Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/026,275

WATER-SOLUBLE TRYPTHANTRIN DERIVATIVES FOR REDOX FLOW BATTERIES

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Mar 14, 2023
Examiner
LI, AIQUN
Art Unit
1766
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
523 granted / 822 resolved
-1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
865
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.3%
+5.3% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 822 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group III, Formula(I) wherein R is SO3H and R’ is H, claims 23 and 35-37 in the reply filed on 7 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 24-34 and 38-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention /species. Claim Objections Claims 23 and 35-37 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 35 recites “trypthantrin”, which appears to be “tryptanthrin”. 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 23 and 35-37 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation of an alkyl group, and the claim also recites “preferably selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, ..”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 36 improperly recite the Markush group “selected from the group consisting of ionic liquids, ethanol, glycerol or PEG” in line 3 and 4 in the form of “selected from the group consisting of A, B, or C”, i.e., which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. A proper Markush groups may be recited as "...selected from the group consisting of A, B and C" or "...selected from A, B or C." See MPEP § 2173.05(h). 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claims 23 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)as being anticipated by CN105153148A (Gu), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement. Gu teaches a solution comprises sulfonated tryptanthrin in saturated sodium chloride ([0009]), thus the presence of water and sodium chloride, which meets the claimed polar solvent and supporting electrolyte, respectively, wherein the sulfonated tryptanthrin has the structure of ([0007]-[0009]) : PNG media_image1.png 168 362 media_image1.png Greyscale and the sulfonation is carried in fuming sulfuric acid ([0009]) thus the presence of H+, which anticipates the instantly claimed formula (I) wherein R is SO3H, R’ and R’’ both are H, thus the claimed anolyte solution. The recitation “anolyte” in the preamble is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. The recitation “for a redox flow battery ” is interpreted as an intended use since there is no apparent structural difference required by the composition other than that recited in the body of the claim (see MPEP2111.02, II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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. /AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600894
LIGNIN-BASED DRILLING FLUIDS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597596
NANO-SILICON-GRAPHITE COMPOSITE NEGATIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL WITH CARBON COATING AND ALUMINUM METAPHOSPHATE COMPOSITE MODIFICATION LAYER ON SURFACE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592654
MOISTURE ENABLED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION MATERIALS AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577451
POLYANIONIC SURFACTANTS AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576430
Method of Pretreating a Pipeline or Apparatus
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+22.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 822 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