Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/416,325

SCALABLE METHOD FOR ACHIEVING SHAPE CONTROL OF DIAMOND MICRO-NANOPARTICLES

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 18, 2024
Examiner
GAMBETTA, KELLY M
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Dongguan Institute Of Opto-Electronics Peking University
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
665 granted / 924 resolved
+7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+32.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
970
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
55.0%
+15.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 924 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that the arguments indicate that the limitations of claim 4 have been added to claim 1, but this is inaccurate. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for performing a treatment on larger diamond particles depending on their particle size as in amended claim 1, does not reasonably provide enablement for treating both particle sizes as the same time or separating the particle sizes as is broadly included in the amended claim language. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. According to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the claims are broad and indefinite regarding how the larger diamond particles are determined or selected and the disclosure/examples does not provide guidance. The state of the prior art does not teach a selection method, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art find it apparent which method to use nor would the selection be predictable. Thus, the amount of experimentation to make and use the invention is unreasonable. 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 and 8-9 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "those larger diamond micro-nanoparticles" in both lines 15 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as both mentions of this term require different method steps. Further, referring to two sets of “those larger diamond micro-nanoparticles" is confusing and indefinite. Are there two sets created by the mixing and spin coating steps that are separated? Or can the mixing and spin coating steps only create one set of larger diamond nanoparticles (either 10-500 nm or 500 nm-10 micron)? Clarification in the claim language is required. The examiner recommends either limiting “larger diamond micro-nanoparticle" to only one of the sizes. Or, defining a determining step where the size is limited to either of the two steps, or, a separate steps where both occur to make the claim definite. All amendments must be supported in the instant specification. Claims 8-9 include a ‘high pressure’ without any further clarification but appears to be atmospheric pressure in the air, but clarification is required. The ‘high temperature’ is assumed to be the ranges given in the claim, but clarification is required. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30. 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. KELLY M. GAMBETTA Primary Examiner Art Unit 1718 /KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 18, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 03, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601875
OPTICAL DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589578
ULTRATHIN GRAPHENE/POLYMER LAMINATE FILMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583798
ATOMIC LAYER DEPOSITION METHOD ENHANCING THE NUCLEATION AND CRYSTALLINITY OF A BORON NITRIDE INTERFACE COATING ON A SILICON CARBIDE FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577657
VIBRO-THERMALLY ASSISTED CHEMICAL VAPOR INFILTRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580173
ELECTRODE PLATE ROLLING APPARATUS AND ELECTRODE PLATE ROLLING METHOD
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+32.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 924 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