Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/772,577

MITIGATING THE ZINCATE EFFECT IN ENERGY DENSE MANGANESE DIOXIDE ELECTRODES

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Examiner
CHOI, EVERETT TIMOTHY
Art Unit
1751
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Research Foundation Of The City University Of New York
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
17%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
-2%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 17% of cases
17%
Career Allow Rate
2 granted / 12 resolved
-48.3% vs TC avg
Minimal -18% lift
Without
With
+-18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
67
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
59.4%
+19.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 12 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered. Status of claims Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1,3,12 and 16 is/are amended; claim(s) 21-22 and 24-25 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-3,5,8-10,12,16,18-19 and 31-32 are pending review in this Office action. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment. Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 09/15/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-3,5,8-10,12,16,18-19 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav et al. (US-20170110765-A1 cited in 03/21/2025 Office action) in view of Liu et al. (Metal (Ni, Co)-Metal Oxides/Graphene Nanocomposites as Multifunctional Electrocatalysts; see copy provided with this Office action). Regarding claim 1, Yadav discloses a battery comprising: a housing 6; an electrolyte disposed in the housing; and an anode comprising an anode material 5 ([0019], FIG. 1) such as zinc and zinc oxide ([0045]) disposed in the housing; and a cathode 12 disposed in the housing 6 and comprising a cathode material 2 comprising manganese dioxide and a bismuth oxide ([0019-0020], [0022], FIG. 1). Yadav discloses the inclusion of a conductive carbon ([0024]) and a conductive metal additive such as Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag and salts thereof ([0025]). However, Yadav fails to further provide a conductive carbon coated with a material comprising an oxide/hydroxide phase of Ni, Cu, Sn, Al, Co, or Ag wherein the material forms a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface of the conductive carbon as claimed. Wu teaches a similar conductive coated carbon which is graphene with metal oxide layer formed as a plated coating on an exterior surface on the conductive carbon (Wu, abstract, FIG. 5d), this composite having improved electrical conductivity (Wu pp. 114 col. 2 ¶2, pp. 113 Table 2), surface area availability, and reduced agglomeration (pp. 121 col. 1 ¶2, FIG. 5d). As such, in seeking improvements to agglomeration resistance, surface area, and electrical conductivity, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to select an oxide of Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag as the conductive metal additive from Yadav’s metal salts (Yadav [0025], Wu pp. 121 col. 1 ¶2) and select graphene or graphene oxide as the conductive carbon (Yadav [0024], Wu pp. 114 col. 2 ¶1, pp. 113 Table 2) as taught by Wu. It would likewise be obvious to coat graphene as the conductive carbon with a material comprising an oxide phase of Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag, as the conductive metal additive, wherein the material forms a metallic layer formed as a plated coating on an exterior surface on the conductive carbon, and wherein the conductive carbon comprises graphene or graphene oxide as further taught by Wu (pp. 121 col. 1 ¶2, FIG. 5d). Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Yadav discloses the use of graphene as the conductive carbon (Yadav [0024]) and envisions the use of salts of Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag ([0025]), this being similar in scope to the selection of oxides of Ni, Cu, Al, Co, or Ag. Regarding claim 2, modified Yadav further discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode material further comprises copper or a copper-based compound (Yadav [0020-0021]) Regarding claim 3, modified Yadav further discloses the battery of claim 3, wherein an anode comprises 13.6 g zinc powder, 1.6 g zinc oxide, and 0.8 g TEFLON® (Yadav [0045]), equivalent to an anode comprising 95 wt% zinc which is within the claimed range of ≥50 wt%. Regarding claim 5, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the manganese dioxide comprises alpha- manganese dioxide, beta-manganese dioxide, gamma-manganese dioxide, lambda- manganese dioxide, epsilon-manganese dioxide, delta-manganese dioxide (or birnessite), electrolytic manganese dioxide (EMD), or a combination thereof (Yadav [0020]) Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein (claim 8) the cathode further comprises copper or a copper-based compound (Yadav [0020-0021]), and wherein (claim 9) the copper-based compound is copper aluminum oxide, copper (I) oxide, copper (II) oxide, and/or copper salts in a +1, +2, +3, or +4 oxidation state (Yadav [0023]) Regarding claims 10 and 12 , modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein (claim 10) the electrode cathode material further comprises a binder, and wherein the binder comprises a polytetrafluoroethylene (“TEFLON®”), a cellulose-based hydrogel, or a combination thereof (Yadav [0026]), and wherein (claim 12) the electrode cathode material further comprises a binder ([0021]), and wherein the binder is a cellulose-based hydrogel crosslinked with a copolymer selected from the group consisting of a polyvinyl alcohol, a polyvinylacetate, a polyaniline, a polyvinylpyrrolidone, a polyvinylidene fluoride, a polypyrrole, and combinations thereof ([0026]) Regarding claim 16, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1. An experimental example of a battery comprises 35 wt% MnO2, 7 wt% Bi2O3, 30% copper, 28% CNT as a conductive carbon, and 0% binder (Yadav [0045]). While modified Yadav fails to explicitly indicate a mass percentage of coated conductive carbon, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the CNT conductive carbon of this example with graphene as Yadav recognizes these conductive carbons as substitutable equivalents (Yadav [0024]) (MPEP 2144.06 II), and to modify the graphene conductive carbon with a metallic layer as a plated coating on an exterior surface according to Wu’s teaching (see discussion of claim 1) to arrive at a battery wherein the cathode comprises 35 wt% MnO2, 7 wt% Bi2O3, 30% copper, 28% of the coated conductive carbon, and 0 wt% binder, this proportion being within the ranges claimed in claim 16. Regarding claim 18, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1 wherein the battery further comprises a current collector 1, 4 for the cathode and the anode (Yadav FIG. 1, [0019]), wherein the current collector is selected from the group consisting of: a copper mesh ([0045]), a nickel mesh, a nickel foil, a copper plated nickel mesh or foil, and a nickel-plated copper mesh or foil ([0033]). Regarding claim 19, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises an alkaline hydroxide selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, or a combination thereof (Yadav [0033]). Regarding claim 31, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 18, wherein the current collector is the nickel foil (Yadav [0033]). Regarding claim 32, modified Yadav discloses the battery of claim 19, wherein the electrolyte comprises potassium hydroxide (Yadav [0033]). Response to Arguments Applicants’ arguments with respect to rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the previously cited combination of Yadav and Kim (“Electrical conductivity enhancement of metallic single-walled carbon nanotube networks by CoO decoration”; copy in 09/15/2025 Office action) (see Remarks filed 12/12/2025 pp. 9-13) have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment necessitated a different interpretation of Yadav as laid out in the rejections of record, or are moot as the claim amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under new prior art discussed above. Specifically, Kim, relied upon to teach the structure of a conductive carbon (CNT) coated with an oxide of cobalt, is no longer relied upon in the most recent Office action of record. Applicants’ amendment to claim 16 overcomes the minor typographic error that formed the basis of objection; the objection to this claim is consequently withdrawn. Applicants’ amendment to claim 3 overcome the rejection to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112 on the basis that claim 3, reciting “zinc or zinc oxide”, was broader than the parent claim 1 reciting “zinc and zinc oxide”. The limitation of claim 3 in question has been removed; thus, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112 is withdrawn. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00. 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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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. /E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/3/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jun 20, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12494537
BATTERY MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12381237
FUEL CELL STACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 05, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 2 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
17%
Grant Probability
-2%
With Interview (-18.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 12 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