Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/033,919

RUBIDIUM HALIDE COLLOIDAL NANOCRYSTALS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Examiner
XU, JIANGTIAN
Art Unit
1762
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nanyang Technological University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
211 granted / 321 resolved
+0.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
385
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
14.4%
-25.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 321 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Groups II-III (claims 11-16 and 18-21) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025. Claim status The claims filed on 12/22/2025 have been entered. No claim(s) is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 17 and 22-23 has/have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-21 is/are pending with claim(s) 11-16 and 18-21 withdrawn from consideration. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are under examination in this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akkerman et al (“Molecular Iodine for a General Synthesis of Binary and Ternary Inorganic and Hybrid Organic−Inorganic Iodide Nanocrystals”, Chem. Mater. 2018, 30, 6915−6921). Regarding claims 1-4, Akkerman teaches colloidal metal halide nanocrystals (NCs) RbAg4I5 as an alternative to lead halide perovskite NCs [abstract, P6916 left col. above “Experimental Section”]. The Rb is rubidium; the Ag (silver) is a group 11 element of the Periodic Table of Elements; the I (iodine) is a halogen. Regarding claim 8, Akkerman teaches that the RbAg4I5 nanoparticles are 19 nm [P6920 left col. 1st para.], falling in the claimed range of 1 nm to 50 nm. Regarding claim 9, Akkerman shows TEM images of the RbAg4I5 nanoparticles in spherical shape [P56 of Supporting information Figure S110 (b)]. Regarding claim 10, Akkerman teaches that the nanoparticles are dispersed in toluene [P6916 right col. under “General Metal Iodide NC synthesis and Purification”]. 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman et al (“Molecular Iodine for a General Synthesis of Binary and Ternary Inorganic and Hybrid Organic−Inorganic Iodide Nanocrystals”, Chem. Mater. 2018, 30, 6915−6921) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Saparov et al (US 20210115329 A1). Regarding claim 5, Akkerman teaches the colloid in claim 1. Akkerman teaches colloidal metal halide nanocrystals (NCs) RbAg4I5 as an alternative to lead halide perovskite NCs for LED application [P6920 left col. last line], but does not teach that the NCs can be Rb2MX3. In the same field of endeavor, Saparov teaches Nanoparticles comprising inorganic perovskite compounds such as Rb2CuX3 (X=Br, Cl or I) as a lead perovskite alternative for LED application [0007, 0030]. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose where the equivalence is recognized by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06. Since Akkerman and Saparov recognized RbAg4I5 and Rb2CuX3 are equivalent for the same purpose as a lead perovskite alternative for LED application, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to substitute RbAg4I5 with Rb2CuX3 in Akkerman’s colloid. Regarding claim 7, Saparov teaches that the Rb2CuX3 has a Pnma orthorhombic crystal structure [0033]. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman et al (“Molecular Iodine for a General Synthesis of Binary and Ternary Inorganic and Hybrid Organic−Inorganic Iodide Nanocrystals”, Chem. Mater. 2018, 30, 6915−6921) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ren et al (“Tuning Magnetism and Photocurrent in Mn-Doped Organic−Inorganic Perovskites”, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2020, 11, 2577−2584). Regarding claim 6, Akkerman teaches the colloid in claim 1. Akkerman teaches colloidal metal halide nanocrystals (NCs) RbAg4I5 as an alternative to lead halide perovskite NCs for photovoltaic application [P6919 right col. last para.], but does not teach that each nanocrystal is further doped with Mn3+. In the same field of endeavor, Ren teaches doping perovskites with Mn [abstract]. Mn doping allows for modulation of photovoltaic and photoelectric performance in hybrid perovskites [P2578 left col. line 8]. Note that at least a portion of Mn is Mn3+ [P2577 abstract and right col.]. The improvements associated with Mn doping appear to arise from its interaction with iodide ions [paragraph spanning P2579-2580]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have Akkerman’s iodide-containing perovskite NCs doped with M3+ in order to gain a similar benefit. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGTIAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 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, Robert Jones can be reached on (571) 270-7733. 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. /JIANGTIAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595323
VINYL ACETATE-BASED COPOLYMER DISPERSIONS WITH SMALL PARTICLE SIZE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588676
EPOXIDIZED OIL-BASED SURFACTANT AND COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584272
SACCHARIDE FATTY ACID ESTER LATEX BARRIER COATING COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583969
METHOD FOR THE CONTINUOUS PREPARATION OF POLYAMIDE PREPOLYMERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577445
DISPERSION ADHESIVES
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 321 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