Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/465,749

HIERARCHICAL NANOPOROUS DIAMONDOID SUPERSTRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§112§DP
Filed
Sep 12, 2023
Examiner
JARRELL, NOBLE E
Art Unit
1699
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
King Abdulaziz City For Science And Technology
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
824 granted / 1014 resolved
+21.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1070
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
41.9%
+1.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112 §DP
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 hexakis[(4,4’-bipyridin-1-ium)methylene]benzene the reply filed on 2026 February 19 is acknowledged. A search of this group has been done (shown below). A search has been extended to the scope of claim 21. PNG media_image1.png 380 514 media_image1.png Greyscale Due to a search of claim 21 being searched beyond the elected species, the restriction is withdrawn. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 21-41, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 2025 December 12 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025 August 7 were submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claims 21-41 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “tripodal confirmation” should be “tripodal conformation”. The definition of confirmation includes beliefs (“Confirmation definition and meaning”, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/confirmation, accessed 10 December 2022, cited in second 2025 August 7 IDS). The definition of “conformation in organic chemistry is related to the spatial arrangement of atoms or group (“Conformation”, IUPAC Gold book, accessed 10 December 2022, last revised 2014, cited in second 2025 August 7 IDS). PNG media_image2.png 213 641 media_image2.png Greyscale Appropriate correction is required. 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 21-41 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. Claims 21-23 and 26-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the required structural features of the organic ion. Neither the molecular hub nor the arms have any recited structural features. Claim 21 only recites that the organic ion is capable of adopting a tripodal conformation. Without any recited structural elements, the metes and bounds of the organic ion are unclear. BELCHER (Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, 2006, 4, 781-786) describes compounds 1a-b and 2a-b. In these compound, the following definitions apply: the organic ion has a 2,4,6-triethylbenzene hub and either three CH2-pyridinium-pyridine arms or CH2-pyridinium-CO2-Et arms (pages 781 and 785). The counterion is Br- or [PF6]-. PNG media_image3.png 204 208 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 155 167 media_image4.png Greyscale TANABE (Chemistry Letters, 2008, 37(12), 1208-1209) describes compounds 1-3. In these compounds, the following definitions apply: the organic ion has a benzene hub and three substituted CH2-pyridinium-(3,4,5-tridodecyl)phenyl arms (page 1208). The counterions are [PF6]-, ]BF4]-, and Br-. These compounds are tripodal (page 1209, column 1, paragraph 3). PNG media_image5.png 280 377 media_image5.png Greyscale Belcher and Tanabe describe tripodal compounds with ligands attached to a central phenyl ring. Without clear metes and bounds recited, any composition comprising an organic ion capable of adopting of a tripodal conformation and a counterion meets the limitations of claim 21. Claims 24 and 25 recite the limitation that the organic ion is hexacationic hexakis[(4,4'- bipyridin-1-ium)methylene]benzene. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because parent claim 1 does not recite any structural requirements for an organic ion. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. 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) 21-33 and 35-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GUO (Chem, 2019, 5, 2353-2364, published online 2019 July 15). Guo describes tripodal compounds 1 and 2 (page 2355, figure 1, level 1 to page 2358, paragraph 1). In these compounds six instances of a pyridyl-pyridinium-methylene- or phenyl- pyridinium-methylene- ligand is connected to a central phenyl ring. Supramolecular forms are described (page 2355, figure 1, level 2). Composition are described (page 2358, paragraph 2 to page 2361, paragraph 2). A method of preparation is described (page 2358, paragraph 2; page 2362, paragraphs 3 and 5). A method of sequestration of contaminant ions is described (page 2359, last paragraph to page 2361, paragraph 3). PNG media_image6.png 680 758 media_image6.png Greyscale Claim(s) 21, 23, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BELCHER (Organic and Biomolecular Chemistry, 2006, 4, 781-786). Belcher describes compounds 1a-b and 2a-b, in which the following definitions apply: the organic ion has a 2,4,6-triethylbenzene hub and either three CH2-pyridinium-pyridine arms or CH2-pyridinium-CO2-Et arms (pages 781 and 785). The counterion is Br- or [PF6]-. Each anionic host is tripodal (abstract). Supramolecular assemblies are shown (page 789, figure 6). These compounds can bind ATP2- in CH3CN (abstract, page 785, column 1, second paragraph to column 2, first paragraph). Slow evaporation is used to prepare a crystalline composition (page 784, column 1, paragraph 3). PNG media_image3.png 204 208 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 155 167 media_image4.png Greyscale Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under TANABE (Chemistry Letters, 2008, 37(12), 1208-1209). Tanabe describes compounds 1-3, in which the following definitions apply: the organic ion has a benzene hub and three substituted CH2-pyridinium-(3,4,5-tridodecyl)phenyl arms (page 1208). The counterions are [PF6]-, ]BF4]-, and Br-. These compounds are tripodal (page 1209, column 1, paragraph 3). PNG media_image5.png 280 377 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 147 385 media_image7.png Greyscale Claim(s) 21, 23, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under TANABE (Chemistry Letters, 2014, 43, 184-186). Tanabe describes compounds 1 and 2, in which the following definitions apply: the organic ion has a benzene hub and three substituted CH2-[quinolinium or pyridinium]-(3,4-di(O-dodecyl)phenyl arms (page 184). The counterion is [PF6]- (page 184). Each anionic host is tripodal (abstract). Supramolecular assemblies are shown (page 186, figure 4). PNG media_image8.png 443 368 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 316 375 media_image9.png Greyscale Double Patenting Claims 21-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11753396. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the composition of claim 1 of US 11753396 is the same as the elected species of the examined application and meets the requirements of examined claim 1. Claims 6-10 of US 11753396 are drawn to a supramolecular assembly. Claims 11-13 of US 11753396 are drawn to a crystalline composition. Claims 14 and 15 of US 11753396 are drawn to a method of producing a composition. Claims 16-18 of US 11753396 are drawn to a sequestering a contaminant ion. PNG media_image10.png 242 332 media_image10.png Greyscale Conclusion Claims 21-41 are not allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOBLE E JARRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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. /NOBLE E JARRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595235
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING 4,5-DIHYDRO-1H-PYRAZOLES AND INTERMEDIATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595265
INHIBITORS OF ACTIVIN RECEPTOR-LIKE KINASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588410
ORGANIC ELECTROLUMINESCENT MATERIAL AND METHOD PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570660
PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PYRIMIDINO-DIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570626
DEGRADERS AND DEGRONS FOR TARGETED PROTEIN DEGRADATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.7%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 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