Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/892,994

RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 22, 2022
Examiner
YOON, KEVIN E
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics
OA Round
4 (Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
392 granted / 663 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Strong +44% interview lift
Without
With
+43.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
699
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.5%
+12.5% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 663 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR 10-2019-0127412 A, hereinafter Lim, cited by applicant) in view of Shatunov et al. (US 2020/0052335 A1, hereinafter Shatunov, cited by applicant). Re Claim 1. Lim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (Fig. 1, item 100), comprising a positive electrode (item 20) comprising a positive active material layer (P6); a negative electrode (item 30) comprising a negative active material layer (P7); and an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (P2), wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (P6), the positive active material is at least one lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, and the additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1: Chemical Formula 2-1 LixNi1-y1-z1Coy1M3z1M4w1O2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2-1, M3 is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, M4 is Ti, Mg, Zr, Ca, Nb, P, F, B, or a combination thereof, and 0.9 ≤ x < 1.2, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.3, 0.2 < y1+z1 ≤ 0.5, and 0 ≤ w1 ≤ 0.1 (P6, LiaNi1-b-cCobXcDα, , X is Mn or Al, D is O, 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.5, 0 < b+c ≤ 1, w1=0, and α=2). Chemical Formula 1 PNG media_image1.png 215 228 media_image1.png Greyscale (para. 10) wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X1 is a fluoro group (-F), a chloro group (-Cl), a bromo group (-Br), or an iodo group (-I), R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a cyano group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroaryl group, and n is 0 or 1 (P2), and wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is 1 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (P3 & 9, 1 wt% = 1 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution). "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I. Lim fails to specifically teach that the positive active material layer comprises carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes are greater than 0.1 wt% and less than 3.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer. The invention of Shatunov encompasses lithium secondary battery. Shatunov teaches that the positive active material layer comprises carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes are 1 wt% or 2 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer (para. 63-67, 136 & 158). In view of Shatunov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lim to employ carbon nanotubes in the positive active material layer in the amount of 1 wt% or 2 wt% based on a total weight of the positive active material layer, since Shatunov teaches the advantage of using it, which is to improve the impregnation of the electrolyte and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (para. 63-67). Re Claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B: PNG media_image2.png 215 587 media_image2.png Greyscale wherein, in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, X1 is a fluoro group (-F), and R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (Lim, P4). Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, R3 and R4 are each hydrogen, and at least one selected from among R1, R2, R5, and R6 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (Lim, P4). Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is at least one selected from compounds of Group 1: Group 1 PNG media_image3.png 74 110 media_image3.png Greyscale (Lim, P4, Formula 1-1a, R3 to R6 are each hydrogen). Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the additive further includes at least one other additive selected from among vinylene carbonate (VC) (Lim, P5). Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein an average length of the carbon nanotubes is greater than or equal to about 5 µm and less than about 200 µm (Shatunov, para. 67, 1 to 200 µm). Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein an average length of the carbon nanotubes is about 5 µm to about 100 µm (Shatunov, para. 67). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that Lim does not teach the claimed positive active material represented by Chemical Formula 2-1. The examiner disagrees with this because Lim explicitly teaches the claimed positive active material represented by Chemical Formula 2-1 (P6 of translation, LiaNi1-b-cCobXcDα, , X is Mn or Al, D is O, 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.5, 0 < b+c ≤ 1, w1=0, and α=2 & para. 99 & 100 of Original Publication). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM. 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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. /KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 2/11/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2022
Application Filed
May 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 29, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 30, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592456
ELECTRIC POWER STORAGE MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592439
EXTRUDED THERMOLASTIC BATTERY ENCLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589432
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN INVESTMENT CASTING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586787
SHELF-LIFE ENHANCED LITHIUM HYDROXIDE VIA THE SURFACE PROTECTION AND THE IMPROVED METAL-DOPED CATHODE MATERIALS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580188
Positive Electrode Material Powder, Positive Electrode and Lithium Secondary Battery Including the Same
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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+43.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 663 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