Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 17/926,459

CYLINDRICAL BATTERY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Priority
May 28, 2020 — JP 2020-093066 +1 more
Examiner
KEKIA, OMAR M
Art Unit
1722
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allowance Rate
346 granted / 514 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
558
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
89.3%
+49.3% vs TC avg
§102
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
§112
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 514 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This Office action regarding Application No. 17/926,459 to Nogami, assigned to SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan, filed 11/18/2022 and published as U.S.PG Publication 2023/0187746 published on 06/15/2023, is in response to applicant's request for continued examination, RCE, filed 05/13/2026. Applicant's response is fully considered. This application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage entry of International Patent Application PCT/JP2021/017972 filed 05/12/2021. It claims priority from Japanese Patent Application JP2020-093066 filed 05/28/2020. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered. Status of the Claims The status of the claims stand as last filed in the after-final response dated 04/03/2026. In the after-final response applicant has amended independent claim 1 by incorporation of limitations of claim 2, and addition of a new limitation, “…the insulation plate is fixed by and contacts both the upper end face of the first cylinder part and the inclination par.” Claim 2 has been canceled. 4.1 Currently amended 1 Claim 1 is the only claim currently pending in this application. Withdrawal of Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 102 The rejection of the claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uh (U.S. PG Publication 2009/0311594) is withdrawn in this RCE Office action since claim 1 as amended is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the previously applied reference of Uh. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okutani Oose (WO 2019/194253; the U.S. Equivalent Document to Okutani et al. U.S. PG Publication 2021/0057684 is used here) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0136097) Regarding claim 1 Okutani discloses cylindrical battery (Okutani paragraph 0005, 0013, 0026) comprising an electrode body (Okutani paragraph 0005, 0013, 0026), the electrode body equivalent to the electrode assembly. The electrode body or electrode assembly of the cylindrical battery is of a wound type and is formed by spirally winding a positive electrode and a negative electrode with a separator interposed therebetween (Okutani paragraph 0048). The battery further comprises an electrolyte (Okutani paragraph 0058, 0059, 0060), a bottomed cylindrical outer can that accommodates the electrode assembly and an electrolyte (Okutani paragraph 0013), and a sealing plate with gasket on its outer circumferential edge configured to seal the outer can (Okutani paragraph 0014). The outer can has a bottom part accommodating the electrode assembly and an upper part for compressing the gasket, and an inclination that connects the bottom part and the upper part (Okutani Fig. 1A) considered equivalent to the first cylindrical bottom part that accommodates the electrode assembly, and a second cylindrical part for compression of the gasket and the inclination part that connects the first part and the second part. Okutani shows in the drawing that the upper cylindrical part, equivalent to the second cylinder part, to have a smaller thickness than the cylindrical bottom part, equivalent to the first cylindrical part (Okutani Fig. 1A). Okutani discloses a plate between the electrode assembly and the sealing plate, and that is in contact with upper end face of the lower cylinder part (the first cylindrical bottom part) and the inclination part (Okutani Fig. 1A, 2A), but Okutani is silent about identifying the unlabeled plate to be the insulating plate fixed by and contact the first cylinder and the inclination plate. Yamaguchi discloses a cylindrical secondary battery, an electrode body and an electrolyte housed in a bottomed cylindrical exterior can (Yamaguchi Fig. 1, paragraph 0021), the exterior can has a bottom part accommodating the electrode body, an upper part for compressing a gasket and an inclination part that connects the bottom part and the upper part, sealing plate to seal the battery can, and a gasket compressed in radial direction between the seal plate and the outer can (Yamaguchi Fig.1). Yamaguchi discloses an insulating plate disposed above the electrode body (Yamaguchi Fig. 1, paragraph 0021) and is fixed by the and in contact with the upper part of the bottom cylindrical part and the inclination part (Yamaguchi Fig. 1) considered equivalent to the locking part. The insulating plate, therefore, insulates the end of the electrode assembly from the sealing plate and prevents any possible short circuit of the electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have disposed a similar insulating plate as disclosed by Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi Fig. 1, paragraph 0021) in the battery of Okutani to be fixed by the bottom cylindrical part and in the inclination part for the same benefit of insulting the end of the electrode assembly and prevent any short circuit of the electrodes. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Response to Argument In the after-final response applicant traverses the rejection of the claims presented in the previous final Office action under 102(a)(1) over Uh (U.S. PG Publication 2009/0311594). Applicant argues that the reference of Uh does not anticipate the limitations of amended claim 1. Examiner notes that the previous rejection under 102(a)(1) over the reference of Uh has been withdrawn as presented above this Office action. Upon further consideration and search pending claim 1 is rejected under 103 over the references of Okutani et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2021/0057684) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0136097). The combined teaching of the references renders the claimed invention obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. /JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2022
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Sep 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 13, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103
Apr 03, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
May 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
May 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12676334
SECONDARY BATTERY
3y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12671138
BATTERY, AND BATTERY PACK AND VEHICLE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12671145
SEPARATOR AND LITHIUM-ION BATTERY
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12620597
SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY PACK, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, ELECTRIC TOOL, ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
4y 3m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Patent 12614791
BATTERY CELL, BATTERY AND ELECTRIC DEVICE
1y 2m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+22.5%)
3y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 514 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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