Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/038,158

METHOD FOR PRODUCING NANODIAMOND DISPERSION COMPOSITION AND NANODIAMOND DISPERSION COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
May 22, 2023
Priority
Dec 25, 2020 — JP 2020-216367 +1 more
Examiner
FIORITO, JAMES A
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Daicel Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allowance Rate
503 granted / 712 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
748
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 712 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 and 6-9 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 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 claim 1, the phrase “observing one or more of the nanodiamond dispersion compositions obtained in the separating, using a microscope, to obtain a classified and purified nanodiamond dispersion composition” is indefinite because it is unclear how an observational step without any physical manipulations to change the composition can be performed to “obtain a classified and purified nanodiamond dispersion composition.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koniakhin, “Ultracentrifugation for ultrafine nanodiamond fractionation”. Regarding claim 1, Koniakhin teaches a process of ultracentrifugation for ultrafine nondiamond fractionation (Title). The process includes subjecting a mixture of nanodiamonds and deionized water to centrifugation (Experimental). The centrifugation was performed in tube wherein the top of the supernatant was separated from the bottom, which are considered layers (Experimental). After centrifugation larger particles were concentrated at the bottom of the tube and polyethylene glycol was added to prevent the larger particles from reentering the supernatant (Experiment). In Koniakhin the number of nanodiamond particles having a particle size of 20 nm or greater in a microscopic field of view of 1 µm² is inherently smaller than the number of nanodiamond particles having a particle size of 20 nm or greater in a microscopic field of view of 1 µm² in the crude nanodiamond dispersion composition because the larger particles are collected at the bottom of the centrifuge tube (Experimental). Regarding claim 2, Koniakhin does not expressly state that the number of nanodiamond particles having a particle size of 20 nm or greater in the classified and purified nanodiamond dispersion composition is 20 or less. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112. The supernatant of Koniakhin is substantially similar because the large particles are collected at the bottom of the centrifuge tube (Experimental) and the size of nanodiamonds in the supernatant is about 6nm (See Results and Discussion). Regarding claim 3 and 6, the polyethylene glycol is used to functionalize the particles so that they do not return to the supernatant (Experimental). Polyethylene glycol forms a polyoxyalkylene chain according to applicant’s teachings in the specification (See Instant Specification, Paragraph [0080]). Regarding claim 4, and 7-9, the suspension may include water (Experimental). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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. /JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12612344
CATALYSTS AND METHODS FOR NATURAL GAS PROCESSES
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12606447
MESOPOROUS SILICA MANUFACTURED IN THE PRESENCE OF WATER-SOLUBLE ODSO
2y 11m to grant Granted Apr 21, 2026
Patent 12600626
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OZONE DEGRADATION FOR A PLASMA TREATMENT SYSTEM
4y 9m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600643
POWDER FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
1y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595184
INORGANIC OXIDE PARTICLES
1y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.2%)
2y 11m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 712 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