Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/442,832

LAMINATED ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURING DEVICE AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 24, 2021
Examiner
HARM, NICKOLAS R
Art Unit
1745
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
617 granted / 776 resolved
+14.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
797
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
35.4%
-4.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8, “stage” should be changed to “drum”. 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 1-10 and 14-15 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. Claim 1 recites “the cut laminated body” in lines 12-13 and 14-15, which is indefinite because the claim defines both the first laminated body and second laminated body as being a cut laminated body. Claim 2 recites “the cut laminated body” in line 4, which is indefinite because the claim defines both the first laminated body and second laminated body as being a cut laminated body. Claim 4 recites “the cut laminated body” in line 3, which is indefinite because the claim defines both the first laminated body and second laminated body as being a cut laminated body. Claim 5 recites “the laminated body” in line 5, but does not define whether this refers to the first, the second, or one of the cut laminated bodies. Claim 6 recites “the laminated body” in lines 3 and 5, but does not define whether this refers to the first, the second, or one of the cut laminated bodies. Claim 7 recites “the laminated body” in line 3, but does not define whether this refers to the first, the second, or one of the cut laminated bodies. Claim 10 recites “the laminated body” in lines 3, 5, 7, and 8-9 but does not define whether this refers to the first, the second, or one of the cut laminated bodies. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the laminate body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites “the cut laminated body” in line 3, which is indefinite because the claim defines both the first laminated body and second laminated body as being a cut laminated body. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 claims the first laminating drum laminates 3-layer laminated body, but claim 9 claims embodiments that do not result in a 3-layer body, so claim 9 does not necessarily contain all of the limitations of parent claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-10 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 16 would be allowed if amended to clarify the present objection. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a laminated electrode assembly manufacturing device comprising a first laminating drum that can laminate a first laminated body on a first laminating stage disposed downstream of the first laminating drum and a second laminating drum which is different from the first laminating drum that can laminate a second laminated body on a second laminating stage different from the first laminating stage and disposed downstream of the second laminating drum, where the circumferential surface of each drum can convey each electrode material worked upon. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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. /NICKOLAS R HARM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745 /PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 24, 2021
Application Filed
Jun 15, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Sep 23, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Apr 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 27, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 05, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600682
MONOLITHIC SUBSTRATE SUPPORT HAVING POROUS FEATURES AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598939
SUBSTRATE BONDING DEVICE, CALCULATION DEVICE, SUBSTRATE BONDING METHOD, AND CALCULATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589545
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ROLL FORMING THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589585
PREPREG COMPOSITE MATERIAL PLY AND BACKING SEPARATION SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12576598
PREHEATING ARRANGEMENT FOR A WELDING DEVICE, A RESPECTIVE WELDING DEVICE AS WELL AS A PREHEATING METHOD AND A WELDING METHOD
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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 776 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