNG media_image1.png 484 550 media_image1.png Greyscale Demong is silent on one or more pipeline taps configured to facilitate measurement of an energy content of the gas in the third flowpath. Young discloses a British thermal unit (BTU) measurement pipe tap, wherein the BTU measurement pipe tap is configured to measure the BTUs of the gas (i.e., pgh. 84). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the third flowpath of Demong by including the measurement pipe tap as taught by Young for accurate flow rate measurement of the gas flowing through the flowpath (i.e., Young, pgh. 84). Re claim 22, the first flowpath 1 comprises a first pressure regulator V1, V2, V6, V7 configured to regulate a pressure of the gas by a first amount (i.e., pghs. 22-23, pressure regulated across screen 18 using valves V1, V2, V6, V7) Re claim 23, the second flowpath 2 comprises a second pressure regulator V3, V4, V8, V9 that is configured to regulate the pressure of the gas by a second amount that is different from the first amount (i.e., pghs. 22-23, the valves V1, V2, V6, V7 divert flow from the discharge line 16 to the second flowpath) . Re claim 24, a strainer 18 (i.e., fig. 1) disposed downstream of the inlet and upstream of the first flowpath and the second flowpath and configured to remove debris from the gas (i.e., pgh. 19, debris catcher 17 comprises screening device 18) Re claims 25, 34, the one or more flowpath valves are selectively actuatable between: a first position where the gas is directed through the first flowpath and not the second flowpath, and a second position where the gas is directed through the second flowpath and not the first flowpath (i.e., pghs. 22-23). Re claim 29, Demong and Young is silent on a scrubber disposed in the third flowpath and configured to remove liquid from the gas. However, a scrubber is a well-known device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the third flowpath of Demong and Young by including a scrubber for purifying gases (https://www.bing.com/search?q=scrubber+meaning&cvid=3dfb293b720c495087a1e94d1b0d9dda&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEAyBggGEAAYQDIGCAcQABhAMgYICBAAGEAyCAgJEOkHGPxV0gEJMTIwODFqMGoxqAIA sAIA &FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Re claim 31, removing debris from the gas by operation of a strainer 18, 22 (i.e., pghs. 19-20, screening device) disposed upstream of the first flowpath 1 and the second flowpath (i.e., fig. 1). Re claim 32, discharging the gas from an outlet 30 (i.e., fig. 1). Claim(s) 28 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demong and Young, in view of Terabayashi et al. (20060243047 – Terabayashi). Demong and Young discloses the pipeline tap, but is silent on an optical analyzer configured to measure the energy content of the gas as the gas moves through the third flowpath. Terabayashi teaches an optical analyzer configured to measure the energy content of the gas (i.e., pgh. 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the third flowpath of Demong and Young by including the optical sensor as taught by Terabayashi to detect the asphaltene precipitation, the condensate oil and outbreak of gas bubbles (i.e., Terabayashi, pghs. 26-27). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 26, 27, 35 and 36 are 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art all show similar features t those of the claimed invention Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30. 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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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. /YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595709
ARRANGEMENT FOR CONTROLLING VOLUME IN A GAS OR OIL WELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590510
SLURRIFICATION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY PRESSURE PUMPING INTO A SUBSURFACE FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590512
SLURRIFICATION AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE BY PRESSURE PUMPING INTO A SUBSURFACE FORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12565836
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING DOWNHOLE FORMATION TESTING OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12546219
Air Developed Packer Testing System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+7.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1272 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