Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/973,592

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING PHOTOELECTRIC CONVERSION ELEMENT AND OPTICAL SENSOR

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 09, 2024
Examiner
LEONG, NATHAN T
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Magnolia White Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
527 granted / 745 resolved
+5.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
49.6%
+9.6% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 745 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 7-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,542. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6 of ‘542 teach all of the claimed limitations of the instant case, including a method of manufacturing a photoelectric conversion element comprising an active layer with Chemical Formulas 1-3, and all the claimed first layer precursor steps with the first and second heating steps (see claim 1 of ‘542). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-12 contain allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Takimoto et al US 5486442 and Takekoshi et al US 4716216 are considered the closest prior art of record. Takimoto teaches a method for manufacturing a photoelectric conversion element comprising forming a compound represented by Formulas 1-2 (see col. 9 formulas and col. 10 lines 10-52), wherein a first layer is formed by applying polyamic acid (col. 10, lines 10-52, col. 12, lines 29-55), a first heating step at, for example, 120C for 30 min, followed by a second heating step at over 200 degrees C (see Example 11). However, the second heating step of imidizing the polyamic acid is performed over several hours. Takekoshi teaches a similar process of forming crystalline polyimides using a two-stage process (abstract and col. 6, lines 3-21). None of the prior art teach all of the claimed limitations including the two-step heating process for the claimed durations to form the claimed formulas. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN T. LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:00pm. 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 on 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. /NATHAN T LEONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 09, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590461
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584234
CASING STRUCTURE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582778
SURFACE COATING LAYER FORMATION METHOD AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING GASKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576416
INTELLIGENT MARKING PAINT APPLICATOR SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565706
ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIER COATING AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
71%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 745 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