Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/288,515

METHOD FOR PREPARING HYDROGEN FROM AMMONIA BY USING PRESSURE SWING ADSORPTION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 26, 2023
Examiner
LAWRENCE JR, FRANK M
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
research institute of industrial science & technology
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
1172 granted / 1399 resolved
+18.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1433
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
31.7%
-8.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1399 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 because in Figure 1, “PSA” is partially cut off and there appears to be an arrow missing between “remove undecomposed NH3” and “separate N2/H2.”. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4 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. In lines 5-12 in claim 1, it is unclear whether the purification steps refer to the same step or are two distinct steps. For examination, it is assumed that two separate purification steps are being recited. Also in line 13 of claim 1, it is unclear whether the “purification” refers to the first or second recited purification steps. For examination, it is assumed that this refers to the purification by selectively adsorbing undecomposed ammonia in lines 5-9. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas consisting of low-purity hydrogen and nitrogen" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the “consisting of” language limits this gas to only containing low purity hydrogen and nitrogen, except for the presence of inert or negligible contaminants that do not affect the process. If this stream contains any ammonia, “comprising” should be used. Claim 4 is indefinite because it does not indicate whether the ammonia concentration % is by volume, mass or mole, which can vary greatly in a gas mixture. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for depending from an indefinite parent claim. 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) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H05-330802 A. JP ‘802 discloses a process for producing hydrogen from ammonia, comprising generating hydrogen and nitrogen from ammonia gas through a high-temperature reaction by using a catalyst, and performing purification by selectively adsorbing undecomposed ammonia gas from a mixture with hydrogen and nitrogen, wherein the purification is carried out by using a carbon molecular sieve adsorbent through pressure swing adsorption (see pages 6 and 7 of the machine-generated English translation). The instant claims differ from the disclosure of JP ‘802 in that the high-temperature gas is cooled and that low-purity hydrogen and nitrogen are also purified to separate high-purity hydrogen . JP ‘802 does also disclose that is known in the art to use cryogenic separation after undecomposed ammonia adsorption (see page 3 of the machine-generated English translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of JP ‘802 by using a cryogenic separation step after ammonia adsorption to produce a higher quality hydrogen product. Regarding the cooling step, it is submitted that one skilled in the art would understand that the high temperature reaction product will require cooling for optimal pressure swing adsorption conditions. Regarding claim 4, JP ‘802 fails to disclose the preferred ammonia decomposition rate , undecomposed ammonia concentration, adsorption pressure and adsorption temperature. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, these are considered to be parameters that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide optimal adsorption conditions to achieve an acceptable product hydrogen purity. The decomposition rate and undecomposed ammonia concentration will also depend on catalytic reaction conditions that would be chosen to achieve a desired product purity without wasting excess energy or materials. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 additional references listed on the attached PTO-892 form disclose ammonia adsorption arrangements. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FRANK LAWRENCE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1161 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8:30am-7pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7872 . 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. /FRANK M LAWRENCE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 fl
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 20, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601073
H2 DRYER FOR POWER PLANT USING ELECTROLYZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594523
MEMBRANE CAPTURE OF CO2 FROM REFINERY EMISSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595960
ADSORBER, PURIFICATION SYSTEM, AND PURIFICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592404
HUMIDIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582940
MEMBRANE PRECONCENTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE FROM EXHAUST GAS SOURCES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.8%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1399 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month