USPTO Examiner DOVE TRACY MAE - Art Unit 1725

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
19255588ELECTRODE SHEET AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, BATTERY CELL, BATTERY, AND ELECTRIC DEVICEJune 2025August 2025Allow200NoNo
19191810ELECTRODE PLATE, AND BATTERY CELL, BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL DEVICE RELATED THERETOApril 2025December 2025Allow720NoNo
18936685INTERMEDIATE STRUCTURE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY ELECTRODE AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFORNovember 2024December 2025Allow1320NoNo
18915210TEMPLATE AS WELL AS MANUFACTURING METHOD AND USE, INTERMEDIATE STRUCTURE AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY ELECTRODEOctober 2024March 2026Allow1720NoNo
18911805LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND PREPARATION PROCESS THEREFOROctober 2024December 2025Abandon1421NoNo
18437224THREE-DIMENSIONAL FOLDED BATTERY UNIT AND METHODS FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMEFebruary 2024February 2026Abandon2410NoNo
18492056ELECTRODE BINDER SLURRY COMPOSITION FOR LITHIUM ION ELECTRICAL STORAGE DEVICESOctober 2023December 2025Allow2620NoNo
18279294WIRING MODULEAugust 2023March 2026Allow3100NoNo
18328756ELECTRODE, METHOD FOR PREPARING SAME, BATTERY AND ELECTRICAL APPARATUSJune 2023January 2026Allow3130YesNo
18033096Powder For Electrode For Manufacturing Dry Electrode For Secondary Battery, Method For Preparing The Same, Method For Manufacturing Dry Electrode Using The Same, Dry Electrode, Secondary Battery Including The Same, Energy Storage ApparatusApril 2023November 2025Allow3141YesNo
18031807AQUEOUS BATTERIES WITH HIGH REVERSIBILITYApril 2023January 2026Allow3300NoNo
18030656LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY CATHODE USING FABRIC MATERIAL, LITHIUM-SULFUR BATTERY COMPRISING SAME, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFORApril 2023November 2025Allow3200NoNo
18127040CURRENT COLLECTOR AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND POWER CONSUMING DEVICEMarch 2023February 2026Allow3510YesNo
18125824ELECTROCHEMICALLY GROWN ZINC OXIDE LAYER ON CURRENT COLLECTORS FOR MITIGATING GROWTH OF LITHIUM DENDRITESMarch 2023January 2026Allow3310NoNo
18117760RESISTANCE HEATED ROLL-BONDING OF A LITHIUM TO A CURRENT COLLECTOR LAYERMarch 2023February 2026Allow3510YesNo
18024229ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE RELEASE LAYERMarch 2023March 2026Abandon3610NoNo
18101261Lithium Metal Electrodes and Methods of ManufacturingJanuary 2023February 2026Abandon3701NoNo
18075636ANODE MATERIAL, ANODE AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE COMPRISING THE ANODE MATERIALDecember 2022August 2025Allow3210NoNo
17967408DRY ELECTRODE MANUFACTURE WITH LUBRICATED ACTIVE MATERIAL MIXTUREOctober 2022July 2025Allow3320NoNo
17899242SYSTEM FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE FILM FOR SECONDARY BATTERYAugust 2022January 2026Allow4010NoNo
17796077ELECTROCHEMICAL ELEMENT, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICEJuly 2022November 2025Allow4020YesNo
17795794ACTIVE MATERIAL PARTICLES, ELECTROCHEMICAL ELEMENT, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAID ACTIVE MATERIAL PARTICLES, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAID ELECTROCHEMICAL ELEMENT, AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICEJuly 2022August 2025Allow3710NoNo
17795027SUPPORTED METAL CATALYST, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING CARRIERJuly 2022October 2025Allow3920YesNo
17698865BIPOLAR CURRENT COLLECTOR AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAMEMarch 2022February 2026Abandon4720YesNo
