Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/728,054

ALKALI METAL METALATE COMPOUNDS WITH MAGNETIC EXCHANGE BIAS AND IONIC CONDUCTIVITY PROPERTIES

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Jul 10, 2024
Priority
Jan 10, 2022 — EU 22150725.4 +1 more
Examiner
GODENSCHWAGER, PETER F
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Freie Universität Berlin
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allowance Rate
698 granted / 1028 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1049
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.6%
+5.6% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1028 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 . 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed July 10, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Claim Objections Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claims 1-3: In the definition of x, there should be an “or” after “2,”. Regarding Claims 4 and 5: The listing of the compounds in claims 4 and 5 should be listed in the alternative with the word “or.” 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 1-9 and 12 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. Regarding Claims 1-2 and 6-8: The phrases "preferably" and “more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 12: The phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 1-4, 6-7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elder et al. (“Structural and electronic properties of K2Ni3S4, a pseudo-two dimensional compound with a honeycomb-like arrangement” Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 1996, 235, 135-142). Regarding Claims 1-4 and 6-7: Elder et al. teaches the compound Na2Zn3S4 which reads on a compound of the claimed general formulas I-III wherein A is Na, M2 is Zn, Z is S, and x is 3 (Pg. 135, Col. 2). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed magnetic exchange bias and ionic conductivity, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients. Regarding Claim 12: 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. In the present case, the compound of Elder et al. would be capable of being used in exchange bias applications. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST. 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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. /PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 July 27, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703631
METHOD OF PRODUCING LITHIUM SULFIDE WITHOUT USING HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS
2y 9m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12680009
HEAT TRANSFER FLUID COMPOSITION WITH IMPROVED THERMAL STABILITY
3y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12655337
USE OF COMPOSITION AS REFRIGERANT, AND REFRIGERATION CYCLE APPARATUS
3y 3m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12644032
SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES OF THERMAL FLUID RECLAMATION
2y 2m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12637863
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
4y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+17.8%)
2y 12m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1028 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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