Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/995,184

MXENE TRANSPARENT CONDUCTING LAYERS FOR DIGITAL DISPLAY AND METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §101§112
Filed
Sep 30, 2022
Priority
Apr 02, 2020 — provisional 63/004,069 +1 more
Examiner
GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
Art Unit
1767
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Drexel University
OA Round
2 (Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
702 granted / 1032 resolved
+3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1055
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1032 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 . Election/Restrictions Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement between Groups I-V, as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 31, 2025 , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of October 31, 2025 is partially withdrawn. Claims 16-17 are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claims 20-21 and 23-25 remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim. In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112/101 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. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 16 is 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. Claim 16 provides for the use of the electrode of claim 1, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13 and 17 are allowed. 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. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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. /PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 September 18, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 30, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112
Jul 09, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12738482
ELECTROACTIVE MATERIALS FOR METAL-ION BATTERIES
2y 2m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729481
COMPOSITION CONTAINING FIRST TREATMENT AGENT FOR SYNTHETIC FIBER, METHOD FOR PREPARING DILUTED SOLUTION OF TREATMENT AGENT FOR SYNTHETIC FIBER, METHOD FOR TREATING SYNTHETIC FIBER, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SYNTHETIC FIBER, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SHORT FIBER
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12716028
SUCCINIC ANHYDRIDE-DERIVED POLYESTERS AS CORROSION INHIBITORS
4y 0m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12716024
Non-Linear Optical Materials Containing High Boiling Point Solvents, and Methods of Efficiently Poling the Same
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12703631
METHOD OF PRODUCING LITHIUM SULFIDE WITHOUT USING HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 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
68%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+17.7%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1032 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