Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/184,201

SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR GEOLOGICAL SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON-CONTAINING MATERIALS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 21, 2025
Examiner
OQUENDO, CARIB A
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Charm Industrial Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
644 granted / 829 resolved
+25.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
856
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 829 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/08/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102/103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bruno et al. (US 2001/0044566). 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, 6-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruno et al. (US 2001/0044566). With regards to claim 1-3 and 12-14, Bruno et al. discloses a method of sequestering carbon-containing materials, the method comprising: obtaining a carbon-containing material comprising lignin pulp or a waste material from a paper mill (paragraph 0029; “pulp and paper mill sludges”), wherein the lignin pulp and the waste material from the paper mill have not been subjected to a pyrolysis process; and providing the material for injection into an underground well (paragraph 0030; figure 1). As to claim 4 and 15, Bruno et al. discloses wherein the material comprises bio-oil (paragraph 0029). As to claim 6, Bruno et al. discloses wherein providing the material for injection comprises injecting the material into the underground well (figure 1). As to claim 7 and 17, Bruno et al. discloses wherein the underground well comprises at least one of a commercial disposal well, a salt cavern, a Class II cavern, a depleted mine, an abandoned mine, a purpose-constructed mine, or a natural cavern (figure 1). As to claim 8-10 and 18, Bruno discloses further comprising subjecting the material to a test for compatibility with the underground well (paragraph 0025 and 0049) As to claim 9, Bruno discloses wherein the test for compatibility comprises using a core sample for the underground well (NOTE: it is inherent, using core samples is old and well known in the art to study soil properties in order to know how the injected biosolid will create methane efficiently in the environment). As to claim 10-11 and 19-20, Bruno discloses further comprising adjusting a property of the material to improve compatibility with the underground well and wherein the property comprises at least one of pH, microbial growth potential, tendency to auto-polymerize, or flash point (paragraph 0058 and 0063). 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) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno et al. (US 2001/0044566) in view of Cheiky et al. (US 8,430,937). As to claim 5 and 16, wherein the material further comprises biochar. Cheiky et al. teaches the use of biochar mix with biosolids store underground (col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the biosolids of Bruno et al. to include biochar as taught by Cheiky et al., since it would provide a well-known soil amendment and carbon containing material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm. 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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. /CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 24, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 08, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590511
METHOD OF STORING HYDROGEN GAS IN A SUBSURFACE FORMATION USING NITROGEN, METHANE, AND CARBON DIOXIDE BLEND AS A CUSHION GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577743
WORK MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577746
MODULAR SEA WALL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571176
PILES FOR SELF-CLOSING FLOOD BARRIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565743
EXCAVATING ASSEMBLY FOR MILLING A ROAD SURFACE OR GROUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
78%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 829 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