Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/066,133

Isolation of Ammonia from Wastewater with Struvite

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Feb 27, 2025
Examiner
KURTZ, BENJAMIN M
Art Unit
1779
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Perseverance Water Guardian LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 1104 resolved
-8.2% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1154
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1104 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 160. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 11, 12, 13 and 14. 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. 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 1-9 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 “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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, line 4 recites the L/N ration being about 4 to about 6. It is unclear how much less or more than 6 would be considered “about” 4 or 6. Similarly, line 7 recites the pH range being about greater than 9. It is unclear to what degree the pH can differ from greater than 9 and still be considered “about greater than 9, for instance is a pH of 9 considered “about” more than 9? Claims 3, 4 and 9 also recite ranges of temperatures and pH with the term “about” and re rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Claim 1 recite the column having an L/N ration of about 4 to about 6. It is unclear what an L/N ration is. It appears to be a typo and applicant meant to recite an “L/D ratio” and such is assumed for purposes of examination. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the MP/MAP-packed column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the column”. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the external heating source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the MP/MAP column". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim is assumed to recite, “the column”. The additional claims are rejected as depending from claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lunn et al. US 10,676,374. Claim 1, Lunn teaches an ammonia capture process comprising a cyclic regeneration process between magnesium ammonium phosphate (MAP) and magnesium phosphate (MP) to achieve ammonia release wherein the process comprises: providing a column having an L/D ratio of 6 (col. 8, lines 25-30), placing an MP/MAP medium into the column (col. 2, line 65 – col. 3, line 5), providing an ammonia containing medium and adjusting the medium pH range to greater than 9 (col. 3, lines 25-31, col. 8, lines 5-15) and wetting the MP/MAP medium with water (col. 13, lines 15-27), providing external heating to the column to control the column temperature (col. 6, lines 15-20), conducting the pH adjusted ammonia containing medium into the wetted MP/MAP contained in the column and allowing the ammonia in the medium to be captured by MP in the column and converting the MP into MAP (col. 3, lines 1-25) and stopping the flow of pH adjusted ammonia containing medium into the column and capturing and releasing ammonia from the column (col. 3, lines 1-25). Claims 4-5 and 7, Lunn further teaches the pH is 9.5 (col. 21, lines 10-15); providing thermal energy to cause conversion of MAP to MP (col. 3, lines 10-15); and the process comprises an absorption cycle where the pH adjusted ammonia medium is pumped (col. 5, lines 60-65) through the column and the pH adjusted ammonia containing medium interacts with the MP is absorbed to create MAP and ammonia reduced pH adjusted ammonia containing medium (col. 3, lines 1-25). 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. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunn et al. US 10,676,374. Lunn teaches the process of claim 1 and further teaches air may be sent to the column but does not expressly teach that water vapor and ammonia are released into an airstream. Purging a column with an airstream is a well-known technique in the art and would have been well within the normal capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3 and 8-9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2, the closest prior art to Lunn teaches the process of claim 1 and further teaches the medium is wetted prior to the start but does not teach the column being preheated and pressurized air is sent to the column nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 3, the closest prior art to Lunn teaches the process of claim 1 but does not teach holding the column temperature to about 60 degrees C nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 8, the closest prior art to Lunn teaches the process of claim 1 but does not teach purging the column with compressed heated pressurized air and carrying out ammonia vapor to an acid capture bath nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Claim 9, the closest prior art to Lunn teaches the process of claim 1 but does not teach the influent ammonium containing medium has a temperature of 50-95 degrees C nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN M KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5. 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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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. /BENJAMIN M KURTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 27, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601718
METHOD FOR PRETREATING RANITIDINE HYDROCHLORIDE SAMPLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600646
WATER PURIFYING APPARATUS AND REFRIGERATOR INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589441
LIQUID CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND BORING SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589339
OIL FILTER CARTRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576350
FILTERING GROUP INCLUDING A SPHERICAL VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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
57%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+17.4%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1104 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