Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/553,325

ELECTRONICALLY CONDUCTIVE MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 29, 2023
Examiner
ZENG, LINGWEN R
Art Unit
1723
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sakai Chemical Industry Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
398 granted / 522 resolved
+11.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
544
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
61.6%
+21.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 522 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) were submitted on 09/29/2023 and 10/14/2025 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 1-5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2020/0058945 to Yano et al . With respect to claim 1, Yano et al. teach a n electrically conductive material comprising: titanium oxide ( rutile titanium oxide ) ; and noble oxide ( iridium oxide ) on the titanium oxide ( the rutile titanium oxide ) (Yano et al.: Section [0082]); wherein rutile titanium oxide is titanium oxide and iridium oxide is noble oxide (Yano et al.: Sections [0060] and [0077]) ; a percentage of a total noble oxide ( iridium element ) in the electrically conductive material being 0.1 to 30 parts by weight ( 30 mass % or less ) based on a total 100 mass % of the titanium oxide and the iridium (Yano et al.: Section [0078]). Yano et al. teaches the same composition of the iridium element in the electrically conductive material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed electrically conductive material and those disclosed by Yano et al., it would have expected for the electrically conductive material of Yano et al. to have a percentage of the iridium element as measured by XPS being 30 at % or more based on a total 100 at % of the titanium element and the iridium element as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise. With respect to claim 2, Yano et al. teach the electrically conductive material , wherein the titanium oxide ( the rutile titanium oxide ) has a BET specific surface area of 20 m 2 /g or more (the overlapping range is 20-50 m 2 /g ) (Yano et al.: Section [0082]). With respect to claim 3, Yano et al. teach an electrode material comprising the electrically conductive material (Yano et al.: Sections [0076] and [0094]). With respect to claim 4, Yano et al. teach an electrode material comprising the electrically conductive material; the electrically conductive material supporting or being mixed with at least one of a noble metal or a noble metal-containing compound, the noble metal comprising at least one selected from platinum, iridium, and ruthenium, the noble metal-containing compound comprising at least one selected from platinum, iridium, and ruthenium (Yano et al.: Sections [0076] and [0094]). With respect to claim 5, Yano et al. teach the electrode material , wherein the electrode material is for use in a fuel cell (Yano et al.: Sections [0076] and [0095]). With respect to claim 7, Yano et al. teach an electrode comprising the electrode material (Yano et al.: Sections [0076] and [0094]). With respect to claim 8, Yano et al. teach a fuel cell comprising the electrode (Yano et al.: Sections [0076] and [0095]). With respect to claim 10, Yano et al. teach a method of producing the electrically conductive material, the method comprising supporting iridium oxide on rutile titanium oxide (Yano et al.: Sections [0076] and [0095]). Claim s 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2020/0058945 to Yano et al . in view of US Patent Application Publication 2024/0014408 to Fathi Tovini et al. With respect to claim 6, Yano et al. do not specifically teach the electrode material, wherein the electrode material is for use in a water electrolysis cell. However, Fathi Tovini et al. teach a water electroly sis cell having an anode comprising iridium oxide and titanium oxide ( Fathi Tovini et al.: Claims 16, 17 and 20). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yano et al. with the above teaching from Fathi Tovini et al. with the motivation of having a means such provid ing an oxygen evolution reaction catalyst featuring very good stability towards reduction by hydrogen coupled with high catalytic activity, a process of producing, and a use of, the oxygen evolution reaction catalyst, a membrane electrode assembly and a fuel cell and also an electrolysis cell containing this oxygen evolution reaction catalyst, wherein the MEA and the fuel cell and also the electrolysis cell feature enduringly high power density even in fuel starvation or under startup/shutdown conditions . With respect to claim 9, Yano et al. Yano et al. do not specifically teach a water electrolysis cell comprising the electrode. However, Fathi Tovini et al. teach a water electrolysis cell having an anode comprising iridium oxide and titanium oxide ( Fathi Tovini et al.: Claims 16, 17 and 20). It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Yano et al. with the above teaching from Fathi Tovini et al. with the motivation of having a means such provid ing an oxygen evolution reaction catalyst featuring very good stability towards reduction by hydrogen coupled with high catalytic activity, a process of producing, and a use of, the oxygen evolution reaction catalyst, a membrane electrode assembly and a fuel cell and also an electrolysis cell containing this oxygen evolution reaction catalyst, wherein the MEA and the fuel cell and also the electrolysis cell feature enduringly high power density even in fuel starvation or under startup/shutdown conditions . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6649 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8am-5pm . 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078 . 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. /LINGWEN R ZENG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1723 DATE \* MERGEFORMAT 4/5/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 29, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603351
BATTERY MODULE WITH IMPROVED COOLING PERFORMANCE AND BATTERY PACK INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603397
Seam Welding Structure of Battery Can, Current Collecting Plate, and Cap and Battery Cell Using the Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597683
CURRENT COLLECTOR, BATTERY CELL, BATTERY PACK, AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592449
ASSEMBLED BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573676
BATTERY UNIT
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
76%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+21.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 522 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