Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/270,714

METHOD FOR REGULATING ELECTRON MOBILITY OF ZINC OXIDE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 30, 2023
Examiner
CHU, YONG LIANG
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
TCL Technology Group Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
1057 granted / 1414 resolved
+9.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
1458
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
33.8%
-6.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1414 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1, 3, 7, and 28 have been amended. Claims 2, 5-6, 11-12, and 14-26 are cancelled. New claims 29-35 are added. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, and 27-35 are pending. Response to Amendment The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. Charles S. Ho on 02/12/2026 has been entered. New claims 29-35 are drawn to a method for regulating an electron mobility of a zinc oxide wherein the obtained the zinc oxide nano-particles with the surface hydroxyl content less than or equal to 0.4, while claim 1 is drawn to a method for regulating an electron mobility of a zinc oxide wherein the obtained the zinc oxide nano-particles with the surface hydroxyl content greater than or equal to 0.6. New claims 29-35 are drawn to a different invention from one of claim 1. Claims 29-35 require different search and examination from present invention under examination. Therefore, new claims 29-35 are withdrawn from further consideration as non-elected subject matter. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, and 27-28 are under examination on the merits. Response to Arguments/Amendments Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b) Applicant canceled the rejected claim 2. The rejection of claim 2 and its dependent claims is moot. Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1) Applicant amended claims 1 and 28 by further limiting “wherein the surface hydroxyl content represents a ratio of a hydroxyl content of a surface of the zinc oxide; wherein the surface hydroxyl content of the zinc oxide is controlled to be greater than or equal to 0.6 during the preparation of the zinc oxide; and wherein the zinc oxide is zinc oxide nano-particles and a method of controlling the surface hydroxyl content of the zinc oxide comprises: collecting a precipitate after mixing a zinc salt solution with a first lye; and dissolving the precipitate after being cleaning treatment to obtain a zinc oxide colloidal solution; and adding a second lye to the zinc oxide colloidal solution, adjusting a pH value of the zinc oxide colloidal solution to be greater than or equal to 8, and preparing the zinc oxide nano-particles with the surface hydroxyl content greater than or equal to 0.6.” In addition, Applicant argued that `535 publication does not teach the surface hydroxyl content of the zinc oxide being greater than or equal to 0.6, nor the method to obtain the zinc oxide nano-particles with the surface hydroxyl content greater than or equal to 0.6. In addition, Applicant argued that `535 publication fails to disclose "collecting a precipitate after mixing a zinc salt solution with a first lye; and dissolving the precipitate after being cleaning treatment to obtain a zinc oxide colloidal solution; and adding a second lye to the zinc oxide colloidal solution, adjusting a pH value of the zinc oxide colloidal solution to be greater than or equal to 8, and preparing the zinc oxide nano-particles with the surface hydroxyl content greater than or equal to 0.6”. Applicant’s amendment and argument are sufficient to overcome the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn. Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a) Applicant’s amendment and argument are sufficient to overcome the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are necessitated by the amendment filed 02/12/2026: 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, 3-4, 7-10, 13, and 27-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 1 contain the phrases “wherein the surface hydroxyl content represents a ratio of a hydroxyl content of a surface of the zinc oxide”. By definition, a “ratio” is a mathematical comparison of two or more quantities by division, indicating how they relate to each other in terms of size. However, claim 1 does not define the two or more quantities of the ratio. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 3-4, 7-10, 13, and 27 depending on claim 1 are rejected, accordingly. Claim 28 is also rejected for indefiniteness because it contains the phrase "surface hydroxyl content greater than or equal to 0.6" not defined in the claim. The definition of "surface hydroxyl content greater than or equal to 0.6" may need to be incorporated into claim 28 in light of Applicant’s response as “a ratio of a hydroxyl oxygen peak area to a lattice oxygen peak area of XPS spectrum is the proportion of hydroxyl content PNG media_image1.png 60 107 media_image1.png Greyscale ”. Conclusions Claims 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, and 27-28 are rejected. Claims 29-35 are withdrawn. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Telephone Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 30, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599858
PROCESS FOR THE REMOVAL OF PARTICULATE MATTER FROM AN AQUEOUS STREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599896
SOLID HEAT CARRIER CATALYST FOR THERMAL DESORPTION OF ORGANIC MATTER-CONTAMINATED SOIL AND METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599895
FISCHER-TROPSCH CATALYSTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593814
ANIMAL LITTER MADE FROM RENEWABLE RESOURCES WITH PERFORMANCE BETTER THAN BENTONITE CLAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594542
HOLLOW SPHERICAL CATALYST FOR FIXED BED WITH INTERNAL FLUIDIZATION OF PARTICLES, AND METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+3.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1414 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