17637490ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMFebruary 2022July 2025Allow4141YesNo
17627178ELECTROLYTE COMPOSITION FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL CELL COMPRISING A LITHIUM ANODEJanuary 2022July 2025Allow4220NoNo
17542169ASYMMETRIC HYBRID ELECTRODE FOR CAPACITOR-ASSISTED BATTERYDecember 2021March 2026Abandon5140YesNo
17299494SECONDARY BATTERYJune 2021September 2025Allow5140NoNo
17319726METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CARBON-COATED SILICON IN A PYROLYZED CARBON BINDER ELECTRODE ON COPPER CURRENT COLLECTORSMay 2021March 2023Abandon2290NoNo
17242844Polymer Coating Process For Electrode Assemblies Incorporating Ion Exchange MaterialsApril 2021September 2024Abandon4121NoNo
17044052SULFUR-CARBON COMPOSITE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAMESeptember 2020October 2025Abandon6060YesNo
16639095CATALYTIC COMPOSITION, METHOD FOR PRODUCTION THEREOF, USE THEREOF FOR PRODUCING A FUEL CELL ELECTRODE AND FUEL CELL COMPRISING SAMEFebruary 2020December 2025Allow6090YesYes
16695054LITHIUM METAL - SEAWATER BATTERY CELLS HAVING PROTECTED LITHIUM ELECTRODESNovember 2019September 2020Allow1000NoNo
16072567FILM STRUCTURE FOR A BATTERY FOR PROVIDING ON A ROUND BODYJuly 2018September 2020Allow2610NoNo
15965189ELECTRODE FOR LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERYApril 2018August 2020Allow2820NoNo
15768372AIR-ZINC BATTERY ASSEMBLYApril 2018June 2020Allow2610NoNo
15950680FUEL CELL SYSTEMApril 2018May 2020Allow2510YesNo
15949275RECHARGEABLE AQUEOUS ZINC HYBRID BATTERYApril 2018April 2020Allow2410YesNo
15765667Rechargeable Alkaline Battery Comprising Metal Hydroxide SeparatorApril 2018June 2023Abandon6050YesYes
15880477FUEL CELL SYSTEM FOR VEHICLEJanuary 2018May 2019Allow1610NoNo
15822375BIPOLAR PLATE INTAKE STRUCTURE OF FUEL CELL HAVING DRAINAGE CHANNELSNovember 2017March 2020Allow2710NoNo
15402061SECONDARY BATTERYJanuary 2017September 2019Allow3220NoNo
15113660POROUS CARBON PARTICLES HAVING A CORE/SHELL STRUCTURE, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAMEJuly 2016June 2019Allow3521YesNo
15113365LITHIUM-ION BATTERY SYSTEMJuly 2016December 2018Allow2920YesNo
14431844CELL MODULE AND CELL PACKMarch 2015September 2018Allow4240NoNo
13168130BATTERY PACKJune 2011August 2013Allow2510NoNo
13009530RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AND METHOD OF INJECTING ELECTROLYTE THEREINTOJanuary 2011March 2013Allow2611NoNo
12081362FUEL CELL HAVING FUEL TANK DIRECTLY ATTACHED TO ANODE ALLOWING PUMP-FREE FUEL DELIVERYApril 2008September 2011Allow4110NoNo
11905062BATTERY PACK HAVING INTERCELL CONNECTOR AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOFSeptember 2007April 2012Allow5511NoNo
11811762BIPOLAR PLATE FOR FUEL CELLJune 2007September 2011Allow5111NoNo
11802502ION EXCHANGE MEMBRANE AND PRODUCTION PROCESS THEREFORMay 2007June 2011Allow4810NoNo
11802476APPARATUS FOR THE DEIONIZATION OF COOLING MEDIA FOR FUEL CELLSMay 2007March 2011Allow4510NoNo
11307367LITHIUM-METAL-OXIDE COMPOSITE ELECTRODESFebruary 2006May 2013Allow6060NoYes
11183168ELECTROLYTE FOR FUEL CELL, MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, FUEL CELL STACK AND FUEL CELL SYSTEMJuly 2005February 2012Allow6021NoNo
11183169MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY, FUEL CELL STACK AND FUEL CELL SYSTEMJuly 2005February 2012Allow6021NoNo
11080605BATTERIES COMPRISING ALKALI-TRANSITION METAL PHOSPHATES AND PREFERRED ELECTROLYTESMarch 2005October 2012Allow6021NoYes
10693845PLATINUM-IMPREGNATED HYDROUS TIN OXIDE CATALYSTSOctober 2003December 2010Allow6040NoYes

