Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/788,085

SECONDARY BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 22, 2022
Examiner
WEST, ROBERT GENE
Art Unit
1721
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
76 granted / 99 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
155
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 99 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered. Status of Claims Claims 1 & 3-5 were rejected in the office action mailed 11/17/2025. Claims 1 & 3-5 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Response to Amendment / Arguments The amendment filed 1/16/2026, in response to the 11/17/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 & 3-4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20110244304A1 (Shinyashiki). Applicant amended claim 1 to state: the first layer placed in contact with the negative electrode, and the second layer placed in contact with the positive electrode This “contact” could be thermal contact or physical contact. Thermal contact is defined as the following: “Thermal contact refers to the physical connection between two bodies that allows for the transfer of thermal energy from a body with a higher temperature to a body with a lower temperature.”1 “In heat transfer and thermodynamics, a thermodynamic system is said to be in thermal contact with another system if it can exchange energy through the process of heat.”2 Shinyashiki’s first layer (paragraphs 29 & 43; figure 3: polyethylene heat-melting layer 3M) is in the same battery with the negative electrode, and is thus in thermal contact with the negative electrode. Shinyashiki’s second layer (paragraphs 29 & 43; figure 3: aramid resin or polyimide heat-resistant layer 3R) is in the same battery with the positive electrode, and is thus in thermal contact with the positive electrode. Applicant also argues: “Shinyashiki has a three-layer structure consisting of the heat-melting layer, the heat-resistant layer, and the heat-melting layer arranged in that order. However, Shinyashiki does not describe that the separator has a two-layer structure consisting of the first (resin) layer and the second (resin) layer...” Remarks p. 8. This interesting observation doesn’t overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 anticipation rejection because the claims don’t state that the separator consists of only two layers. Following are possible amendments for Applicant to consider for overcoming the Shinyashiki 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, if they are supported by the specification: the separator consists of a first layer and a second layer the first layer has direct, physical contact with the negative electrode, and the second layer has direct, physical contact with the positive electrode an order of separator layers and electrodes consists of the negative electrode, the first layer, the second layer, then the positive electrode If Applicant does thus amend the claim, Applicant should point out support in the specification. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses. Claims 1 & 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20110244304A1 (Shinyashiki). With regard to claim 1, Shinyashiki teaches the following limitations. These limitations are illustrated in Figure A below (Shinyashiki’s figures 3 & 7 combined). The comparison of Shinyashiki’s electrode assembly to the electrode assembly of claim 1 is illustrated with increased clarity by Shinyashiki’s figures 3 & 7 combined. Figure A: Combined, Annotated Shinyashiki Figures 3 & 7 PNG media_image1.png 548 887 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 1: A secondary battery (paragraph 2: lithium-ion battery), comprising: an electrode assembly (paragraph 44; figure 7: stacked electrode assembly 10) in which a positive electrode (paragraph 44; figure 7: positive electrode plate 1) and a negative electrode (paragraph 44; figure 7: negative electrode plate 2) are stacked with a separator (paragraph 44; figure 7: separator 3) interposed therebetween, wherein the separator (3) includes a first layer (paragraphs 29 & 43; figure 3: polyethylene heat-melting layer 3M) and a second layer (paragraphs 29 & 43; figure 3: aramid resin or polyimide heat-resistant layer 3R) having a thermal shrinkage rate smaller than that of the first layer (Polyethylene CTE = 108 to 200 x 10-6 m/(m*oC)3. Aramid resin CTE = -2 to +2 x 10-6 m/(m*oC)4. Polyimide CTE = 20 to 25 x 10-6 m/(m*oC)5. Low CTE = low thermal shrinkage rate.), and has a tubular portion (Figure A) that is formed into a tubular shape by the separator being disposed along side surfaces of the electrode assembly, to form outermost surfaces (Figure A) of the electrode assembly (10)… in the tubular portion, the first layer faces an inner side and the second layer faces an outer side (Figure A), the first layer is a resin layer (paragraphs 29 & 43; figure 3: polyethylene heat-melting layer 3M), and the second layer essentially consists of a resin having a higher melting point or softening point than that of a resin forming