Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/863,951

METHOD OF FORMING SELF-ASSEMBLED NANOSTRUCTURES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 13, 2022
Examiner
KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
Art Unit
1700
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 551 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
426 currently pending
Career history
977
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§112
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 551 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to Remarks and Amendments filed September 3, 2025 in regards to a continuation in practice application filed July 13, 2022 371 claiming priority to PCT/IB2021/061388 filed December 7, 2021 and provisional application 63/213,769 filed June 23, 2021. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 have been amended. Claims 10-20 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-9 are pending and currently being examined. 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 Response to Argument In view of the Remarks and Amendments, the rejections of claims 1-9 under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn and new rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been made. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the phrase “… comprises of Titanium …” may be suggested to read “… comprises Titanium …”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0229885 A1). Chen et al. disclose a method of preparing an electrophoretic display medium, comprising: 1) preparing neutral particles; 2) preparing positively or negatively charged pigment particles; 3) preparing electrophoretic display medium by mixing the charged pigment particles of 5-30 parts by weight with the dispersing solvent of 20-70 parts by weight, and supersonically dispersing the obtained mixture to obtain a suspension; the adding the neutral pigment particles of 5-30 parts by weight to the suspension in the state of being supersonically dispersed, continuing supersonically dispersing to obtain the electrophoretic display medium [claim 20]. Chen et al. disclose neutral black particles (positively charged) [0054] are 50g iron oxide black Fe3O4 pigments [Example 2; 0050] while the neutral white pigment particles (negatively charged) [0053] are 50g titania (TiO2) [Example 3; 0051]. Both pigments have inherently different zeta potential and self-assemble due to the electric field and each mixture is raised to 85°C [Examples 2-5; 0050-0051, 0053-0054]. Chen et al. disclose that the size of the pigment particles is preferably 0.01-5µm (10nm-5000 nm) and optimally 0.1-1µm (100 nm – 1000nm) [0015, 0035] meeting the definition of the instant application of at least one dimension of the particles in a scale of 100nm. Chen et al. disclose the steps of the in-situ polymerization for the effect of electrophoretic display is detailed as 240g urea, 455g formaldehyde solution (37%) were weighed and added to a 2000 ml beaker, then the mixed was stirred rapidly and triethanolamine was added into the mixture until the pH value reached 8.0, followed by the mixture heated to 70°C, reacted for 1 hr to obtain a viscous liquid, and 1000 ml of water was added to dilute the product and obtain an urea formaldehyde prepolymer solution [0059]. Pertaining to the order of steps, applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the order of combining the ingredients as the end result is a composition combining all the same ingredients. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C). In regards to claim 2, Chen et al. do not disclose the type of water used but to one of ordinary skill in the art water can be from multiple sources in a lab such as distilled water, tap (municipal) water, or deionized water. In regards to claims 3 and 9, Chen et al. supersonically dispersing the obtained mixtures [claim 20] which to one of ordinary skill in the art would be under ultrasonic conditions but do not disclose the sonication power and length of time wherein one of ordinary skill in the art can adjust by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. In regards to claims 4-8, Chen et al. disclose adding of the electrophoretic display medium of Examples 6, 7, and 8 comprising Fe3O4 and titania (TiO2) to the urea formaldehyde prepolymer solution and stirred [0059]. Chen et al. do not disclose metals, salts, or composites of the instant claims 5-8, but disclose the metal oxides of instant claims 4 and 6, therefore meeting the limitations of the instant claims. Conclusion 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 RONALD GRINSTED whose telephone number is (571)270-7634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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. /RONALD GRINSTED/Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2022
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 03, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12420336
ANTI-FRETTING COATING COMPOSITION AND COATED COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12417853
ENGINEERED SIC-SIC COMPOSITE AND MONOLITHIC SIC LAYERED STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12418039
MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURING PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12410882
VACUUM ADIABATIC BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12397261
METHOD FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL HYDROGEN SEPARATION FROM NATURAL-GAS PIPELINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2025
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
55%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+15.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 551 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