Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/628,269

ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 19, 2022
Examiner
RICKMAN, HOLLY C
Art Unit
1785
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Routejade Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
403 granted / 571 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
594
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.0%
+2.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 571 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/21/26 has been entered. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the uncoated electrode current collector portion protruding a pocket of the pocketed electrode” is unclear. Did Applicant mean to claim that the uncoated electrode portion protrudes “from a pocket of the pocketed electrode”? Appropriate correction is required. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one a side” in line 3 should be amended to state “on a side.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the limitation requiring a second closing portion being “non-parallel” to a third closing portion. The only support for this appears to be in the Figures which show only parallel orientation or perpendicular orientation directions of the closing portions. However, these orientations are narrower than “non-parallel.” 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. The rejection of claims The rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 14, 16, and 18 as presented in the final Office action of 10/21/25 have been overcome by Applicant’s amendments. Claims 2-4 and 9 is/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. Claim 2 is indefinite because it is not clear to the Examiner how “the first closing portion” can also be “the third closing portion.” Claim 4 is indefinite in view of the phrase “coincide with each other positionally or overlap each other positionally.” The scope of this limitation is not clear because it is not apparent in which direction the electrode and counter-electrode are to be coincident or overlapping. Claim 9 is indefinite in view of the newly added limitation requiring the electrode active material being “disposed at a volume interior to the pocket.” The meaning of “volume” is not clear in this context. Does Applicant mean that the electrode active material edge is on the interior of the pocket? 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 7 is 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 6, from which claim 7 depends, appears to include all of the feature of claim 7. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The rejection of claim(s) 1-11, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP 2011/081941 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The rejection of claim(s) 1-11, 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011/081941 in view of JP2001-185224 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejection of claim(s) 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011/081941 in view of Adams et al. (US 2013/0029205) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 2/21/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. The prior art of record fails to teach all of the features of the invention as now claimed. However, new grounds of rejection under 112 were necessitated by the amendments. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs 9am-3pm 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 Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. 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. /Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 19, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jun 24, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 10, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Feb 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603108
MAGNETIC TAPE, MAGNETIC TAPE CARTRIDGE, AND MAGNETIC TAPE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12555602
MAGNETIC DISK SUBSTRATE AND MAGNETIC DISK USING MAGNETIC DISK SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12537228
LAMINATED ALL-SOLID SECONDARY CELL AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12525609
SILICON-NANOGRAPHITE AEROGEL-BASED ANODES FOR BATTERIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12444693
ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE SHIELDING DEVICE COMPRISING A FLAME RETARDING, THERMAL INTERFACE MATERIAL COMPOSITE, AND METHOD FOR PREPARATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 14, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 571 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