Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/258,399

NOVEL COMPOUND, AND COMPOSITION FOR FORMING HOLE TRANSPORTING LAYER FOR PEROVSKITE SOLAR CELLS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jan 06, 2021
Examiner
BRAUN, MADELINE E
Art Unit
1624
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Tokyo Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 114 resolved
+7.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
162
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§102
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§112
36.7%
-3.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 114 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Amendment The amendments received 01/06/2026 have been entered. Claims 3, 5-6, and 9-10 are pending. Any objection or rejection as set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/20/2025 not maintained herein has been overcome by Applicant’s amendments and is withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth herein as necessitated by amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 3, 5-6, and 9-10 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 3 and 6 have been amended to recite “wherein all of Z is not hydrogen”. This limitation causes confusion as it could be interpreted to mean that “all of Z” means that no Z is hydrogen OR that Z is not all hydrogen. While the Examiner has, for the purposes of examination, interpreted the limitation as the latter, clarification is required. Examiner suggests correcting “wherein all of Z is not hydrogen” to “wherein Z is not all hydrogen” if the latter interpretation is correct. Claims 6 and 9-10 are similarly rejected for requiring the limitation at issue. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 9 and 10 recite an intended use of the compound and hole transport layer, respectively, of the composition in claims 3 and 9, respectively. An intended use is given minimal patentable weight and does not further limit the scope of the composition. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 9 and 10 have been amended to rice “the compound is formed in a hole transport layer” and “the hole transport layer is configured to receive holes” respectively. The instant disclosure lacks any teaching or suggestion of the limitations “formed in” or “configured” at the time of filing. Moreover, there is no disclosure of the compound being formed in a hole transport layer, nor is the term “configured” ever recited or suggested in the specification. Correction is required. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), Applicant argues that claims 9 and 10 have been amended to recite distinct structural features. This is not persuasive. Claim 3, from which claims 9 and 10 depend, is directed toward a hole transport layer forming composition. Claim 9 does not further limit the composition by defining where the compound is formed. Moreover, as above, there is no teaching or suggestion in the instant disclosure that the compound is “formed in” a hole transport layer applied to a perovskite layer. Similarly, claim 10 is directed toward the hole transport layer for which the composition is intended to be used, which does not further limit the composition of claim 3 itself. The rejection is maintained. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELINE E BRAUN whose telephone number is (703)756-4533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm ET. 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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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. /M.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624 02/12/2026 /BRENDA L COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1624
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 06, 2021
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 09, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 24, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 28, 2025
Response Filed
May 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594268
Methods of Treating Fabry Disease in Patients Having a Mutation in the GLA Gene
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595252
INHIBITORS OF SARM1
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589090
COMPOUNDS AND METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF DEGENERATIVE DISORDERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590103
POLYMORPH OF EP4 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576050
DOSAGE REGIME
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

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 114 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