Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/137,538

Method of Selective Deposition of Small Molecules on Metal Surfaces

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 21, 2023
Examiner
MAYY, MOHAMMAD
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSITE LAVAL
OA Round
4 (Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
194 granted / 408 resolved
-17.5% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
440
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
58.6%
+18.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 408 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 25, 28-29, 32 are objected/rejected Claims 1-24, 26-27, 30-31, 33-36 are allowed 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 25, 28-29, 32 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 25, 28-29, 32 depends on claim 1, as claim 1 states: “an N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) precursor that is a salt of NHC that comprises an anion selected from the group consisting of bicarbonate, carbonate, halide, triflate, cyanide, and azide”. Where claim 25, discloses chemical compounds with imidazole as group for NHC, which is not listed in claim 1. Where claim 28, discloses expands the list with additional groups of NHC, such as alkyl, and many others, which are not listed in claim 1. Where claim 29, discloses a list of groups that are not in claim 1. Where claim 32, discloses chemical compounds with imidazole as group for salt of NHC, which is not listed in claim 1. 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. Allowable Subject Matter The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior arts of record discloses or suggests the claim 1 including the deposition process comprising the selectively chemisorbing onto a metal surface of substrate, where the substrate include additionally non-metal or metal oxide surface, of an NHC (N-heterocyclic carbene) precursor that is a salt of NHC that comprises an anion selected from the group consisting of bicarbonate, carbonate, halide, triflate, cyanide, and azide; as claimed. None of the prior arts of record discloses or suggests the claim 2 including the deposition process comprising the selectively chemisorbing onto a metal surface of substrate, of an NHC (N-heterocyclic carbene) precursor that is a salt of NHC that comprises an anion selected from the group consisting of bicarbonate, carbonate, halide, triflate, cyanide, and azide; as claimed. In light of the country as where the applicant and attorney reside, outside the USA, a phone call was not permitted to correct the 112d issued with an examiners amendment. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-24, 26-27, 30-31, 33-36 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, an allowance is in order. Moreover, in light on the 112D rejection of claims 25, 28-29 and 32, a final rejection is mailed. All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation. 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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /Mohammad Mayy/ Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 21, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 25, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 31, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jul 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Nov 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 02, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603199
METHOD FOR IMPROVING ANTI-REDUCTION PERFORMANCE OF PTC THERMOSENSITIVE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595551
METHOD FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT OF PARTICLES OF A METAL POWDER AND METAL POWDER PARTICLES OBTAINED THEREBY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577732
METHOD OF MAKING FIRE RETARDANT MATERIALS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12546010
Turbine Engine Shaft Coating
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12546001
COMPOSITION FOR DEPOSITING A SILICON-CONTAINING LAYER AND METHOD OF DEPOSITING A SILICON-CONTAINING LAYER USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 408 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