Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/127,941

METHOD FOR MAKING HIGH FIGURE-OF-MERIT NANOSTRUCTURED THERMOELECTRIC MATERIALS

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 29, 2023
Examiner
RUMP, RICHARD M
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Indian Institute Of Science Education And Research, Pune (Iiser Pune)
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
782 granted / 1054 resolved
+9.2% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
1096
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1054 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . 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. Status of Application Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have NOT been received. Accordingly, the earliest effective filing date of the instant claims is that of the US filing, 29 March 2023. An intervening reference is being applied and Applicants are reminded that a certified human translation of the priority document must also be filed to perfect the foreign priority date and thusly overcome any intervening rejection. Claim Objections Claims 1-12 are objected to for failing to utilize chemical subscripts (“Ag2Te” should read --Ag2Te--). Claim 1 is objected to as it is two sentences. Claims must only be one sentence (See MPEP §608.01(n)). Claims 2 and 7 are objected to as the micron symbol shows up as a square. Claim 6 is objected to as “Silver’ and “Tellurium” in limitation a should read --silver—and --tellurium—to comply with IUPAC element naming conventions. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 7-12 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 7-12 are drawn to “The method as clamed in claim 1”, but claim 1 is a product and as such they are unable to further limit a method. It appears that these claims should be dependent upon claim 6 which is a method of making and accordingly this is how the claims are being construed for the purposes of compact prosecution. 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 § 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. Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Synergistic Approach Toward a Reproducible High zT in n‑Type and p‑Type Superionic Thermoelectric Ag2Te” to Jakhar et al. (hereinafter, “Jakhar at __”). This reference names Jakhar and Singh who are the named inventors in the instant application but also names as authors Bisht and Katre, and given that foreign priority conditions are not met the reference qualifies as prior art. Regarding claims 1 and 3, Jakhar discloses a high-density nanostructured pellet of thermoelectric material suitable for near-room temperature applications comprising Ag2Te having a ZT of 1.2 at 570-600 K (Jakhar at 53924 L col). As to claim 2, the diameter is 20 nm (Jakhar at 53920 L col). Turning to claim 4, the density is 100% (“Table 1 CP1”). Concerning claims 6, 10 and 12, the material of claim 1 (with the same amount of Ag/Te as added) is made by a process comprising: Providing Ag and Te powders (Jakhar at 53924 R col); Loading the powders into a stainless steel container using Ar along with stainless-steel balls (Id.); Milling of the powders in a vibration mill at a frequency of 2 Hz (Id.) for 2.33 hours (“Table 1. CP1”); Consolidating the formed nanoparticle at RT using KBr cold-press die to obtain high density pellets of the nanoparticles (53924 R col). As to claim 7, ratio is 2:1 (Id.). Regarding claim 9, Ar gas is utilized (id.). Turning to claim 11, while the die set size or pressure are not disclosed given that the same product is formed it would thusly follow as inherent that the same process step must occur. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Facile synthesis of Ag2Te nanowires and thermoelectric properties of Ag2Te polycrystals sintered by spark plasma sintering” to Chang et al. (hereinafter, “Chang at __”; cited and provided by Applicants). Regarding claims 1 and 3, Chang discloses a 70.58% dense (versus theoretical; Chang at “Table 1”) nanostructured nanowire (meeting broadest reasonable interpretation of pellet as sintering is performed) comprising Ag2Te having a zT of over 1 at 600 K (Chang at “Figure 8(f)”). Turning to claim 2, the diameter is ~200 nm (Chang at “Abstract”). 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. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakhar as applied to claim 1 and 6 (respectively) above. As to claim 5, “no pores” (Jakhar at 53922 R col, or 100% dense per “Table 1 CP1”) are observed which overlaps “about 0.1%” as claimed and is thusly prima facie obvious (see MPEP §2144.05). Turning to claim 8, the ratio in Jakhar is 1:2.5 which is considered to abut upon “1:2.4” which is thusly prima facie obvious. Conclusion Claims 1-12 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM. 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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. RICHARD M. RUMP Primary Examiner Art Unit 1759 /RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 29, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595213
PREPARATION METHOD OF SUB-MICRON POWDER OF HIGH-ENTROPY NITRIDE VIA NITRIDE THERMAL REDUCTION WITH SOFT MECHANO-CHEMICAL ASSISTANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582964
PURIFICATION OF AMINES BY ADSORPTION USING A SUPER ADSORBENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577366
CATALYSTS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING RECYCLED POLYESTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577461
A METHOD FOR PRODUCING QUANTUM DOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577112
CARBON FIBER MATERIALS FROM WASTE POLYETHYLENE AND POLYETHYLENE OIL
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
74%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+20.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1054 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