Appeals Overview

This analysis examines appeal outcomes and the strategic value of filing appeals for examiner DOVE, TRACY MAE.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions

Total PTAB Decisions
4
Examiner Affirmed
2
(50.0%)
Examiner Reversed
2
(50.0%)
Reversal Percentile
70.4%
Higher than average

What This Means

With a 50.0% reversal rate, the PTAB reverses the examiner's rejections in a meaningful percentage of cases. This reversal rate is above the USPTO average, indicating that appeals have better success here than typical.

Strategic Value of Filing an Appeal

Total Appeal Filings
5
Allowed After Appeal Filing
2
(40.0%)
Not Allowed After Appeal Filing
3
(60.0%)
Filing Benefit Percentile
65.1%
Higher than average

Understanding Appeal Filing Strategy

Filing a Notice of Appeal can sometimes lead to allowance even before the appeal is fully briefed or decided by the PTAB. This occurs when the examiner or their supervisor reconsiders the rejection during the mandatory appeal conference (MPEP § 1207.01) after the appeal is filed.

In this dataset, 40.0% of applications that filed an appeal were subsequently allowed. This appeal filing benefit rate is above the USPTO average, suggesting that filing an appeal can be an effective strategy for prompting reconsideration.

Strategic Recommendations

Appeals to PTAB show good success rates. If you have a strong case on the merits, consider fully prosecuting the appeal to a Board decision.

Filing a Notice of Appeal is strategically valuable. The act of filing often prompts favorable reconsideration during the mandatory appeal conference.

Examiner DOVE, TRACY MAE - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner DOVE, TRACY MAE works in Art Unit 1725 and has examined 31 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 83.9%, this examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 41 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner DOVE, TRACY MAE's allowance rate of 83.9% places them in the 58% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner has an above-average tendency to allow applications.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by DOVE, TRACY MAE receive 2.58 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 76% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues more office actions than most examiners, which may indicate thorough examination or difficulty in reaching agreement with applicants.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by DOVE, TRACY MAE is 41 months. This places the examiner in the 20% percentile for prosecution speed. Applications take longer to reach final disposition with this examiner compared to most others.

Interview Effectiveness

Conducting an examiner interview provides a -28.8% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by DOVE, TRACY MAE. This interview benefit is in the 1% percentile among all examiners. Note: Interviews show limited statistical benefit with this examiner compared to others, though they may still be valuable for clarifying issues.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 17.4% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 15% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs show lower effectiveness with this examiner compared to others. Consider whether a continuation application might be more strategic, especially if you need to add new matter or significantly broaden claims.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 27.8% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 39% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner shows below-average receptiveness to after-final amendments. You may need to file an RCE or appeal rather than relying on after-final amendment entry.

Pre-Appeal Conference Effectiveness

When applicants request a pre-appeal conference (PAC) with this examiner, 50.0% result in withdrawal of the rejection or reopening of prosecution. This success rate is in the 42% percentile among all examiners. Note: Pre-appeal conferences show below-average success with this examiner. Consider whether your arguments are strong enough to warrant a PAC request.

Appeal Withdrawal and Reconsideration

This examiner withdraws rejections or reopens prosecution in 55.6% of appeals filed. This is in the 27% percentile among all examiners. Of these withdrawals, 20.0% occur early in the appeal process (after Notice of Appeal but before Appeal Brief). Strategic Insight: This examiner shows below-average willingness to reconsider rejections during appeals. Be prepared to fully prosecute appeals if filed.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 128.6% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 96% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are frequently granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 1002.02(c), various examiner actions are petitionable to the Technology Center Director, including prematureness of final rejection, refusal to enter amendments, and requirement for information. If you believe an examiner action is improper, consider filing a petition.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 4% percentile). This examiner rarely makes examiner's amendments compared to other examiners. You should expect to make all necessary claim amendments yourself through formal amendment practice.

Quayle Actions: This examiner issues Ex Parte Quayle actions in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 5% percentile). This examiner rarely issues Quayle actions compared to other examiners. Allowances typically come directly without a separate action for formal matters.

Prosecution Strategy Recommendations

Based on the statistical analysis of this examiner's prosecution patterns, here are tailored strategic recommendations:

  • Expect multiple rounds of prosecution: This examiner issues more office actions than average. Address potential issues proactively in your initial response and consider requesting an interview early in prosecution.
  • Plan for extended prosecution: Applications take longer than average with this examiner. Factor this into your continuation strategy and client communications.

Relevant MPEP Sections for Prosecution Strategy

  • MPEP § 713.10: Examiner interviews - available before Notice of Allowance or transfer to PTAB
  • MPEP § 714.12: After-final amendments - may be entered "under justifiable circumstances"
  • MPEP § 1002.02(c): Petitionable matters to Technology Center Director
  • MPEP § 1004: Actions requiring primary examiner signature (allowances, final rejections, examiner's answers)
  • MPEP § 1207.01: Appeal conferences - mandatory for all appeals
  • MPEP § 1214.07: Reopening prosecution after appeal

Important Disclaimer

Not Legal Advice: The information provided in this report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent for advice specific to your situation.

No Guarantees: We do not provide any guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the statistics presented above. Patent prosecution statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data and are subject to data quality limitations, processing errors, and changes in USPTO practices over time.

Limitation of Liability: Under no circumstances will IronCrow AI be liable for any outcome, decision, or action resulting from your reliance on the statistics, analysis, or recommendations presented in this report. Past prosecution patterns do not guarantee future results.

Use at Your Own Risk: While we strive to provide accurate and useful prosecution statistics, you should independently verify any information that is material to your prosecution strategy and use your professional judgment in all patent prosecution matters.