USPTO Examiner COCHENOUR ZACKARY RICHARD - Art Unit 1752

Recent Applications

Detailed information about the 100 most recent patent applications.

Application NumberTitleFiling DateDisposal DateDispositionTime (months)Office ActionsRestrictionsInterviewAppeal
18609225ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERYMarch 2024October 2024Allow710NoNo
18343834LIQUID COOLING UNITJune 2023June 2025Allow2400NoNo
17767344BATTERY PACK AND DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAMEApril 2022March 2025Allow3610YesNo
17767156BATTERY PACK AND DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAMEApril 2022November 2024Allow3110YesNo
17709943ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICEMarch 2022June 2025Allow3910YesNo
17673367BATTERY SYSTEM AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE BATTERY SYSTEMFebruary 2022August 2024Allow3000NoNo
17601649HEAT INSULATING MATERIAL COMPOSITION, HEAT INSULATING MATERIAL, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAMEJanuary 2022February 2025Abandon4010NoNo
17578460POSITIVE ELECTRODE AND ELECTRICITY STORAGE DEVICEJanuary 2022January 2025Allow3610NoNo
17577959ALL SOLID STATE BATTERYJanuary 2022May 2025Allow3920NoNo
17625011Secondary Battery And Method For Manufacturing The SameJanuary 2022March 2025Allow3820YesNo
17551634POWER STORAGE MODULEDecember 2021June 2024Allow3020NoNo
17551426POWER STORAGE MODULEDecember 2021June 2024Allow3020NoNo
17542507NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERYDecember 2021August 2024Allow3220YesNo
17535583CARBON-BASED ANODE MATERIAL HAVING SURFACE FORMED WITH SLIGHTLY OXIDIZED PORES, AND METHOD FOR PREPARING SAMENovember 2021October 2024Allow3501NoNo
17533725ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERYNovember 2021February 2024Allow2710YesNo
17613650NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERYNovember 2021December 2024Allow3710NoNo
17298778CATHODE ADDITIVE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, CATHODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY, COMPRISING SAME, AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAMENovember 2021February 2025Allow4510YesNo
17511084COMPOSITE ELECTRODE FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERYOctober 2021May 2025Abandon4340NoNo
17470180ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAMESeptember 2021February 2025Allow4220YesNo
17310690METHOD OF MANUFACTURING POSITIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM ION SECONDARY BATTERYAugust 2021September 2024Allow3710NoNo
17310671SLURRY COMPOSITION FOR NON-AQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERY FUNCTIONAL LAYER, SEPARATOR FOR NON-AQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERY, AND NON-AQUEOUS SECONDARY BATTERYAugust 2021February 2025Allow4220NoNo
17431216SULFUR-CARBON COMPOSITE, AND CATHODE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY WHICH COMPRISE SAMEAugust 2021February 2025Allow4220YesNo
17430804ANODE INCLUDING MULTIPLE CURRENT COLLECTORS JUXTAPOSED IN PARALLEL, AND SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAMEAugust 2021September 2024Allow3810NoNo
17429152SEALING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SECONDARY BATTERYAugust 2021August 2024Allow3610YesNo
17418483ALL-SOLID BATTERYJune 2021July 2024Allow3710NoNo
17340136BATTERYJune 2021September 2024Allow4011NoNo
17297393POWER STORAGE MODULEMay 2021July 2024Allow3810NoNo

Appeals Overview

No appeal data available for this record. This may indicate that no appeals have been filed or decided for applications in this dataset.

Examiner COCHENOUR, ZACKARY RICHARD - Prosecution Strategy Guide

Executive Summary

Examiner COCHENOUR, ZACKARY RICHARD works in Art Unit 1752 and has examined 26 patent applications in our dataset. With an allowance rate of 92.3%, this examiner allows applications at a higher rate than most examiners at the USPTO. Applications typically reach final disposition in approximately 37 months.

Allowance Patterns

Examiner COCHENOUR, ZACKARY RICHARD's allowance rate of 92.3% places them in the 78% percentile among all USPTO examiners. This examiner is more likely to allow applications than most examiners at the USPTO.

Office Action Patterns

On average, applications examined by COCHENOUR, ZACKARY RICHARD receive 1.31 office actions before reaching final disposition. This places the examiner in the 25% percentile for office actions issued. This examiner issues fewer office actions than average, which may indicate efficient prosecution or a more lenient examination style.

Prosecution Timeline

The median time to disposition (half-life) for applications examined by COCHENOUR, ZACKARY RICHARD is 37 months. This places the examiner in the 14% 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 +12.5% benefit to allowance rate for applications examined by COCHENOUR, ZACKARY RICHARD. This interview benefit is in the 53% percentile among all examiners. Recommendation: Interviews provide an above-average benefit with this examiner and are worth considering.

Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Effectiveness

When applicants file an RCE with this examiner, 40.0% of applications are subsequently allowed. This success rate is in the 89% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Insight: RCEs are highly effective with this examiner compared to others. If you receive a final rejection, filing an RCE with substantive amendments or arguments has a strong likelihood of success.

After-Final Amendment Practice

This examiner enters after-final amendments leading to allowance in 100.0% of cases where such amendments are filed. This entry rate is in the 99% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Recommendation: This examiner is highly receptive to after-final amendments compared to other examiners. Per MPEP § 714.12, after-final amendments may be entered "under justifiable circumstances." Consider filing after-final amendments with a clear showing of allowability rather than immediately filing an RCE, as this examiner frequently enters such amendments.

Petition Practice

When applicants file petitions regarding this examiner's actions, 0.0% are granted (fully or in part). This grant rate is in the 0% percentile among all examiners. Strategic Note: Petitions are rarely granted regarding this examiner's actions compared to other examiners. Ensure you have a strong procedural basis before filing a petition, as the Technology Center Director typically upholds this examiner's decisions.

Examiner Cooperation and Flexibility

Examiner's Amendments: This examiner makes examiner's amendments in 0.0% of allowed cases (in the 5% 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:

  • Consider after-final amendments: This examiner frequently enters after-final amendments. If you can clearly overcome rejections with claim amendments, file an after-final amendment before resorting to an RCE.
  • RCEs are effective: This examiner has a high allowance rate after RCE compared to others. If you receive a final rejection and have substantive amendments or arguments, an RCE is likely to be successful.
  • 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.