the first layer (see discussion below), the resin of the second layer including at least one selected from the group consisting of an aramid resin, a polyimide, and a polyamid-imide (paragraphs 29 & 43; figure 3: aramid resin or polyimide heat-resistant layer 3R) The following table shows that Shinyashiki’s heat-resistant layer 3R, with aramid resin or polyimide, has a higher melting point or softening point than Shinyashiki’s heat-melting layer 3M, with polyethylene. Claim Layer Material melting point oC first layer heat-melting layer 3M polyethylene 110 – 120 oC6 second layer heat-resistant layer 3R aramid resin 500 oC7 second layer heat-resistant layer 3R polyimide > 400 oC8 Claim 1 also states: the first layer placed in contact with the negative electrode, and the second layer placed in contact with the positive electrode This “contact” could be thermal contact (defined above in the Response to Amendment / Arguments section) or physical contact. Shinyashiki’s first layer is in the same battery (paragraphs 19 & 44; figure 7) with the negative electrode, and is thus in thermal contact with the negative electrode. Shinyashiki’s second layer is in the same battery (paragraphs 19 & 44; figure 7) with the positive electrode, and is thus in thermal contact with the positive electrode. With regard to claim 3, Shinyashiki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Shinyashiki also teaches the following claim 3 limitation: the second layer faces the positive electrode (Figure A above) With regard to claim 4, Shinyashiki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Shinyashiki also teaches the following claim 4 limitations: the positive electrode includes a plurality of positive electrodes and the negative electrode includes a plurality of negative electrodes (figures 5 & 7), and the electrode assembly has a stacking structure in which one sheet of the separator folded in a zigzag shape is interposed between the plurality of positive electrodes and the plurality of negative electrodes, and the tubular portion is formed by the one sheet of the separator (paragraph 44; figures 5 & 7) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110244304A1 (Shinyashiki), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of US20020018930A1 (Hamano). Shinyashiki fails to teach the following claim 5 limitation, which is taught by Hamano: an adhesive layer bonded to the positive electrode or the negative electrode and formed on at least one surface of the separator Hamano teaches “bonding the positive electrode active material layer 7 and the negative electrode active material layer 9 to the separator 4 by a porous adhesive resin layer 11” (abstract, figure 1). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Shinyashiki’s separator to be bonded to the positive electrode or to the negative electrode 24 by an adhesive, as taught by Hamano, for securing these components together. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET. 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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. /R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721 1 https://taylorandfrancis.com/knowledge/Engineering_and_technology/Mechanical_engineering/Thermal_contact/#:~:text=Thermal%20contact%20refers%20to%20the,interface%20between%20the%20two%20bodies. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_contact 3 https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html 4 https://www.suretex-aramid.com/blog/what-is-the-coefficient-of-thermal-expansion-of-fr-aramid-fiber-fabric-953989.html 5 https://www.polyimide-pi.com/polyimide-film/low-cte-pi-film-for-fpc-coverlay.htm?srsltid=AfmBOorEqjKR7K7kA_6gyBzdIc4I4rTm1alST2By7F4r3MdPNnMAe9JD 6 https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/polypropylene-vs-polyethylene/ 7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramid 8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton#:~:text=Kapton%20is%20a%20polyimide%20film,to%20+400%20%C2%B0C).
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 22, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 10, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 02, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 16, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 08, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603286
CONDUCTIVE MATERIAL PASTE FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY ELECTRODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597648
BATTERY ASSEMBLY, METHOD OF PREPARATION, AND THERMAL CONTROL THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597594
LITHIUM MANGANESE COMPOSITE OXIDE FOR A LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592414
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE, AND SOLID-STATE LITHIUM METAL BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND APPARATUS CONTAINING SUCH SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586867
POROUS COMPOSITE SEPARATOR FOR SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 99 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