Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 17/792,953

FORMIC ACID PRODUCTION METHOD AND FORMIC ACID PRODUCTION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 14, 2022
Priority
Jan 14, 2020 — JP 2020-003492 +1 more
Examiner
DOWNES, NATHANAEL JASON
Art Unit
1794
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITY PUBLIC CORPORATION OSAKA
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allowance Rate
10 granted / 18 resolved
-9.4% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
46
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
52.9%
+12.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 18 resolved cases

Office Action

§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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/27/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Claims 1-3, 6-8 are pending prosecution. 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. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP2019001760A) in view of Chen et. al “Characterization of Composite prepared with different mixings rations of TiO2 to activated carbon and their photocatalytic activity” Analytical Science and Technology. 2006, 19, 5, 376-382. Regarding Claims 1-3, 6, Kazuhiko teaches a method for generating formic acid by artificial photosynthesis and storing the formic acid for conversion into hydrogen (abstract). Kazuhiko teaches that the formic acid generating device is composed of titanium oxide fine particles and a dye (para. 0038). Further, Kazuhiko teaches that the dye is, for example, chlorophyll (para. 0042), which is understood to be a plant-derived dye. Kazuhiko teaches that a TiO2 fine particles on a heat-treated substrate are immersed in a 0.3 mM solution of dye with a reaction volume of 2 mL and that light was irradiated on the system to generate formic acid (para. 0081-0082). Kazuhiko teaches that the formic acid producing device is used as a reaction medium and that reaction medium is mixed with water (para 55) and in light of Fig. 6, it is understood that since reactant (CO2) is flowed in and product (formic acid, HCOOH) is removed to a storage tank that the solution in the formic acid producing device is not static, but mixing (see image of Fig. 6 below). Further. Kazuhiko discloses that the carbon dioxide is supplied to the formic acid generator by “circulating” (para 0033). Kazuhiko teaches that it is desirable for formic acid from the formic acid producing device (element 10 of Fig. 6) to be concentrated and then stored in a facility or the like, such as a storage tank (element 55 of Fig. 6) (para. 0062-0063). However, Kazuhiko does not teach that activated carbon powder is mixed in the solution. Chen teaches a study on the effect of varied ratios of activated carbon powder and TiO2 composites as it relates to photocatalytic activity [abstract]. Chen teaches that activated carbon powder is mixed with titanium dioxide powder in solution [Sec. 2.2]. Chen teaches that the photocatalytic activity of bare TiO2 is lower than that of the composites with activated carbon powder [Col. 1, Pg. 381]. Chen teaches that the added BET surface area from the activated carbon powder improves the photocatalytic activity [Col. 1, Pg. 381]. Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the photocatalyst (TiO2) of Kazuhiko was ready for improvement by the substitution of a TiO2/activated carbon, as per Chen, in order that one would arrive at a formic acid generating method with a catalyst support which improves photocatalytic activity owing to the added surface area of activated carbon powder. Regarding Claim 7, Kazuhiko teaches to claim 1 as shown above. Kazuhiko teaches that the formic acid generating system can use “sunlight” to drive the production of formic acid (para. 0059 and 0077). Kazuhiko teaches that the formic acid producing device is used as a reaction medium and that reaction medium is mixed with water (para 55) and in light of Fig. 6, it is understood that since reactant (CO2) is flowed in and product (formic acid, HCOOH) is removed to a storage tank the solution in the formic acid producing device is not static, but mixing (see image of Fig. 6 below). PNG media_image1.png 300 412 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko (JP2019001760A). Regarding Claim 8 Kazuhiko teaches a device for generating formic acid by artificial photosynthesis and storing the formic acid for conversion into hydrogen (abstract). Kazuhiko teaches that the TiO2 fine particles on a heat-treated substrate in a 0.3 mM solution of dye with a reaction volume of 2 mL is “loaded” to form a formic acid producing device (para 0081). Therefore, it is understood Kazuhiko discloses a raw material charging unit, in order that the formic acid producing device is loaded with raw material to proceed to the formic acid generation step. Kazuhiko teaches that a formic acid generator (element 50, Fig. 6) comprises a formic acid generating device (element 10, Fig. 6) in which artificial photosynthesis takes place by irradiation with sunlight (para 0059) and in which is charged TiO2 fine particles on a heat-treated substrate in a 0.3 mM solution of dye with a reaction volume of 2 mL (para. 0081-0082). Kazuhiko teaches that it is desirable for formic acid from the formic acid producing device (element 10 of Fig. 6) to be concentrated and then stored in a facility or the like, such as a storage tank (element 55 of Fig. 6) (para. 0062-0063). It will be noted that the addition of activated carbon powder to the solution does not provide a meaningful structural limitation to the instant claimed device, and as such is not given patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.02 II and 2111.04 I). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that the previous rejection of Claim 1 does not teach to the current claim amendment of Claim 1, now requiring the formerly “activated carbon” to be an “activated carbon powder”. These arguments are correct and the rejection has been amended as shown above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm. 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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. NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES Examiner Art Unit 1794 /NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794 /BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 27, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 30, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600631
METHOD FOR MASS SYNTHESIS OF CARBON NANOTUBES AND CARBON NANOTUBES SYNTHESIZED THEREBY
3y 8m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12576383
MULTI-REFLECTOR PHOTOREACTOR FOR CONTROLLED IRRADIATION OF FLUID
4y 3m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569838
TITANIUM-ORGANIC FRAMEWORK PHOTOCATALYST FOR ADSORPTION AND DECOMPOSITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF AND METHOD FOR REMOVING VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND USING TITANIUM-ORGANIC FRAMEWORK
3y 10m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570536
AMMONIA SYNTHESIS METHODS AND SYSTEMS
3y 7m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571087
SUBMERGED-PLASMA PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS
3y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+25.0%)
3y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 18 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